A DETECTION OF SUNDRY FOULE ERRORS, LIES, SCLAUNDERS, CORRUPTIONS, AND OTHER false dealings, touching Doctrine, and other matters, uttered and practised by M. jewel, in a Book lately by him set forth entitled, A Defence of the Apology. etc.  
By Thomas Harding Doctor of Divinity.  Psalm. 4. 
filii hominum, usquequo gravi cord? ut quid diligitis vanitatem, & quaeritis Mendacium?  
O ye sons of men, how long will ye be dull hearted? what mean ye thus to be in love with Vanity, and to seek after Lying?   ornament with tree, birds, and the hand of god reaching down from the clouds 
RESPICITE VOLATILIA COELI, ET PULLOS CORVORUM  
IF  
LOVANII, Apud joannem Foulerum, Anno 1568. cum PRIVILEGIO.   

REgiae Maiestatis Privilegio concessum est Thoma● Hardingo Sacra Theologia Professori, ut Librum inscriptum A Detection of sundry foul errors, lies, slanders, etc. per Typographum aliquem juratum imprimere, ac impunè distrahere liceat.  
Datum Bruxellis. 24. Maij. Anno 1568. Subsig. Ʋander A A.   

The Preface to the Reader.  
AT the first coming of this Treaty to men's hands, what, saith one, so small a Book for answer to so great a Volume? Shall this Detection containing little above one hundred streets of Paper, match the Defence, that is almost four hundred sheets? What meaneth D. Harding? Is he not able to confute M. jewel? Or is he loath to take pains? To this I answer. How able I am to confute, what so ever M. jewel hath written, not only in his late pretenced Defence, but also in his Reply, or in the Apology (whereof at least he is thought to have been the penman) let it be judged by the learned: this will I boldly say, if he have no better mean to make his party good, then hitherto he hath used, writ he what him list, it shall be no great praise to any man to have confuted him. As it had been small glory for valiant Achilles to have beaten Thersites, whom Homer describeth ready of his tongue, and a coward of his hands: so among the skilful Divines, he may not look to win great commendation of learning, who confuteth M. jewels writings. For certainly good Reader, if thou have but a mean insight in these Controversies now so much disputed of betwixt the Protestants and us, and wilt bestow some good labour about the exact trial of the things he hath written: thou shalt easily espy the feebleness of his side. Thou shalt find, that he performeth more in show, then in act: that commonly he maketh up in Tale, where he lacketh of Weight: that with multitude of words, he covereth th● panurgy of R●●●●● that with huge numbers of Doctors sainges, he setteth forth the barrenness of substantial Prou●●●, a● m●ny do their thin Hips with stuff Hosen, and their solender Arms with bombast Sleeves.  
This being so, whereas the dew discussion of these points in controversy descendeth unto the bottom of things, and swimmeth not above upon the foam of words, every man can soon conceive, how mean learning may suffice, to confute such a Writer. If therefore I make profession of sufficient ability in this case, there is no cause, why I should be reprehended, as one that attributeth more unto himself, then male seem to stand with modesty.  
This much being said for proof of ability, some perhaps would bear, what I have to say for myself, that I am not loath to take pains. For he that is able to do a good and profitable work, and refuseth the labour to do it, seemeth to be guilty of slewth. True it is, to refel all that M. jewel hath written, or rather gathered together out of others (for in deed● he doth nothing else in manner, but lay together herpes of other men's sayings) against the Catholic Church, and against the Catholic Religion, it were great pain. By judgement both of Cicero, and Quintilian, the labour of writing is accounted very great.  
And the Scripture saith, 
Eccles. 12.  Faciendi plures libros nullus est finis, frequénsque meditatio carnis afflictio est. There is no end of making more Books, and the often breaking of a man's brains about such study, is a great punishment to the body. If any doubt hereof, let him set himself a work earnestly about writing, in such sort as I speak of: and he shall say as I do, I doubt not. And therefore it behoveth them, that give themselves to writing, to have, not only health, but also good strength of body.  
All this M. jewel knew right well. And for that very cause, when he saw, that small books would fone be answered, as it appeared by my Answer made to his Challenge, and by my Confutation of the Apology: he thought it better policy (or it was so put in his head by the advise of his brethren) to go an other way to work, that is to say, to reply upon me, and to make his Defence, with huge Volumes, that either a long time should pass, before an answer could be returned, (hoping that in the mean while his Gospel should take too deep a root afterward to be plucked up out of the Readers hartis by any what so ever book, that should come to their hands) or that I should be wearied, and worn out with the labour of answering, and perhaps die before I came to the end, or that the very hugeness of the books, should fray me from the enterprise of making answer.  
In this case it seemed to me best, neither by taking upon me to answer the whole Books, and every parcel of them, to give our Adversaries the advantage of the time, not to shorten my life by immoderate pains employed to no great profit, nor by my silence, and by open giving over the whole, as it were by fleeing out of the field, to leave them unto their Triumph, but by answering the points of greatest importance, to set forth a sufficient Defence of the truth for staying of the doubtful, to confirm them in the true doctrine, and thereby to give out a clear evidence, what truth is to be looked for in the rest of his superfluous stuff, sith he hath showed himself so untrue a dealer in the chief matters.  
Thus have I do●ne, not yielding to slewth, but moved with good advise, no● as being loath to take pains, and to sustain a long travail, but as one, who, the state of the present time considered, and the uncertainty of things to come mistrusted, thought it better, to do some good out of hand, though it were of loss labour, then by long differing, whiles a larger Volume were intended, to suffer to the loss of many souls, so much false doctrine to grow in credit.  
As touching the Reply, what hath been done, to those that read our books, it is not unknown. What so ever he had to bring against the R●●●●res●nce, against the Sacrifice of the Body and blood of Christ●, against the Mass, whereat the Priest receiveth the Communion without other company receiving sacramentally with him in the same place, against the Church S●●●ice in a learned tongue, against the anci●●● 〈◊〉 of holy Images in Churches, and against the pr●●acie of his Successor, to whom loving Christ more than the rest of the Apostles, 
johan. 21.  it was specially said, feed my sheep●, which are the weightiest, and chief among all the Articles of his Challenge, and whereof all the rest● in manner do depend: All this is fully confuted by M. D. Sande●, by M. Do●man, by M. Stapleton, and by me. As for his Sophistry, and manifold Art, wherewith he enu●igleth the unlearned much like to that by which Mountebanks get their living, and sundry crafty, false and absurd practices, M. Rastel hath truly, diligently, and wittily detected them in three books written to that purpose, in which by the very Title of each book he giveth all men warning to beware of M. jewel. When I considered these chief and most special Articles of the Reply so well and sufficiently confuted, and the rest of that Volume to contain nothing else but needless heaps of divers Writers sayings, either true, and of us confessed, or foully falsified, and corrupted, and wrested to a sense quite contrary to the authors meaning, or otherwise not pertaining to the proof of any thing by the Catholics denied, or to the disprove of any thing by them affirmed: I thought I might do well, to lay a side the Reply for a time, and to go in hand with some answer to the pretenced Defence of the Apology.  
Here what should I do? Many, as I understand, have wished, that I made a full answer to the whole, and to every parcel of it, and for the better performance thereof they would allow me a year, or two more. This desire requireth M. jewels great Volume to be printed again, that is to say, the Apology, my Confutation, and the text of the Defence, and further so much of my Confutation to be added, as in printing his book of set purpose he hath caused to be cut of from the rest, and to be suppressed, to the intent a great part of the best proofs brought against him should not be seen in his book, which being added would amount to one good part, the whole Confutation being divided into three.  
This aught to be done of necessity, if an answer to the whole were to be made. For where●● all my Treaty must rise upon the words of the Apology, and of my Confutation, and of the Defence: how should it be understanded, how justly I impugn the Apology, and the Defence, and maintain my Confutation, unless the places were laid forth before the Readers eyes?  
The book then of the Defence being already so great, 
The chief points of the Defence being answered, for what causes a full answer to the rest was thought not necessary.  as it is, by that time a just answer should be added unto it, every man that hath any judgement in these things, may soon conceive, of what an huge quantity my new printed Volume would be. In deed were every idle point answered, and treated of at full, it would seem to match, yea far to overmatch Foxes Huge Book of his false Martyrs. Verily to say, what reasonably I mai● say, neither can I in three years do the work of seven years, nor with a few Dallers defraie the charges of four or five hundred pounds, nor can I find in my Conscience to bring the weak into danger by setting out such an heretical book, because it is not possible, but that among so many heresies and erroneous points, some will escape my pen unrefelled, were I never so diligent. Nor think I it good and profitable, in that unfruitful travail to spend so great a part of my later years. unfruitful, I mean, because I shall be driven for the most part to bestow pains about light scoffs, cavils, wranglinges, and vain trifles, worthy to be contemned, rather than to be answered. Briefly neither have I list, to set out so huge a Volume, which I believe, very few would buy.  
I have therefore thought upon an other way, wherein I hope to do more good to others, sure I am, that to myself I shall do less hindrance, in respect of time and health, and nevertheless perform that, which in this case is chief requisite.  
Whereas then M. jewels pretenced Defence may be reduced unto three principal heads, from whence, 
The Sum of the Defence.  as from their springs, the streams of the whole Book do run, which are, 1 a desire to disgrace me, 2 an earnest avouching of his new false doctrines in condemnation of the Catholic Faith, and of the whole state of Ancient Religion, 3 the reproof of Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and the Pope's manners: in this Treaty I have said somewhat in Defence of myself, as it was behooful I should: the most labour I have employed to defend the received doctrine of the Catholic Faith, which he hath laboured much to impugn. With the lives, and manners of the Clergy, I meddle little. men be men, and wherein they have done evil, I account them worthy of reproof, no less than he. Howbeit, what so ever he bringeth, all is not the Gospel, that in this point proceedeth from his pen: and malice could never yet learn to say well.  
Touching both doctrine, and manners, if it shall please God, to give our Country grace to embrace that only doctrine, which is true and Catholic, that is to say, which we defend against the Novelties, and Heresies of our time, so busily by M. jewel, and by them of that side, with all diligence, force, and policy set forth, and commended to the people: concerning order of life and manners, their pleasant Gospel breedeth such liberty, looseness and lewdness among them that receive it, that we doubt not, but it shall easily to all appear, that when the Catholics (whom they call Papists) lived worst, the time brought forth more fellows of Angels, than their time (notwithstanding the great number they crack of) bringeth forth fellows of honest men, when so ever they live best, if it may be truly said, that at any time they live well, who have cut themselves from that body of Christ, into the members whereof only, the grace of God is derived. 
The Sum and order of this Treaty.   
If then thou be desirous Christian Reader to understand the order and purport of this Treaty, made for answer to the Defence for the present time, thus it is.  
First, in defence of myself I have showed, how untruly, and slanderously M. jewel hath burdened me with certain hateful Crimes in his Epistle to the Queen's Majesty. The Untruth of these points, I have thought good plainly to lay before the Readers eyes by conference of the places in my Confutation, whence he took the occasions of his slanders, as he pretendeth by the quotations noted in the Margin.  
next, whereas he findeth himself much aggrieved with the sharpness of my utterance, used in my Confutation, and in my first Rejoinder, and to make credit thereof, hath, as it were into a Table, couched together a large heap of sharp words, pretended by his quotations to be in my said two Books, which are not there in deed altogether in that order, and meaning, as he untruly hath alleged them: I prove his dealing herein partly to be agreeable to his other false demeanour, and partly that good and just causes there were, why I should, writing against him, use such order of language.  
Furthermore, because he would the great and manifold Untruths, with which I charged him, to seem no Untruths at all, but that all is the Gospel, what so ever cometh from his Mouth, and whereas for proof thereof he hath set forth a View of his Untruths (the least of all that he could espy by me noted against him) and pretendeth to justify the same his least Untruths in the said View: I have made an answer to that View of Untruths, and there do show manifestly (specially in the chief points, where error is most perilous) that he was truly, and justly charged with those Untruths, and that for aught he hath yet said in Defence of them, he remaineth still chargeable with the same, as before. This much I have performed in the first Book.  
After this in four books following, I detect his Errors, Lies, cavils, shifts, slanders, and sundry untrue matters, found in the first, and second part of his Defence. And in respect thereof, I call the Treaty, A Detection of sundry foul errors, lies, slanders, etc. At length having tried by very certain experience, and exact view of the whole Book, that there was no end of lying, what place so ever in reading my eye lighted upon: I thought it most profitable, and most agreeable with my profession, to let pass things of small importance (the handling of which served him specially to scoff, to utter vile matter against the Church, and to fill up his Book in tended at the beginning to be made great) and to treat of the Articles of Doctrine, in defence of the Truth, and to confute what he hath brought to the contrary. Among which Articles of doctrine, of some I have treated briefly, as being already treated of in my Confutation, and otherwheres, of some at good length, and with more diligence, as of Succession, and of the unlawful Marriages of Priests, and all other Votaries, wherein he is very large, and copious of Doctors sayings of all sorts, but utterly destitute of any one saying, that maketh clearly for his part.  
In the end I do most evidently disprove and refel what he was able to bring for Defence of two points, which he is not ashamed to affirm seeming to me the one very false, the other very slanderous. The first is, as he avoucheth them, that matters of faith, and Ecclesiastical causes are to be judged by the Civil Magistrate. The other is, that the Papists have taught, that simple Fornication is no sin. How weak proofs he bringeth for the one, and for the other, and yet how shamelessly he goeth about to prove them: by conference of both our Treaties it shall appear. Withal, there I have added a Comparison of Errors in mistaking names of men, books, Chapters, etc. with which M. jewel chargeth me, and I him.  

Matters let pass, with treating whereof the Defence is grown to a Huge Volume.  Thus have I, declared in few the Sum, as it were, and Order of this Treaty. As for sundry other matters, as of forged Scriptures, of the doctrine of devils (so he calleth the forbidding of Priests, Monks, Friars, and Nuns to marry) of the fruits of single life, whereof he layeth out great store of filthy sayings, of S. james Epistle, whether it be Canonical Scripture, of sundry ancient Traditions now grown out of use, of the forms, and Accidents, whereat he scoffeth like a Vice player, of the number of the Sacraments of the Church, which we defend to be seven, he affirmeth to be but two, or else so many, as the things be, unto which the name of Sacrament is by any Writer applied, which are very many: of the Faith of Infants: of their new found Imaginative Faith, or rather fantastical Imagination, that eateth the body, and drinketh the blood of Christ, of the Pope's Dispensations, of dissensions among the Fathers, of Nominales, and Reales, of Thomists, and Scotistes, of diversity of religious persons Apparel, wherein he saith they put great holiness: of the variance between the Lutherans, and the zwinglians, of the fable of Dame Johan the woman Pope, of the Marble Image, lying in the high way at Rome, of the stool of easement of Porphyry stone at Lateran, of Athenes and Rome, whether they were Universities in the time, this Dame Johan is feigned to have lived in, of the vicious life of Petrus Aloisius Duke of Parma and Placentia, of john Diazius death, of the slaughter of the Bowers of Germany, that took weapons against the nobility there, provoked by the preaching of Luther and his scholars, of Constantine's Donation, of Poison ministered in the Sacrament, as he reporteth feigned fables for stories of great sooth, of the abomination of desolation, of the state of the Church of Rome, of Antichrist, of the mistaking of Cardinal Hosius, of their pretenced burning of the Scriptures, of S. Augustine the Apostle of the English Nation, that he was a wicked man, of Priests keeping of Concubines, of Images, of Latin Prayers, and Church Service, of Comparison of learning between the Catholics and the Protestants, of Rome, whether it be Babylon, of summoning of Councils, of the Stews in Rome, whereof gladly he uttereth much talk, of kissing the Pope's foot, of the Pope's hurling of Franciscus Daldulus fast tied in chains under his table, there to gnaw bones with his Dogs, of the Pope's Bridle, and Stirrup to be holden by Princes, of Pope hildebrand's surmised wicked deeds, as they fable, of the Pope's treadding on the emperors neck, of the Pope whether he be ever holy, of the Pope's Exactions, of the chest in the Pope's bosom, whether the Pope be God, of the Pope's power feigned to be over Angels, whether the Pope can commit Simony, whether the Pope be King of Kings, whether the Pope be above general Counsels, whether the Pope may err, or no, whether the Pope be a King: Of these, and of a great many more such matters, whereof some be lothesom, some be fabulous, vain, and frivolous, some be false, slanderous and spiteful, some blasphemous, some already sufficiently treated of, briefly all tending unto the contempt of the Catholic Religion, as M. jewel handleth them, in which matters he hath uttered the store of his learning, Of these I say, I have said nothing, much disaduantaging myself thereby and the common cause which I defend, for so much as in the making up of his great Book with heaping together these ministerly matters, he hath uttered, as he doth every where else, good store of most evident and gross Lies, of which his own friends, and best favourers, in case they were detected, would be ashamed.  
These forenamed be the things, which I have briefly handled, and these other, and certain more the like, be those, which I have let pass, as being partly unnecessary, and unprofitable, partly unmeet good hours to be bestowed about them. By the handling of these the weightier points, it will sufficiently appear to all men, with what stuff he filleth his great Books, what small credit he deserveth, how little pith there is to be found in his multitude of words, how little there is that serveth aptly to the purpose among the great heaps of testimonies, that he layeth together. Surely his Defence being well examined by any man that hath skill, and can judge of these points, it must needs be thought, that when he saw he had not the plain truth of his side, yet with multitude of allegations he would make a show of learning to the ignorant, and trouble the answerer with confusion. Even so many Barbarous Princes (as we read in stories) when they lacked a convenient number of good and tried Soldiers, have gone about to fray their enemies with multitude of people, who have learned by their great overthrows, that oftentimes victory is not obtained by multitude of men.  
In deed the Truth needeth not so many sayings piked out of schoolmen, of summists, of Gloss upon Gratian, and other parts of the Canon Law, and out of so many canonists of all sorts. For trial of a matter to be proved true, in questions touching our belief, one saying of the Scripture is sufficient: if the express Scripture fail us, two, or three Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers not being contrary to the rest, may suffice. But such a confuse, and unorderly number of sayings, specially of such as be not of great estimation, as this man commonly allegeth, of the same not one making clearly for this purpose, in most matters, what doth it else, but breed a suspicion among the wise, that the matter is not true, for proof whereof they be alleged?  
But by this mean he thought to win credit at least with the people. For the people that can not judge of these matters, thinketh him best learned, that hath most words. It is known, that when they behold two reasoning together of any thing, whereof they have no skill, commonly they commend the maintainer of the worse cause, in case he be fuller of words, be they never so little to the purpose, and say in his praise, that he answered the other party to every Quare. M. jewel understanding this, and making his most account of the people, and of them that be unlearned, to whom he leaneth, and by multitude of whom he, and they of his side mind to stand (for touching the learned, they see they can win none) bestoweth great pains, and charges to set out great books, that at least in the opinion of the unlearned, and of them that have not leisure to examine the points how substantially they are treated, he may seem to have done jollily, and to have acquitted himself like a great Clerk. In very deed if a man have care how much he may say, rather than how truly, and fear not to utter untruths: he hath this advantage over his adversary defending the truth with a conscience not to serve from the censure of the Church, that he may always find abundance of matter to utter. For (as it hath of old been said) Mendacium est multiplex, veritas simplex, Lying is manifold, Truth is simple. Lying hath many plaites and foldinges, Truth is without plaite or wrinkle. Therefore it is no marvel, if the Treaties of the one be narrow and short; of the other wide and long.  
As for me, if I prove M. jewel an untrue man in so many points, as I have treated of, I have done that, whereby his credit must be broken. His credit being broken, what remaineth, but that in this kind of trade he go for a Banckroute? If he be a Bankrupt, worthily is he to be beguiled, that trusteth him. Some will say perhaps, it is not likely, I should with so small a book discredit him, that hath written so much. But it may please this man to remember, that, to say the truth, it is not M. jewel, that hath written much. He hath taken much out of other men's books: of his own he hath in manner nothing, certainly very little. So that, peruse his Book who will, he shall find, that he is but a silly Translator of other men's words, a heaper together of all Writers sayings, and that most commonly to more ostentation of tale, then to the making up of good weight. So that if things be brought to an exact trial, he shallbe found no disputer, no reasoner, no discourser, no Writer, but only a gatherer together of other men's Sentences. How be it, it is not the hugeness of a book, that argueth the sufficiency of proofs. Truth is content to be set forth with few words. Neither yet do I reprove him, for that he allegeth what he findeth in other Writers. For thereby we bring credit to doubtful matters. But for that alleging so much, he allegeth so little to the purpose, yea in manner nothing, and (boldly will I avouch it) utterly nothing, for due proof of any his new and strange doctrines, being contrary to that of ancient time hath been believed in the Catholic Church. This shall seem more probable, if it be confirmed by some plain, and true examples.  
Let us then examine M. jewels common demeanour in an example or two. To discuss many, the brevity of a Preface will not permit. O that he were in place to choose the example himself, out of his whole Book to his best advantage, that so it might evidently appear, with what weak tools he fighteth against the truth.  

Examples, whereby it is showed, how with void and impertinent stuff, M. jewel filleth his great Book. Defence. Pag. 163. Heb. 13. Confut. 73, b. Mark how M. jew. always keepeth himself from coming unto the point in controversy.  Whereas in the Apology much is said in the commendation of Matrimony, which no Catholic man ever discommended, as that it is Holy and honourable in all sorts, and states of persons, in the Apostles, in the Ministers of the Church, and in Bishops, and that it is an honest and lawful thing (as S. Chrysostom saith) for a man living in Matrimony to take upon him therewith the dignity of a Bishop: to this I say in my Confutation, that albeit Matrimony be holy and honourable in all, and an undefiled. ●e●, as S. Paul saith: yet that it is not lawful for such persons to marry, who have deliberately vowed Chastity, or have taken holy Orders. This there I prove by good and sufficient authority, as it may be seen in my said Confutation.  
Now what is M. jewels part here to prove for maintenance of his doctrine, but that a man notwithstanding his Vow, or receiving of holy Orders, may lawfully marry? This is the very point of the controversy, and thereto only should he have directed his talk. If he go about any thing else, it is beside the purpose. But consider Reader, how he keepeth himself a luffe of from the point, with what stuff he filleth certain leaves of his Book, how he starreth from Doctor, to Doctor, how he confoundeth himself and the Reader, and though he bring never so much out of other Writers, yet cometh not at all to the point directly.  
First, 
Pag. 165.  he laboureth to discredit the holy Ancient Fathers, as men, that have not dealt indifferently herein, but have gone to far, either in the avancing of Virginity, or in the disgracing of lawful Matrimony. Before he entereth his Allegations, whereof that whole Treaty standeth, he putteth forth two sayings, the one of Origen, the other of S. Jerome, in reproof of them that condemned Matrimony. And yet even there immediately after he allegeth them both for condemners of Matrimony. Then he layeth forth the store of his Allegations, whereby he would have it appear, 
Tertullian alleged by M. jewel against the Church, in that for which he is condemned of the Church:  that certain Ancient Writers had an evil opinion of Matrimony. There he allegeth two sayings of Tertullian in exhortatione ad castitatem (which Book he wrote against the Church, as S. Jerome saith, and therefore it is condemned of the Church, for which cause he should not have alleged him) then two sayings out of the Author of the imperfect work upon S. Matthew under the name of S. Chrysostom, which also is a work full of heresies. Item certain sayings out of S. Jerome writing against jovinian, and helvidius. Again sayings out of Athenagoras, S. Jerome, Gregory Nazianzen, and Origen, by which he beareth the Reader in hand, they have condemned the second Marriages of Widowers, and Widows.  
After this he reckoneth up so many Priests, 
Pag. 166.  and Bishops, as he hath read of to have been married men, who in deed were married before they received holy Orders, and not otherwise. There Palea, 
Palea.  that is to say, the Chaff, that is set out in Gratian, concerning Priests and Bishops that were many Pope's Fathers, a very fond fabulous tale, is admitted to the place of a great Doctor, yet by him much falsified, 
Pag. 167.  and altered from that he found in Gratian'S book. There also beside the report of Aeneas Silvius, which himself recanted, and of Polydore Vergil, a man of our time, and in these matters of small credit, he sticketh not to pray help of one Fabian, a late silly Chronicler of London, and with his worshipful testimony forsooth would feign prove his matter, that is to say, with a main Lie, that Bishops and Priests lived a thousand years together with their Wives, no law being to the contrary.  
Now were all these things true, according to the purport of M. jewels doctrine (as for the more part they are very false, and the Doctors by him corrupted, and very untruly reported) what should they make for his purpose, I mean, for the point itself of this Controversy, which is, that it is lawful to marry after the Vow of Chastity, or after holy Orders received? For I trow M. jewel will not use this simple kind of Logic, Certain ancient Writers condemned Matrimony (which is utterly false in respect of all others by M jewel here named except Tertullian, that condemned the second Marriages, whom the Church for the same rejecteth) Item, certain learned and holy men in the Primitive Church were made Priests, and bishops, after they had been married: Ergo, it is lawful to marry after the Vow of Chastity, and after holy Orders taken. As this reason is fond, and little worth, so all the sayings of Writers which he hath heaped together hitherto, serve him to no purpose, but to increase the bulk of his Book.  
After all this feeling himself pressed with the force of the Vow, which being advisedly made is of necessity to be performed, as I proved in my Confutation: to keep himself still a luffe of from the point of the Question, he taketh a new way, saying, that the Priests in England were never Votaries. Touching this matter, whether the Priests of England were Votaries, or no, 
F●. 290. ●  I refer the Reader unto the first Chapter of the fifth book of this Treaty. Howsoever it be, by this answer M. jewel fleeth from the point, as far as he fled before. For the Question is, whether Priests in general that have made a Vow of Chastity may marry, and he answereth that Priests of England be not Votaries. Which answer serveth as aptly in this case, as if a question being demanded of him, whether Heretics are to be burned, he would answer, we the Superintendentes of England, and our Ministers be no heretics.  
From this he conveyeth himself to certain common places, and bringeth in a Huge number of Doctors sayings tending to this meaning in effect, that Chastity is hard to keep, that it is the gift of God, that God giveth it not to all, that it is to be counseled, but not commanded, that a man consider well of what strength he is, and if he see himself not able to perform the precepts of Virginity, that rather than he fall into the dungeon of deadly sin, he take a wife, and use the remedy ordained against incontinency. All which sayings (we grant) be true, and are to be understanded of them, which be free, and have not bound themselves by deliberate Vow to contain.  
To be short, it were a very tedious thing here to rehearse, how he runneth from Doctor to Doctor, how he craveth stuffing of the canonists, and Schoolmen, whom God wot he little esteemeth, how he writeth out their sentences, and therewith filleth up his Book. As for the ancient Doctors sayings, that follow after all this, they are spoken, some against the performance of wicked Vows, some serve for admonition, that certain may be suffered to marry, who having made only a simple Vow, either can not, or will not contain, and that the Marriages of such persons ought to stand for good, and not to be dissolved, some import rebuke of filthy life, and exhortation to Chastity, some be written against them, that either utterly condemned the state of Matrimony, or willed Priests, and Deacons in the Primitive Church to be compelled to forsake the company of their lawful Wives, which they had married before they received holy Orders.  
Thus he writeth out other men's sayings without order, or discretion, skippeth from one matter to an other, and emptieth, as it were, the store of his notebooks into this Defence, and when he hath shuffled in all, he proveth nothing directly, but only bringeth the Reader to a Confusion, and cometh not at all to the discussion of the point, that we stay upon, which in this matter of priests Marriages is, that to marry it is not lawful after deliberate Vow of chastity made, nor after holy Orders received. What colourable arguments, or testimonies he bringeth to prove the affirmative, 
Infrà lib. 5 Cap. 2  in this Treaty Reader thou shalt see them clearly confuted.  
Likewise (to show thee an other example) having taken upon him to prove, 
Defence. Pag. 157.  that the canonists have taught the people, that Fornication between single folk is no sin, it is a world to see what a do he maketh, what a number of Allegations he hudleth together, and when he hath uttered all his store, he is as far from proof of that he took in hand to prove, as he was before he began. So that in effect nothing thereby is done, but only malice showed, and ink and paper spent.  
First, to make a great show, 
Defence. 360.  and to increase his Volume (for to what other purpose I see not) he telleth us of certain beastly sayings of Aetius the old Heretic, and of Prodicus the heathen philosopher, as though the canonists were to be blamed for the faults of the Heretics, and Infidels of old time. next, he bringeth in Laurentius Valla the Grammarian, whose saying, though it be not needful here to rehearse for the reverence of chaste ears, yet it may with a convenient interpretation be honestly defended. Then Richardus de Sancto Victore a late schoolman , and Socrates the Historiographer are haled in to give their verdict, and though they tell us of the corrupt judgement of certain, that made little account in conscience of Fornication and whoredom: yet that the Popes canonists taught the people, that simple Fornication is no sin, thereof they speak not one word. Which because M. jewel himself perceived right well, he prevented that he feared would be objected, and after that number of impertinent allegations, 
M. jewels But.  cometh in, as his manner is, with his But, saying, But ye will say, all this hitherto pertaineth nothing unto the canonists.  
To whom answer may be returned, that so it is in deed: and whereas he knew it himself, what meant he nevertheless to put it in, but to increase the heap of his Volume?  
After this he pretendeth to come to the very point, and to hit the nail on the head, as they say. And there he taketh advantage of a Decree of the first Toletane Council falsely reported in Gratian by the oversight of the printer in an old Copy, many other Copies being true, which advantage nevertheless eftsoons there he foregoeth, confessing the Copy to be false. Yet all must in, to fill up the great book. Then he goeth to the true Copy, and either by ignorance he mistaketh the place, or by malice falsifieth the sense, dissembling, that the word Concubina 
Concubina.  is oftentimes taken in good part, to wit, for a woman used in all respects like a Wife, and with the intent, and affection of wedlock, before the Marriage be openly solemnized. This shall be better perceived by reading that I have said hereof Lib. 5. cap. 15.  
From that Council (which was holden long before any of the canonists, whom so foully he slandereth, wrote letter) he goeth to peak in his Gloss, the Gloss I mean upon Otho (whom like an unskilful lawyer, he maketh one with Otho bonus) and upon the Decrees of Gratian. The one Gloselie falsifieth by leaving out a word of chief importance, the other of purpose he misconstrueth, the rest that he allegeth out of an other Gloze, and out of one Petrus Ravennas a canonist, is true, and pertaineth nothing to the wicked doctrine, whereof he accuseth the canonists.  
From the Gloss he starteth to S. Augustine in Enchiridio ad Laurentium. 
Defence 361.  And out of him he taketh a sentence, utterly to no purpose, but to fill up the paper. From S. Augustine to the Council of Basile, then to Erasmus in Enchiridio militis Christiani, belying them both. From Erasmus he creepeth to jacobus de Valentia, 
jacob. de Valentia in Psal. 118  saying of jews, Saracenes, and certain il Christian men, that to excuse their detestable life, they affirm simple Fornication to be lawful. But what is this to the canonists? From this jacobus the Spaniard of Valentia, he conveyeth himself to Alexander of Hales the English man, and from him to Antonius of Florence the Italian. But at their hands he findeth no more relief, than he found at the others. By Antonius it is roported only, that their error is confuted, who say, that simple Fornication is no sin. In Alexander there is nothing found, but only a saying pretended to be S. Ambroses', which maketh nothing to the purpose, neither is it at all being uttered in such words, to be found in S. Ambrose.  
At length he endeth this matter with a falsified saying of S. Augustine, making that holy Father (as untruly he reporteth his tale) to say, that he can not tell, whether that kind of Fornication, which single men commit with single women, be forbidden, or no. Which, were it true that S. Augustine so said, as in deed he saith it not, but speaketh otherwise, as here the reader shall find by me declared, yet by that, the slander uttered against the canonists, is not justified.  
This much have I here noted for examples sake, to the intent thou mayst understand Reader, what order he keepeth commonly in his writing, and whereof it cometh, that his books rise to such a huge quantity.  
And as he hath done in these two matters, so hath he done in the rest, very few excepted. The same would I here by sundry other more evident examples show, were it not over long.  
Certainly this is not to answer a Book, it is not learnedly to reply, it is not directly to confute a Book. It is only an ostentation of much reading, it is a copying out of common places laid up in notebooks, it is to render words for reasons, and heaps of impertinent sentences of what so ever Writers, for apt testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Briefly, it is not an orderly disprove of the doctrine that the Church hath hitherto holden. For who so will consider of it with right judgement, shall find our proofs to stand unshaken, and my former Book to remain a sufficient Confutation, not only of the Apology, but also of the pretenced Defence itself. That it may truly be said, there was a Confutation of the Defence made, before the Defence itself was printed. For if the points of my former Book be well weighed and considered of, they will to the learned seem a sufficient answer to what so ever he bringeth.  
For trial hereof I refer me to the answer, which here I have made unto his View of Untruths. 
The View of M. jewels Untruths.  Among which Untruths thou shalt find few noted out of the Apology so by him discharged, but that in respect of my Confutation, notwithstanding his Defence, he may seem still to stand chargeable no less than before. If he can no better discharge himself of such Untruths, which he himself hath chosen out of the whole heap, as the least, and easiest for him to defend, and in justification of which he had greatest confidence: it may soon be judged, how unlike it is, that he shallbe able to discharge himself of those others, which he thought best to conceele and dissemble.  
One thing good Reader it behoveth thee much to be warned of, in case thou desire to stand an upright umpire between M. jewel and me. Upon what places so ever thou shalt happen to light, in which he shall seem to have any good advantage against me, or against the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, pass not them over lightly, weigh well both our grounds, examine both our allegations, trust not to aught, that is laid forth by either of us presently, but resort to the Books, whence every thing is taken. Doing so, thou shalt most certainly perceive, whether of us both useth more truth. Doubtless in such places thou shalt seldom (it were much so say never) find him to allege the words, whereby he pretendeth any colour of advantage, without some false sleight, or other.  
If thou desire to understand this by some examples, consider I pray thee, what great a do he maketh about the name of Universal Bishop. 
Universal Bishop.  As he handleth that matter, if a man will believe him, all things seem to be plain on his side. 
Defence. 120.  The Council of Carthage (saith he) decreed by express words, that the Bishop of Rome should not be called the Universal Bishop. And behold Reader the confidence that he hath in this cause, which he showeth with these words speaking unto me. This you say, is forged, and falsified, and is no part of that Conucel. For indifferent trial both of the truth, and of the falsehood herein, I beseech you, behold the very words of the Council, even as they are alleged by your own Doctor Gratian. These they are Prima Sedi● Episcopus, etc. Let not the Bishop of any of the first Sees be called the Prince of Priests, 
Dist. 99 Primae.  or the highest Priest, or by any like name: but only the Bishop of the first See. But let not the Bishop of Rome himself be called the Universal Bishop. etc. Now M. Harding, compare our words, and the Councils words together. We say none otherwise, but as the Council saith, The Bishop of Rome himself ought not to be called the universal Bishop. Herein we do neither add, nor minis he, but report the words plainly, as we find them. If you had looked better on your book, and would have tried this matter, as you say, by your learning, ye might well have reserved these uncivil reproaches of falsehood to yourself, and have spared your crying of shame upon this Defender.  
Here is much a do, as thou feast Reader, and all standeth upon falsehood, as I said at the first in my Confutation. We strive not for the name of Universal Bishop: neither hath the Pope Challenged that title. Yet these men have never done with Universal Bishop. The whole matter is soon answered. These words universalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur: 
Concil. Carthag. 3 Cap. 26.  The Bishop of Rome ought not to be called the universal Bishop, (these words I say) be not the words of the third Council of Carthage, nor in the Greek, nor in the Latin, but the words of Gratian and they stand for the Sum of that part of the distinction, which there followeth. And thereof M. jewel was not ignorant, as it appeareth by his own words in the same place. Howbeit, were it true, that Gratian had ignorantly added them to the Council as words of the Council, what learned man trusteth Gratian, a man not greatly trusted in respect of sundry his allegations, when it is easy to see the Original? For this I refer the Reader to the 39 Chapter of the third Book of this Treaty, fol. 184. b.  
Perusing that I have answered to this point there thou shalt fully understand, how falsely M. jewel hath dealt therein, and how little cause he had so to triumph. For neither hath the Council any such words at all, nor speaketh it there so much as one word of the Bishop of Rome, nor hath Gratian put those words, as a testimony of the Council, but as the Sum of that part of the 99 Distinction, which immediately followeth. As well might M. jewel have said, that those other words there placed, unde Pelagius secundus omnibus Episcopis, had been the words of that Council. He that knoweth Gratian'S manner of writing, can not but either laugh at M. jewels ignorance, or marvel at his impudency.  
To prove that it is lawful for a man to marry a wife being in holy Orders, 
The example of Eupsychius.  he allegeth the example of one Eupsychius, who was a Lay Gentleman of Caesaria the chief City in Cappadocia, and in a time of persecution suffered Martyrdom soon after that he had been married. Now most falsely he corrupteth the reporter of the Story, and maketh this Eupsychius a Bishop, that it might appear to the ignorant, that one had married a wife after he had been made a Bishop, which would have served our married Superintendentes purpose gaily. For yet after so many years search, they can not bring us forth so much as one clear example of the ancient Church, that ever there was any Bishop, or Priest married after that degree, and holy Order taken. With such unclean conveyance their unclean treachery is defended.  

Defence 176. Cassio. li. 6. cap. 14.  His words be these, Cassiodorus writeth thus, In illo tempore ferunt Martyrio vitam finisse Eupsychium Caesariensem (Episcopum) ducta nuper uxore: dum adhuc quasi sponsus esse videretur: At that time they say Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesaria died in martyrdom, having married a wife a little before, being yet in manner a new married man.  
Behold Reader the falsehood of this man. First, contrary to his custom elsewhere, he leaveth the Greek fonteine, where this Story was First written, and goeth to the river of the old translation in many places not most exactly answering the Greek. And why did he so? Forsooth because if he had alleged Sozomenus the Greek writer, his falsehood had been foully bewrayed. For he nameth this Eupsychius expressly, 
Eupsychius a laieman, by M. jewels forgery made a Bishop, to prove the Marriages of Priests.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as much to say, Eupsychius one of the Lords (or one of the Nobility) of the City of Caesaria in Cappadocia. Then, because the Tripartite Story of Cassiodorus setting forth hath not so expressly, that he was a nobleman of Caesaria, M. jewel was so bold, as to falsify the place, and to put in of his own this word, Episcopum, to help his matter, and so corrupting his author, maketh him to call him Eupsychium Caesariensem Episcopum, Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesaria. Thus he taketh upon him to make him a Bishop, who was a Lay man, as well a Bishop as he himself is, that it might appear to the unlearned, that a bishop married a wife after he was bishop. 
Fol. 302. & 318.  See what I have said hereto in this Treaty, where I answer his false stuff touching Priests marriages. Lib. 5. Cap. 1. Fol. 302.  
Speaking against the number of the seven Sacraments of the Church, 
Defence. 213. Apocal. 5.8.7.1.  to bring the Catholic Doctrine in contempt, thus he saith. As for the reasons, that they of M. hardings side have brought us for proof hereof, they are too childish to be remembered. For thus they say, The Book in the Apocalyps hath seven seals: The seven Angels there have seven Trumpets: Christ hath in his right hand seven stars: Christ walketh in the mids of seven golden Candlesticks: 
Zacha. 3. Exod. 37.  Zacharie saw seven eyes upon a stone: There were seven candlesticks in the Tabernacle: Ergo, say they, there must needs be just seven Sacraments in the Church of God.  
If this were true, 
In Compendio Theologiae.  we might be somewhat ashamed of our Doctors, I grant. Neither can this Reason seem but weak and feeble. But what if all this be false? Then are our Doctors not touched, then may their reasons be thought substantial, and M. jewel a vain jangler, that thus stuffeth his great Book with Lies. Peruse the place Reader, 
In Compendio Theologia lib. 6. cap. 5.  that by his quotation he directeth thee unto, and thou shalt find him like himself as he is every where, a false Minister. For Compendium Theologiae, which he allegeth, hath far otherwise. It saith not, there must needs be just seven Sacraments in the Church, because seven Seals, seven Trumpets, seven Stars, seven Candlesticks, seven Eyes be thus spoken of in the Scripture: but it saith expressly, Sacramenta figurata sunt in septem Signaculis, The Sacraments were figured (or foresignified) in the seven Seals, in the seven Stars, etc. That the number of those things is made a reason, or cause of the number of the Sacraments, it is M. jewels Lie, it is not the saying of him that wrote Compendium.  

Defence 361. 8, Augustine foully, and dangerously falfied by M. jewel.  Having taken upon him to prove, that the Doctors of the Canon Law have taught the people, that Fornication between Singlefolke is no sin, among a huge heap of sayings taken out of writers of sundry sorts, (whereof not so much as one affirmeth it) he bringeth in this saying, pretending it to be S. Augustine, in question. in Exod. quaest. 20. Illa Fornicatio, quam faciunt qui uxores non habent, cum foeminis, quae viros non habent, an prohibita inveniri possit, ignoro. That kind of Fornication, which Single men commit with single women, whether it be forbidden, or no, I can not tell.  
By this sentence, as it is here set forth, S. Augustine is set to school, and made to confess (which he would never have confessed whiles he lived) that he could not tell, whether Fornication that is committed between single folk, were forbidden, or no: whereby he should seem to give great liberty to single persons to follow the filthy lusts of their flesh. And here, which is to be noted, whereas the rest of the sentence is printed in the small letter, in which the Doctors testimonies be commonly set out, these words in Latin, Fornicatio, an prohibita inveniri possit, ignoro, and these English words, Fornication, whether it be forbidden, or no, I can not tell, are printed in a far greater letter, that they should readily appear to the eye, and be read of all men, as if he were desirous, as the Devil himself is, that all were persuaded, that Fornication among single persons were no sin. Which doctrine there, and in certain other places of that Book, by sundry colourable sayings of Writers he seemeth to labour to persuade.  
But the true saying of S. Augustine, and the meaning of the same, is far otherwise. For thus he saith, not in Quaest. in Exod. quaest. 20. as the place by M. jewel is falsely quoted: but in Quaestionum super Exodum lib. 2. quaest. 71. Sed si non omnis Fornicatio etiam Moechia dici potest, ubi sit in Decalogo prohibita illa fornicatio, quam faciunt viri qui uxores non habent, cum foeminis, quae maritos non habent, utrum inveniri possit, ignoro. As much to say, But if it be so, that all Fornication may not be called also (Moechia) advowtry, where that Fornication, which men commit that have no wives, with women that have no husbands, is forbidden in the Table of the ten Commandments, whether it may be found, or no, I can not tell.  
S. Augustine saith not simply, he knew not whether simple Fornication were forbidden, or no: he knew well, it was forbidden: But if it were once denied, that all Fornication were signified by the word and name of Moechia, (which properly is advowtry, which word is expressed in the ten Commandments) the contrary whereof he proveth in that place very learnedly: in this case, and not otherwise, he acknowledgeth himself not to know, where the Fornication, that is committed between single persons, may be found forbidden (where? not generally, but) in Decalogo, in the ten Commandments. And this is the only point, wherein S. Augustine confesseth his ignorance. Howbeit in the same place he showeth, that under the name of Moechia, all manner Fornication is comprised, and that therefore in the ten Commandments it is forbidden, no less than Aduout●ri●, as I have at large declared in this Treaty Lib. 5. Cap. 15. where M. jewels falsehood is further detected.  
But what mean I to lay forth places by M. jewel falsified, and corrupted? If I would make profession thereof, I ought to lay forth his whole book new printed. For of such stuff the whole consisteth. One place, because therein he thought to touch mine honesty, I can not let pass. Thus it is.  

Consider Reader how far such a false forger is to be trusted  Having in my Confutation reproved the Lady A.B. for turning these words out of Fulgentius, formam servi, and formam Dei (as much to say, the form of a feruaunt, and the form of God) into Manhed, and Godhead, whereby a false meaning is conveyed in against the true presence of Christ's body in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar: lest I should have seemed over sharp in rebuking a woman (whereas in deed for a Doctor of Divinity to confute a woman, I thought it no great Conquest) after certain other words of reprouse, 
Confutation. Fol. 41.2  thus I say: Whether I may without breach of courtesy charge her with so heinous a crime, or no, I doubt. Perhaps as she passeth the bonds of womanly state, in presuming to meddle so far in these perilous matters, &c: so may I seem to forget courtesy, thus roughly to blame so soft a creature.  

Defence. fol. 89.  Now cometh me in this Master of Defence, and for the love of his good Lady, layeth busily about him, driveth very fiercely at me (though his strokes light not on me) and like a kind hearted Lover, saith very much in her praise, and not a little to my dispraise: that she forsooth is a Lady of great learning, virtue, and gravity, that all that I have sent over, are but toys, and trifles (by like because I print not my Books in Folio, as he doth) that she is full of wisdom, and I full of folly.  
There he promiseth in great sooth, that he will not tell me how lewdly I have demeaned myself towards her. And what is that? Nay, he will not tell it me (ye may believe him, because it will sound to my great shame. Yet out it must, the man is taken with such a lust. And because he was loath it should come to the knowledge of many, thus forthwith he telleth it me in a printed book. I beseech you (saith he full courteously) call your words again to mind, if you can without blushing: 
Handle, foisted in by M jewel for Blame.  So roughly to handle so soft a Creature (where he hath changed my honest word Blame, into his own word Handle, of filthy imagination) This Phrase of speech your very friends have much misliked, and as it is in deed, so in plain words they call it Ruffianrie, etc. The whole matter thus he concludeth, with like truth as he began. But this fault, as I have said, I will dissemble.  
To all this, what shall I say good Reader? God be thanked, that M. jewel, who is so desirous to tell that of me, whereof I should be ashamed, hath nothing to tell, but a Lie forged by his own filthy imagination, whereof he must needs be ashamed, if he have any spark of honest nature in him. So roughly to handle so soft a creature, be not my words.  
If it be Ruffianrie so to speak (as he saith, that in deed it is) then is this superintendant of Sarisburie become a Ruffian. For he speaketh so, I spoke it not. Thus roughly to blame so soft● a creature, whether it might not in that place be honestly spoken, I report me to all that be honest. Because he knew himself, he had made this apparent advantage against me by his false forgery, foisting in the word Handle, in place of the word Blame, of purpose, that his impudent falsehood might not be espied, he lest out of his Book, xxvij. lines of my Confutation, where the words be with which I reprove the Lady for her false Translation, if it were hers, and not an others, set forth in her name.  
But my very friends have much misliked this Phrase of speech, saith M. jewel. I marvel how they could mislike it, before it was ever written. In deed both my friends, and his friends too, mislike this Phrase, as he hath forged it, very much, I doubt not. And as for his friends, I dare say, they are ashamed of him, and wish, he had not discredited his ministerly Divinity, with such Ruffianly humanity, or rather inhumanity. For a full answer hereto see in this Treaty, Lib. 3. cap. 2. Fol. 120.  
As for the Lady that translated the Apology into English, in whose quarrel this unhonest and unclean lewdness hath by this Champion been practised, I wish her no worse, but that she tell M. jewel, when she meeteth with him next, that though she were desirous both of Praise, and also of revenge, yet she had rather remain unpraised, and unrevenged, then of such a false handler to be praised, and with such open lying to be revenged.  
Thus Reader by View of these few places noted out of the whole heap, thou mayst conceive, with what manner stuff M. jewel hath filled up that huge Book. Such as these are, after the same rate the more part of the rest is. Wherefore all men may see, how good cause they have to hire their promoters, and Waiters, to lie in wait for our Books at the Ports, and Creeks, and with great extremity to punish all men, who are found to have them. For by that mean they hope to win a long time, before their guile and falsehood be made open to all the world.  
Seeing then among all that huge heap so little can be found, whereby he may seem to go directly to the points that be in Controversy, and presently treated of, seeing where he giveth out certain shadows, as it were of proofs, if the same be duly examined, they be tried corrupted, and falsified by one untrue mean or other, and seeing the confutation of all that is to be confuted, must be made by repeating and laying forth again the testimonies truly, which he allegeth falsely, by showing, where he clippeth of the Doctors words, where he addeth words of his own, where he leaveth out the beginning, or the end of Sentences, where he useth false translation, where he conceeleth and dissembleth the Circumstance of the places, and followeth the bare sound of words without farther view of the Writers intent, where he maketh false exchange of words, as he is now taken in the manner, changing Blame, a word of chaste meaning, into Handle a word of unchaste imagination: seeing I say, this is the mean and way, whereby the Confutation of the pretenced Defence must be wrought: I leave unto the judgement of those who can judge of these things, what a long and tedious work it would be, and how little profit would redound thereof, if I should refute his whole Book.  
This being well considered, specially whereas also a long time is required to the finishing of such a work, great charges are to be employed in printing, and men at these days soon wax weary, and feel loathsomeness in reading long Treaties: I thought I should do more conveniently, if I confuted the chief points of Doctrine, then if I bestowed my labour about the confutation of the whole, which for the most part consisteth of light and vain trifles not worth the reading. And to say the truth, what credit is he worthy to bear in the rest, that in the chief points is proved to have dealt so untruly?  
If I truly charge M. jewel with thertie, forty, fifty, yea with a hundred great and notorious Lies, and sufficiently confute the same, shall I not seem to have proved him a Liar, and a false dealer in these causes, excepted I confute him in a thousand, eleven, or twelve hundred more? If the case be so, then is the advantage in the multitude of Lies, and he is farthest from being confuted, who maketh most Lies, and specially he that maketh so many, as the defender of the truth shall not have leisure to try them Lies. It is well known, how much easier it is to write Lies, then to confute Lies. A Lie is uttered in a word or two: the poison of an heinous Heresy is spit forth in a line or two: Nor this, nor that perhaps can well and sufficiently be confuted, so as it be made plain unto the unlearned, in four or five leaves.  
Lest I should seem to say nothing in his commendation, and not to acknowledge his worthiest qualities, I grant, he is furnished with Rhetorie, with humane letters, with Eloquence, with a mearie wit, and that he hath a ready grace in skoffing, yea that he is able to grieve the heart not only of his Adversary, but also of any other godly man, with scornful flouts in things of greatest holiness. But Christian Reader, we strive not for the Garland of that game: we go not about to try masteries of such wit, or of humane learning. Our strife is about the Truth. The way to show it, and prove it, (which he himself by open Challenge hath offered his Doctrine to be tried by) is by laying forth the plain Scriptures, the examples of the Primitive Church, the testimonies of the General Councils, and ancient Fathers.  
Of these who hath so great store, saith a friend of his, as M. jewel? Who ever saw the margin of any Book so beset with cotations, as his Books are? This were a great evidence of the Truth on his side, if the matter were always tried by what so ever multitude of writers sayings. But what if the number of his testimonies be quite beside the purpose? Seemeth he not then very shameless? Is he not then far to blame so to abuse the plain and well meaning Readers? It shallbe said perhaps in his excuse: He seeth the negligence of men, he considered, that few, or none examine our writings. And therefore he thinketh, he shall seem to say much, though in deed nothing be said, that pertaineth to the points presently handled. And where a thing is to be done and the same for want of ability can not be done: there it seemeth good policy to give the assay, and to make show, as if it could be done, or were done. It is known, how flatterers make resemblance of friendship, how Hypocrites give forth tokens of holiness, the intended Bankroute of good trust and credit, the craking Coward of stout courage, Beggars oftentimes of wealth, Queans of womanly honesty, and chaste demeanour. Right so M. jewel feeling himself destitute of the Truth, and impugning the Truth, and professing to deliver unto the world a new Truth, that is to say, a heap of old Untruths busily set forth of late years by Luther, Zuinglius, Caluine, Beza, and the rest, and by Wiklefe, Hus, Waldenses, and others, their predecessors in former times, laboureth with all his wit, and cunning, to justify it, calling it by the name of God's pure word, the Gospel, and the sincere Truth: that whereas he is not able to perform his intent in deed, yet he might seem to make it good with words.  
Touching the life of the Clergy, well may I confess, that M. jewel hath somewhat to say, out of certain writers, how true, I know not: whereto I shall hardly be able to make answer in full defence of certain persons. But as touching the Doctrine, that the Catholic Church holdeth at this day, and hath always holden, I avouch boldly, as by sundry our books it hath now been clearly proved, and they understand so much that do thoroughly examine the reasons, authorities, and proofs of both parts: that he is not able to bring so much as one sentence out of any allowed writer, that may not easily be refelled.  
And because he knoweth, that in points of Doctrine the force of Truth is clearly on our side, he would feign train me from matters of Doctrine, wherein he hath small hope of victory, or of acquitting himself with even hand, unto matters of life, and other buy things, whereof what so ever be believed, therein is no great danger touching our Salvation. As for example, what crack is there made in the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, if the Nominales, and the Reales, if the Thomists, and Scotistes descent about points Logical, or Metaphysical, or perhaps also about the parings of some Scholastical points of Divinity? What if some light believing writers have sadly and in earnest made mention of one joane a woman Pope, deceived by Martinus Polonus 
Martinus Polonus.  a man of small credit, who moved with old wives tales first committed that fable to writing? What if some later writers have uttered their fantasies, which they dreamt thereof, upon occasion of an old Marble Stone having in it a woman with a lad standing by her engraved? What if a few men that held with certain evil Emperors, which could not abide to be revoked from their unlawful lusts by the Pope for the time being, have written and reported ill of a few Popes? What if johannes Casa wrote some unchaste Italian sonnets and Rhymes in his yewth, though for filthiness not comparable to such as be extant of Bezaes' making the Apostle of the French huguenots? What if Petrus Aloisius, whom Paulus Tertius the Pope loved so tenderly, were a vicious man? What if john Diazius the Spaniard were unnaturally murdered by Alphonsus Diazius his brother that lived at Rome?  
What if Luther, wrote against the furious uproars of the Bowers in Germany, when he saw they were sure to be overthrown by the Nobility there (whom notwithstanding he had before by Thomas Muncer his scholar stirred to take weapons against their Lords) that he might lay some good colour upon that he had il begun? What if some have written, though not without contradiction of others, that Poison was ministered in the blessed Sacrament? What if a Pope showed himself cruel, and without pity, in suffering Frances Dandulus the Venetians Ambassador to lie under his table like a dog, whiles he was at dinner.  
What if Popes have suffered great Princes and monarch to kiss their feet, to hold their Stiroppes, to lead their horses by the Bridle? W●at if Gregory the seventh, otherwise called Hildebrande, whom many grave Writers report to have been a man of great virtue, and an excellent good governor of the Church, be of some Writers of that age, who flattered the Emperor then being that Pope's mortal enemy, accounted an ill man? What if Pope Alexander used Fredrick the Emperor more proudly, than became a man of his calling? What if Constantine's Donation can not be most sufficiently proved by record of antiquity? What if certain Emperors and other Princes, for great causes have been removed from their estates by the Pope's authority? What if the Gloser upon Gratian, and certain other canonists have immoderately magnified the Pope, and to extol his power have used some terms undiscreetly, which nevertheless by favourable interpretation may be justified?  
What if the Popes at certain times either for negligence cared not, or for the wretchedness of man's ill inclination could not, or for great considerations would not utterly purge the City of Rome of Courtesanes, and Brodel houses? What if the life of many Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, yea of some Popes also hath justly deserved to be reproved? Once to conclude, what if all sorts of old Books being raked out of dusty corners, Schoolmen, summists, Glosers, vain Chroniclers, Legends, writers of Dreams and Visions, and such Riff raff, and men for the purpose being set a work to peruse them, in the same be found a few fond points of Doctrine, certain lose Conclusions, many silly Tales not worth the telling, and some lewd faults of Religious persons, and others of the Clergy detected?  
What if I say, all these, and many other such things were granted, of which we are persuaded, that some are true, the more part is false, much is so written, as it may be defended, no less than impugned? What great inconvenience, what prejudice to our Faith can ensue of all this? Must the Catholic and ancient Doctrine of the Church for these points be found untrue? Must this now needs be made a good Argument, Some of their lives were sinful, Ergo, their Doctrine was false?  
Truly these be the matters, with the enlarging whereof his Defence hath risen to so huge a quantity. About which I have not thought it needful to bestow much labour, partly because in most of those points my Confutation of the Apology yet standeth unrefelled, partly also because it liked me not to employ good hours in so frivolous and unfruitful a travail, but chief because what so ever be said by M. jewel touching these things, either on the one side, or on the other, it importeth no disprouse of the Catholic doctrine in any Article, which specially I have taken in hand to maintain.  
Howbeit, the things he bringeth in to deface the Church, must needs with wise men in this case bear small credit, being considered upon whose authorities, and reports they be avouched.  
The Catholics can not be greatly moved with such things, as are written in prejudice of the Church, either by them, whose Books be of suspected faith, and therefore condemned by the Church, as Aventinus, and Beno de vita Hildebrandi, or have been corrupted of late years by the Lutherans of Germany, as Vrspergensis, 
In Indice librorum prohibitorum.  Antonius de Rosellis, Polydorus Vergilius de Inuentoribus rerum, Paschasius, and others, or who have been much inclined to innovations in Religion, and favoured the procedings of Luther, and his disciples, as Erasmus, Cornelius Agrippa, Carion, Lorichius, Cassander and such others, or who be known to be manifest Heretics, and professed enemies of the Church, as Gaspar Hedio the Author of Paralipomena added to Vrspergensis, Anselmus Rid, Vergerius, Sleidan, Illyricus, Fabritius Montanus, jacobus Andreae, and many such others, all which M. jewel allegeth against the Church, the Popes, and the Clergy boldly, as if they were Doctors of sufficient authority, and sound credit, against whom, specially in these matters no exception might be taken.  
As there is no cause why we should greatly esteem any thing spoken by these, either against the manners of the Clergy, or against the Ceremonies, and customs of the Church, or against any part of the Catholic Doctrine, because in judgement the bare word of the Accuser, or of him that otherwise is an ill willer, beareth small credit against any man: So touching the doctrine of Faith, we fear not what so ever M. jewel allegeth against us out of the schoolmen, canonists of all sorts, summists, and Glosers, out of the Cardinals, and those other learned and grave men appointed by Paulus Tertius to give information of things in the state of the Church to be reformed, and out of the bishops speaking their minds freely in the late Council of Trent. For we are well assured, how so ever M. jewel telleth their tales for them, they held, and maintained the doctrine which we profess, in every condition.  
What so ever therefore he bringeth out of them, bearing any sound of words against the Catholic Faith, as very little it is, that to that effect he can bring, though with heaps of their sayings he hath filled his great Volume: the same is either by heat of Disputation, or by way of Objection against the Truth after the Scholastical manner, for the better opening of the Truth, or by vehemency of zeal, or perhaps by humane oversight uttered, otherwise then by them is determined in their Conclusions, whereof the taking of advantage is undue and over captious, or by some sleight of M. jewel falsified and corrupted, or, to say the least, by untrue construction wrested to a sense by the Author never intended.  
How so ever it be, they show themselves either very blind of judgement, or very contentious wranglers, or very vain janglers, that allege the words of any Writer against the Catholic doctrine, whose whole course of life showed him to be Catholic. Which is told us by S. Augustine, as a most certain rule, whereby to understand men's words in matter of Religion. And therefore thus he crieth out upon the blindness of such men, among whom M. jewel may take himself annumbred, that will not understand men's words by their deeds.  

Aug. contra Epist. Parme. li. 3. cap. 4.  Incredibilis est coecitas hominum, & omnino nescio quemadmodum credi posset esse in hominibus tanta perversitas, nisi experimento verborum svorum factorumque patesceret, usqueadeo se clausos habere cordis oculos, ut commemorent sancta Scripturae testimonia, nec intueantur in factis Prophetarum, quemadmodum intelligenda sint verba Prophetarum. The blindness of men is inoredible, and certainly I wot not how I might make one believe, that there were such frowardness in men, unless by the proof of their words and deeds it appeared openly, that the eyes of their heart were so fast shut up, that they allege the testimonies of the holy Scripture, and do not behold in the doings of the Prophets, how the words of the Prophets are to be understanded.  
Wherefore seeing the far greater part of M. jewels Defence consisteth of their sayings heaped together, of whom some were either themselves, or their works being untruly set forth after their death of suspect faith, some found to favour heretics, some professed heretics, some contrariwise known by public profession of their life to be perfit Catholics: making little account, what they of the one side say, as being of no credit, specially in matter of Faith, and not doubting but these of the other side, meant well and godly, how so ever their words by M. jewel be abused, corrupted, and misconstrued, in consideration thereof good Reader, I judged a short Treaty might suffice in this case: short I mean in comparison of that Huge Volume fraught with so much void, impertinent, and superfluous stuff. Otherwise, it is longer, I am well assured, than he shall ever be able aptly, truly, and directly to confute.  
I say not, but he may do eftsoons, as he hath twice already done, that is to say, gather together a huge number of sayings out of all sorts of Writers, and printing this Treaty withal, send us forth an other great book, containing much stuff to little purpose, and not once touching the very precise points, wherein he is charged with foul errors, and falsehood. But to come directly to the points by me thoroughly refelled, and with good proofs to justify the same, keeping himself in from idle ranging abroad in matters not denied, or otherwise impertinent: this is that I affirm, he shall never be able to perform, though he writ again as much as Fox hath raked together into that dunghill of his stinking Martyrs.  
So then I trust good Reader, this my shorter, but more fruitful travail, shall well content thee. In which I have defended, and justified, the chief matters of the Catholic doctrine by M. jewel impugned, and therewith overthrown his weak Defence.  
In sundry other points also, which depend of Doctrine, I have detected his great and manifold Untruths. Neither have I joined issue with him in any point, wherein I have not sufficiently proved him, either deceived, or a deceiver. Wherein as Ignorance may stand him in some excuse for the one, so must he bear the guilt of malice for the other. Each point here is not handled with like diligence, and like exactenesse, I grant, for the matter hath not so required.  
Yet where I have been lest disposed to take pains, and found myself most weary in answering his frivolous Objections, thou shalt find the truth sufficiently maintained, and M. jewel fully refuted. If anywhere thou espy defect, or insufficiency, impute the blame to me. If in any part I shall seem to have done well, take thou the profit, give God the praise.  
Thomas Harding.   

A DETECTION OFUNTRUTHES IN M. JEWELS EPISTLE TO THE QVENE. THE FIRST BOOK.  

How untruly and how slanderously M. jewel hath charged his Adversary with certain hateful crimes, in his Epistle to the queens Majesty set before his pretenced Defence of the Apology. The First Chapter.  
WHEREAS M. jewel in the Epistle to the Queen's Majesty set before his pretenced Defence of the Apology, chargeth me with divers points, whereby both to discredit the Catholic Doctrine, and to stir her Majesty to indignation against me, and other learned men here, who have confuted his manifold errors, and detected sundry his false parts, wherewith dangerously he seduceth her majesties Subjects: lest both I by my silence should seem to acknowledge myself guilty of the things he chargeth me with, and least others might be induced to believe him, thinking him not to be so void of due reverence and shame, as so far to abuse her majesties credulity in these matters, who hath no leisure, or listeth not to examine the same; I have thought it convenient and necessary, before I come to any part of his direct answer to my Confutation of the Apology, to clear myself of what so ever he imputeth unto me in that Epistle, and to show, how all that he hath written against me in the same, is utterly false, and slanderous. And because I cannot better and in plainer wise perform it, then by laying forth (as it were) the book, where each thing is said, whereof he taketh hold, and by reporting mine own sayings, which he hath falsified and untruly reported: Let it not seem strange, nor be lothesom unto thee good Reader, that being driven unto it by this necessity, I bring forth again unto thee, certain places before written, and contained in my former Treaties. How loathsome soever it be thee to read, and me to repeat again certain things before uttered: verily it is the chief way, by which in this case the truth may clearly be opened. Thus then entereth M. jewel his accusation against me.  
M. jewel in the epistle to the Queen. pag. 2. ad finem. 
M. Harding doubteth not to seek quarrels against us, even in that we maintain ¹ The Baptism of Christian Infants, ² The proceeding, and ³ Godhead of the Holy Ghost, 4 The Faith of the holy, and glorious Trinity, and ⁵ the General, and Catholic profession of the Common Creed.  
Harding.  
To confute errors, and to declare the Truth, is not to seek Quarrels. Neither ought he to be called a quarreler, who of two ways, showeth, which is the better. Touching these five points: First, I find no fault with M. jewel, nor with his fellows, for that they maintain the Baptism of Infants. For therein I hold with them. 
The Baptism of infants no where reproved.  To my remembrance, I speak not of it, of purpose, in my whole book of the Confutation, nor in my rejoinder: only where I prove that certain great, and necessary points are to be believed, which be not expressed in the holy Scriptures, 
In the defence. pag. 191. Confutation fol. 84. a.  because these Ministers in their Apology say, that all things needful for our salvation are abundantly and fully comprehended in the Scriptures: among sundry other things, which I demand to be showed us in the Scriptures, I ask, where in all the Bible they find, that Infants ought to be baptized. And well that question might I demand, for proof of that I intended in that place, neither can it be found expressly commanded, or spoken of, I am well assured. Wherefore, whiles M. jewel accuseth me to the Queen's Majesty of seeking Quarrels against him, in this point he showeth us in himself, a perfit pattern of a quarreler.  
If I should here appose him in his own words, and ask him, 
Baptism of Christian Infants.  what he meaneth by maintaining the Baptism of Christian Infants, I think rather, he would say, I were a seeker of Quarrels. Yet would I feign hear, what he would answer. For what? Is he of the opinion, that such Infants, as be borne of Christian Parents, be Christians, before they be baptised? If they be Christians, what need they to be Christened? If they have need to be Christened, why doth he call them before Baptism received, Christian Infants? Is any Man, Woman or Child to be called a Christian, before he be Christened? Latet anguis in herba: There lieth a Pad in the straw. Perhaps he thinketh, it is not yet time to spette out the poison of that heresy, which it seemeth he hath sucked out of Calvin, against the necessity of Baptism of Infants, whose parents be faithful.  
This point I touched in my Confutation of the Apology. Fol. 67. b. Neither durst M. jewel yet to be plain, when he cometh to that place in his Defence, where he had good cause to treat fully of it, and to deliver the world from that Suspicion worthily conceived, and to resolve us, whether he think Baptism of Christian Parents Children to be necessary, or no.  
Verily by saying, that by God's Free Election they be pure, 
jewel in the Defence. Pag. 250.  and holy, and by allowing all that Caluine saith thereof, he giveth out a secret signification, his meaning to be, that in them Baptism is not utterly necessary. These men's Doctrine (if I be not deceived) tendeth to this issue, that at length Baptism shallbe nothing else, but a Sign, mark, badge, or recognisance of a Christian. Whereof it must follow, that as a man may be a Soldier, a Serving man, or a Reteiner to a Noble man, though he lack his Captains, or his Master's Badge, or recognisance: likewise so many as be borne of Christian Parents, be also Christians, though they never receive Baptism. By the Premises of these men's Doctrines, we have just cause to think, that at length they will teach, that the very Signs themselves also for avoiding superstition may surcease, and be put away, where the thing signified is performed, and sufficiently believed. And so is Baptism like to be quite abolished with other Signs, and Ceremonies. For Caluine their new Apostle of Geneva teacheth, that if we were mindful enough of Christ's Death, all the Sacraments were superfluous. 
Calvin. in ●. Cor. 11.  I pray God in this point I be not a true Prophet. 
Defence 150.  M. jewel laboureth all that he can in the Defence, to discharge Calvin of this perilous Doctrine, wherewith I burden him in my Confutation. But when he hath said all, he hath lost his labour, because he cometh not to the point, and dissembleth that Caluine ever said it. And so he may begin that matter again. He shall do well to make Calvin in Antidoto to agree with Calvin in his commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles, where he teacheth expressly, that in case of sufficient remembrance of Christ's Death, all the Sacraments be superfluous.  
Which I gather not out of Calvin's words, by a fond collection, as M. jewel beareth the Reader in hand, but I show it to be Calvin's own saying, and for trial I direct the Reader unto the place.  
Concerning the Godhead of the holy Ghost, I moved no Quarrel at al. 
The Godhead of the holy Ghost. Pag. 90. Confutat. 41. b. The proceeding of the holy Ghost.  Yet in the Defence of the Apology he beareth men in hand, that I deny, the holy Ghost may be proved to be God by express Scripture. For these be his words. You say (M. Harding) that the Godhead of the holy Ghost can not be proved by express words of the Scriptures, and thereof ye say, ye are right sure. This is as false, as true it is, that the holy Ghost is God. Read my words who will, he shall find me true and M jewel false.  
Marry as touching the Article of the holy Ghost, whereas the Authors of the Apology say, it proceedeth from both the Father, and the Son, which is most true: 
Some things are to be believed, for which we have no express Scripture.  in consideration of this point, of this point only I say, (which is part of the whole Article) and not of the Godhead, I say in my Confutation, that they have no express Scripture for it, nor any of the first four General Councils, and that therefore, we are bound of necessity to believe somewhat, which is not expressly mentioned in the Scriptures, and that an other Council, where that Article was confirmed, is to be received, beside the four first, which only be allowed in England by Parliament.  
Because he was loath so manifest Untruth uttered against me should be espied, he nipt away my words, not suffering my whole tale to be told out, in which I do plainly signify my denial to pertain only to the Article of the holy Ghosts proceeding, and not to the Article of his Godhead. For after these words of the Apology, 
Defence. pag. ●0.  (we believe that the holy Ghost, who is the third person in the holy Trinity, is very God, not made, not create, not begotten, but proceeding from both the Father, and the Son, by a certain mean unknown unto men, and unspeakable, etc.) In my Confutation I say thus.  
As we acknowledge this Article to be true, 
Confutation fol. 41. b.  and Catholic, so we demand of these Defenders, how they can prove the same. Have they either express Scripture for it, or any of the first four general Councils, which be esteemed of most authority? 
Other Conucels to be allowed of necessity besides the 4. First.  We are sure they have not. Therefore we do them to understand, and if they hear us not, we advertise the readers that fear God, and love his truth, that all truth necessarily to be believed is not expressed in the Scripture, and that other councils be to be received besides the four first, which are allowed in England by Parliament, 
* This much between the two stars M. jew. nipped away from the rest.  as that wherein this point touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost hath been defined, Concil. Lugdunen. & Concil. Florentin. sub Eugenio. 4. as also other definitions of the Church, when upon a new doubt rising, an old Truth is by later Publications declared. Likewise those Councils in which the doctrine hath been defined by the Church, concerning the Two Wills, and Operations of Christ, which, who so ever believeth not, or at least refuseth to believe, is not to be taken for a Christian man. If these Councils be denied, all these things shall come in doubt again: and if these be received, then why should not all the rest that be universal (Councils) be also received, which the Church hath allowed? * Thus I say there.  
judge now good Reader, whether I deny in that place, that the holy Ghosts Godhead may be proved by express words of Scripture, wherewith he chargeth me in the Defence, and whether this be a seeking of Quarrels against him, for that he maintaineth the Proceeding, and the Godhead of the holy Ghost, as he chargeth me in his Epistle to the Queen's Majesty.  
Likewise it is an immoderate lie, where he saith, I seek Quarrels against them, in that they maintain the Faith of the holy and Glorious Trinity. Pity it were I should be suffered to tread on God's earth, if I quarreled with any man for that he maintaineth that holy Quarrel. I profess myself bound to maintain that Faith with all my wit, and learning, and to be ready therein to spend my blood to the last drop.  
Neither can I seem to pike Quarrels against them in that they maintain the General, and Catholic profession of the Common Creed, for so should I prove myself an enemy to the Faith. As thus to do it were a heinous crime, so to burden me therewith in a public Write, in a printed Book set forth for every man to read, in a solemn Epistle Dedicatory to a Prince, and to such a Prince, the slander is heinous, wicked, and impudent. Howbeit, As I allow, and approve the Confession of their belief touching the Trinity, confessing it to contain true and Catholic doctrine: so I seem better to like of the old accustomed manner of utterance of the belief. And in deed among Christian men, when this high point of our Faith concerning the blessed Trinity is by a public Confession to be taught, it is not enough to utter some part of our belief which is true, but also it behoveth us to utter the whole truth, and to use such form of words, as hath been used, and allowed by the Church from the beginning. What I mean, and how reasonably herein I have spoken, by these my words, unto the indifferent Reader it shall appear.  

Confut. 39 b.  But what fault find ye in this confession of our Faith, saith this defender. Sir, the first part of your Confession, wherein you utter your Belief touching the Trinity, containeth true and Catholic doctrine. Where the thing you treat of is not in controversy between you and us, and where you speak not with affection to overcome, 
Strange manner of uttering the faith.  we grant some times ye utter truth. But the manner of utterance of your Faith is strange to Christian ears, who have been accustomed to hear, Credo in Deum, Credo in jesum Christum, Credo in spiritum Sanctum. I believe in God, I believe in jesus Christ, I believe in the holy Ghost. That other form of words, which you use, soundeth not so Christianlike: I believe there is a God, I believe that jesus Christ is the Son of the Father, I believe that the holy Ghost is God. Although this form of words do express a right Faith, yet being such as may be uttered by devils, and hath been always uttered by Heretics their ministers: the ancient and holy Fathers have liked better the old form and manner, after which every Christian man saith: I believe in God, I believe in jesus Christ, I believe in the holy Ghost. For this importeth a signification of Faith, with Hope, and Charity: that other of Faith only, which the devils have, and tremble, as S. james saith, wherein as in many other things, 
jacob. 2.  these Defenders resemble them.  
S. Augustine in sundry places putting a difference between these two forms of words, upon S. john alleging S. Paul's words, To one that believeth in him who justifieth the wicked his Faith is imputed to righteousness, 
Rom. 3. In johan. Tract. 29. To believe in God what is it.  demandeth, what is it to believe in him? It is, by his answer, Credendo amare, credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire, & eius membris incorporari, with believing to love him, with believing to go into him, and to be incorporate in his members, that is, to be made a member of his body. In an other place he saith, speaking of Christ, 
De verbis Domini Serm. 61, it.  It forceth much whether a man believe, that he is Christ, and whether he believe in Christ. For the devils believed that he was Christ, neither for all that believed the devils in Christ. For he believeth in Christ, who both trusteth in Christ, and loveth Christ. For if he have Faith without Hope, and Love, he believeth that Christ is, he believeth not in Christ. So he that believeth in Christ, with believing into him shall Christ come, and by some mean he is united unto him, and is made a member in his body. Which can not be done, except there come also both Hope, and Charity. Thus S. Augustine. The same doctrine he uttereth writing upon the 77. Psalm.  
By this thou seest ●●●●ed, I bl●me not their 〈◊〉 d●s●●● the Trinity, not their Profession of the Common Creed, as M. jewel calleth it but only I seem be●ter to allow● the ancient and usual manner of uttering the Belief, which for good reason hath ever seemed to the learned Fathers more commendable Reason, and consideration of duty would, that a Minister of God's word should be a frayed to utter so great, and so manifest untruths unto his liege Sovereign. But of like (some will say) he will amend that fault in other parts of his Epistle to her Majesty, specially sith that he allegeth nothing, but directeth the Reader unto the place, where it is to be found by his quotation noted in the margin, which hath at least some colour of upright dealing, and being found false, declareth an impudent falsehood. I would wish, that for truths sake, all would read and confer, and judge of the odds between us both. First thus he writeth.   
jewel. 
The main ground of his whole Plea is this, that the Bishop of Rome, wha● so 〈◊〉 it ●●al like him to determine in judgement can never ●rr● (F●● direction of the R●●der he quoteth thus.) C●sus. fo. 334. b  
Harding.  
What he meaneth by his term, Plea, I wot not, ne care not. I plead not for right of any temporal thing.  
Neither am I a lawyer, as he knoweth 〈◊〉 employ my study of Divinity to defends the. Catholic Fa●th, and to detect his falsehood, that God● people be not by him, and his fellows dangerously seduced. The thing, whereat he scoffeth, (for these words, what so ever it shall like him to determine, be scornful words) is not so uttered by me, as he reporteth? Who list to see, what I say, for so much as the book of my Confutation is not always at hand●, thus it is.  
The Pope succeedeth Peter in authority and power. 
Confut. Fol. 334. b  For whereas the sheep of Christ continue to the worlds end, he is not wise, that thinketh Christ to have made a shepherd temporary for a time, over his perpetual flock. Then what shepeherdly endoument our Lord gave to the first shepherd, at the institution of the shepeherdly office of the Church: that is he understanded to have given ordinarily to every successor. To Peter he gave, that he obtained by his prayer made to the Father, that his Faith should not fail. Again to him he gave grace, 
Luca. 22.  that to perform, the performance whereof at him he required, to wit, that he confirmed, and strengthened his brethren. Wherefore the grace of steadfastness of faith, and of confirming the wavering, 
How and, wherein the Pope erreth not, ●e never erred.  and doubtful in the Faith, every Pope obtaineth of the holy Ghost, for the benefit of the Church. And so the Pope although he may err by personal error in his own private judgement, as a man, and as a particular doctor in his own opinion: yet as he is Pope, the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ in earth, the shepherd of the universal Church, in public judgement, in deliberation and definitive sentence, he never erreth, nor never erred. For when so ever he ordaineth, or determineth any thing by his high bishoply authority, intending to bind Christian men to perform, or believe the same: he is always governed, and helped with the grace and favour of the holy Ghost.  
Answer M. jewel to this, if ye can. Certainly hitherto ye have not answered. As for that you bring against it in your pretenced Defence, there is no grave or learned man of your side, that is not ashamed of it. In that game of scoffing I do gladly yield you the garland. Your greatest Doctors there, are Alphonsus de Castro and Erasmus, men of our age. As for Erasmus, it were easy to Answer him, but here I think his tale not worth the Answering. Marry Alphonsus saith somewhat to your purpose, if the tale which you make him to tell, were his own. Certainly if he once wrote it, when he began first to write, afterwards with better advise he revoked it. For in the books of the later prints those words, which you rehearse, are not found. Thus you say.  

Defence. pag. ●●5. Alphonsus de haeresiae bu● li. 1. cap. 4.  Alphonsus de Castro, one of M. hardings own special Doctors saith: Non dubitamus, an Haereticum esse, & Papam esse, coire in unum possent, etc. Non enim credo aliquem esse adeo Impudentem Papae Assentatorem, ut ei tribuere hoc velit, ut nec errare, nec in Interpretatione Sacrarum literarum h●llucin●ri possit: We doubt not, whether one man may be a Pope, and an Heretic both together. For, I believe there is none so shameless a flatterer of the Pope, that will say (
* I say it not: read my words again.  as you say M. Harding) The Pope can never err, nor be deceived in the exposition of the Scriptures.  
This very saying M. jewel bringeth in likewise against the Popes, in the Defence. pag 615. under the name of Alphonsus, with the same Cotation. And after that he hath rehearsed the words, thus he pipeth himself up the triumph against Hosius in despite of the Popes, as if he had gotten of me a worthy, and glorious conquest.  
Here M. Harding, your own principal Doctor Alphonsus, calleth all them that maintain your Doctrine, and say as you say, the shameless flatterers of the Pope. But I say on the other side: here M. jewel, It pitieth me to see you so vain a man: and it is some pain also with little profit, for me still to tell you one tale, that all standeth upon false ground that you build. I had need to be well seen in Copia Verborum, to be furnished with diversity of terms, that I might by some change of speech ease the grief of the Readers ears, who must always hear this much at my hand, that M. jewel lieth.  
Look Reader, and peruse my words above rehearsed, and thou shalt see, I say not, that the Pope can not err, nor be deceived in the exposition of the Scriptures. I say he may err by personal error, in his own private judgement, as a man, and as a particular Doctor in his own opinion. But that he erreth, or ever erred in public judgement, in definitive sentence, and determinations touching matters of Faith: that I utterly deny. 
Who be they, whom Alphonsus in this case calleth Flatterers.  Alphonsus would them to be accounted flatterers, who will needs say, that the Pope can not err, or be deceived in any case: which neither I, nor any learned Catholic man ever said. You do us wrong therefore with your uncourteous language, M. jewel, and bely Alphonsus, feigning him to call us shameless Flatterers, which he never meant. It had been your part to show where, or when any Pope ever defined any false and erroneous doctrine to be received and believed of the Church. Except ye show us this, which we are sure, ye can never show, ye may spare such idle talk, whereof ye have great store, whereby in many places of your books ye go about to prove, that sundry Popes have erred.   
Item in the place aforesaid. jewel. 
That he is always undoubtedly possessed of God's holy Spirit●. Confut. Fol. 285. a.  
Harding.  
Not always M. jewel. I say it not. I know, and deny not, but it may well be proved, that some Popes have in sundry their Acts and Deeds, lacked the direction of the Spirit of God, as men, but not in Public Decrees touching the necessary doctrine of Faith. In the place noted by your Cotation thus I say.  

Confut. 285. a. Sapient. 8.  God's wisdom (as the scripture faith) disposeth all things sweetly, and in one instant foreseeth the end, and means that be necessary to the end. If he promise any man life everlasting withal he giveth him grace also to do good deeds, whereby to obtain the same. Whom he hath glorified (saith S. Paul) them he hath justified, 
Rom. 8.  and called. 
Matth. 16 Luc. 22.  So whereas he hath by force of his prayer made to the Father promised to Peter, and for the safety of the Church, to every Peter's Successor, that his faith shall not fail, and therefore hath willed him to confirm his brethren, that is, to remove all doubts, and errors from them: we are assured, he will give him such wit, diligence, learning, and understanding, as this Firmness, and Infallibility of Faith, and Confirming of Brethren requireth. See further Reader, what I say in that place.  
To this and to the rest said in that place, 
M. jewels chief manner of answering. Defence. pag. 612.  M. jewel maketh answer in his pretenced Defence after his common manner, with these grave and learned notes. Sadly, and Sagely, and much to the purpose. Item, Untruth fond, and childish, etc. Item, O worthy grave reasons.  
Neither answereth he the matter only by such marginal notes, but also otherwise at full, where he furnisheth us out two long leaves full of trumperies pretended to be picked out of obscure, and late writers, Alphonsus de Castro, 
M. jewels doctors, and the same for the more part utterly belied.  Beatus Rhenanus, Legenda aurea, Fasciculus rerum sciendarum, johannes Stella, Hulderikes forged Epistle, Erasmus Annotations, the disallowed Council of Basil, the Appendix or lable of the Council of Constance, which he foully falsifieth, reporting that of john. 22. which was said of john. 23. the usurper, also out of Vesellus, the Gloze upon Gratian, one john of Paris, Heruaeus, Gerson, Hostiensis the canonist, Aeneas Silvius in that book, which he himself revoked, and recanted, Petrarch's Rhymes, Lyra, ●aldas P●a●ina, joverius Hermannus Gigas, johannes Camo●ensis alleged by Cornelius Agrippa, john of Sarisburie, Hermannus Rid an Heretic, Cornelius Agrippa little better in his book of vanity, and of such little worth late petty Doctors.  
When he cometh to answer the point itself, which standeth in the force of Christ's prayer made unto the Father for the Firmness of S. Peter's, and his successors Faith: thus he frameth his answer, full sadly, I warrant you, and like a godly Minister. If the Pope should err, 
Defence. pag. 614.  (saith he) ●r be in heresy, 
M. jew. feareth not to use his flouts speaking of Christ himself.  he might 〈…〉 in an Action of Covenant, and require him to perform his promise. Such Flouts, and Scoffs become the Enemies of Christ's Church, and thereof this fellow serveth himself, when learning faileth. One great advantage he hath over me, he will be sure to make more lies, than I shall have list, or think it labour worth, to answer. God be thanked, he can not show any Pope, that ever lacked the spirit of God, in setting forth any public Decree, touching any point of Faith, to be holden of Christian people.   
Item in the place aforesaid. jewel. 
That at the Pope's only hand we must learn to know the will of God. Confut. 324.  
Harding.  
I say not, that we must learn to know the will of God at his hand only. That were a fond doctrine. For we may, and do learn our faith, and what is the will of God, at the hands of others, as of our Parents, our Friends, our Pastors, our Curates, our ghostly Fathers, our Preachers, and our Bishops. In the place by M. jewel reprehended, upon occasion of the Apology, where the Defenders require us to follow the example of S. Irenaeus, in that he (as they say) appealed oftentimes to the oldest Churches, which had been nearest to Christ's time, and which, it was hard to believe, that they had erred: thus I say.  

Confut. ●●4. a.  Ye would seem to be feign, that we followed the advise of S. Irenaeus. We are content with all our hearts. And with Irenaeus we appeal to that Tradition, 
Irenaeus lib 3. ca 8.  which is from the Apostles, which (as he saith) is kept in the Churches by Priests, that succeeded them. With Irenaeus leaving other Churches, whose succession of bishops it were a long work to rehearse, we require to have recourse for trial of our Faith, to the tradition of doctrine of the Roman Church, which he termeth, greatest, oldest, 
Idem lib. 3. cap. 3.  best known to all, founded, and set up by the two most glorious Apostles Peter, and Paul. We appeal to the Faith of that Church taught abroad in the world, and by successions of Bishops brought down unto us. For to this Church, saith Irenaeus, must all the Church of Christ repair, where so ever it be, for that it is the chief of all, and for that the tradition of the true doctrine, which the Apostles left behind them, is there faithfully kept. Wherefore if ye would after the counsel of Irenaeus resort to Rome, for decision of the controversies, that be betwixt you and us, and would them to be tried by that sense of doctrine, which hath continued by Successions of Bishops, even from Peter, to Pius the fourth now Pope, and would stand to the authority of that See Apostolic: all strife were ended, we should be at accord. But we have little hope, that ye will follow this godly counsel of S. Irenaeus that blessed Martyr, whose body your brethren the huguenots of France, villainously burned at Lions, Anno Domini. 1562. after it had rested there thirteen hundred years and more.  
In all these words as thou seest reader, I say not, as M. jewel beareth her Majesty in hand I do, that we must learn to know the will of God only at the Pope's hand. But I declare, whether we may most safely resort for decision of the controversies, that be betwixt us, and the Protestants. Whereunto M. jewel hath not yet answered, ne never shallbe able to answer: though in the Defence he have shuffled together a great heap of allegations nothing pertaining to the present purpose, as his custom is to do, and a great part of my confutation there he hath cut of, 
M. jewel, cutteth, and mangleth the Confutation in infinite places, leaving out words of greatest weight.  and thereby hath foully mangled the same, as for his advantage he hath done in infinite places, leaving out the matters, whereunto he had not what reasonably to answer. See the place Reader, Defence pag. 701. and thou shalt find my word true.   
Item there, jewel. 
That in the Pope's only holiness standeth the unity, and safety of the Church. Confut. 204. b.  
Harding.  
If I had so said, in a right sense, it might well be allowed. Howbeit thus I said. 
Confut. 204. b.  As Christ gave unto S. Peter, and his Successors for the benefit of his Church, a supreme authority, and power: so for the same Church's sake, for whose love he delivered himself to death, by petition made to his Father he obtained for him, and his Successors, 
joan. 14. Luc. 22.  the Privilege of this Supreme, and most excellent Grace, that their Faith should never fail. In consideration of which singular privilege obtained by Christ, and granted to the See Apostolic, and to none other, S. Gregory rebuketh john the Bishop of Constantinople so much, as one that presumptuously usurped that new name of universal Bishop, against the Statutes of the Gospel, and against the decrees of the Canons.  
To conclude, if either S. Gregory, or any other man should say, that the Church dependeth upon one man: he might seem to say truth, meaning rightly, and that not alone, nor without good authority. For such a saying we find uttered by S. Jerome. 
Hieron. Contra Luciferian.  The safety of the Church (saith he) dependeth upon the dignity of the highest priest, who if he have not authority peerless, and above all other: there willbe so many schisms in the Church, as there be priests. Which peerless authority above all other, as S. Jerome in that place doth attribute unto the Bishop of every Diocese directly: so consequently to Peter's successor, to whom it was said, Feed my sheep. 
johan. 21.  For by what reason in each Diocese it behoveth one priest to be highest over other Priests, by the same, and in like proportion, no less it behoveth, that in the whole Church one Bishop be highest over other Bishops. I mean for avoiding of schisms.  
This reason is not, ne can not of M. jewel be avoided. Of other things impertinent, he bringeth us great store out of other men in the Defence, 
Defence. pag. 452.  but to this very reason wherein standeth the point, touching the maintenance, and preservation of unity, he saith nothing.   
Item there. jewel. 
That who so ever is divided from the Pope, must be judged an Heretic, and that without the obedience of him, there is no hope of Salvation. Confut. 306. b.  
Harding.  
Who so ever is divided not only from the Pope, but also from any other Catholic Bishop in faith, aught to be judged an Heretic. As touching obedience, 
johan. 21.  whereas by Christ he is commanded to Feed his Lambs, and his sheep, and thereby hath commission to govern them: how can he be saved from the ravening wolves, who through disobedience refuseth to come into that Fold, and to be fed, and guided of that high Pastor? I confess, that in certain cases besides faith, a man may disobey the Pope, and yet not be removed from all hope of salvation. My words for which you make so much a do, are these, uttered upon occasion of your Apology. 
Confut. fol. 306. b.  Ye put us in mind to consider, how that yourselves are those private hill Altars, and dark groves. For ye be they, that stop the people from the common Temple of Christendom, the Catholic Church, out of which is no salvation, the head whereof sitteth in Peter's Chair at Rome.   
Item there. jewel. 
And yet as though it were not sufficient for him so vainly to soothe a man in open errors, he telleth us also sadly, and in good earnest, that the same Bishop is not only a Bishop, but also a king. Confut. fol. 80. a. & 305. b.  
Harding.  
Neither have I in any place soothed the Pope in open Errors, but have granted, that certain Popes had their Errors, either before they were called to that room, or also afterward, holding them privately, and as private Doctors: 
That the Pope erreth, how is it denied.  But that by any public decree given out to be holden, and observed of the Church they ever maintained, or gave assent, or authority to any heresy, or error: I deny utterly, neither shall M. jewel, or any of his fellows what so ever, be able to prove the contrary.  
That any where I have told them, sadly, and in good earnest, that the bishop of Rome is a king, if he mean the express name of a King: I tell him here eftsoons, sadly, and in good earnest, and without Saulue la vostre, that it is a stark lie. 
Confut. fol. 280. a. The pope hath kingly power, yet is he no king.  In the first place of my Confutation by him quoted, I say, The pope hath a kingly power over his own subjects even in temporal things and now I tell you here for example, he hath it as Moses had: yet he taketh not upon him to be a King, nor challengeth unto him that title. Neither doth he in his own person, because he acknowledgeth himself to be no King, exercise the function and office of a King, but committeth such charge unto other Say persons. If ye envy the Pope his kingly power, and possessions, which he holdeth by right, beware, you be not at length thought unworthy, and removed from the lands of a Baron, and the Earledom of S. Osmunde, which you hold unduly. If that happen to come to pass, where then shall we find your good Lordship? In the other place of the Confutation, upon occasion given by words of the Apology, I say, that the Pope may rule temporally, 
Confut. fol. 305. b.  and more there say I not, touching this matter.   
Item there. jewel. 
That unto him belongeth the right of both sword, as well Temporal, as spiritual. Confut. fol. 247. b.  
Harding.  
What so ever I bring in my Confutation concerning both sword committed unto the Successor of S. Peter, it is S. Bernardes', it is not mine. Whereas the Apology maker, were it M. jewel, or who so ever it was (by the multitude of the light scoffs, it appeareth that he was the Penman of it, marry the stuff I hear say was gathered by the whole Brotherhead) whereas, I say, he steppeth forth very partly, and saith thus, 
Confut. fo. 247. a.  I have a special fancy to common a word or two with the Pope's good Holiness, and to say these things unto his own face, Tell us I pray you good holy Father, etc. Which of the Fathers ever said, that both the sword were committed unto you? To this question the answer I make in the Pope's behalf, is this.  

Confut. fo. 247. b. L. Si quis. C. d. test. Of the Pope's temporal Sword, De Considerate. li. 4 Math. 26.  Let S. Bernard writing to a Pope, answer for the Pope. He is a sufficient witness. Where yourself do allege him much against the Pope, you can not by the law justly refuse him, speaking for the Pope. The spiritual sword you deny not, I trow. Of the temporal sword belonging also to the Pope, thus saith S. bernard to Eugenius. He that denieth this sword to be thine, seemeth to me not to consider sufficiently the word of our Lord saying thus (to Peter thy predecessor) put up thy sword in the scabbard. The very same then is also thine, to be drawn forth perhaps at thy beck, though not with thy hand.  if the same belonged in no wise unto thee, where as the Apostles said, 
Lucae. 22. The Church hath both sword by S. Bernard.  behold there be two sword here: Our Lord would not have answered, it is enough, but it is to much. So both be the Churches, the spiritual sword, and the material. But this to be exercised for the Church, and that of the Church. That by the hand of the Priest, this of the soldier, but verily at the beck of the Priest, and commandment of the Emperor. Thus touching the Popes both sword you are fully answered by S. bernard. I trust you will not be so uncourteous, as to put him beside: nor so partial, as to allow him, when he seemeth, to make some show for you, and to refuse him, when he is found plain contrary to your false assertions.  
Upon this place of S. bernard M. jewel in the Defence, sitting forsooth, 
M. jewels grave sentence pronounced against S. bernard. Defence. pag. 528. Ibidem,  as it were upon the Bench like a judge, having power to give sentence, either of life, or of death, saith full gravely, and judgelike, and pronounceth this sentence. S. bernard saith, The Pope hath both sword. But S. Bernardes' authority in this case is but simple. But why I pray you Sir judge? Mark the cause, and profound reason of this judge. He lived (saith he) eleven hundred years after Christ's Ascension, in the time of King Henry the first the King of England, in the mids of the Pope's rout and tyranny.  
And shall we for this cause shake of S. bernard? Then why may we not as well sit in judgement upon M. jewel, and in like sort, but with more reason, pronounce this sentence? M. jewel saith, the body of Christ is not in the eucharist: the body, and blood of Christ are not to be adored in the Sacrament: The Church hath no external Sacrifice, no external Priesthood: Prayer made for the dead is vain and superstitious: There be not seven Sacraments, but only two, and by the same grace is not conferred or given, but only signified: The Pope is antichrist, and all that hold the old Faith of the Church, who are Papists, pertain to the Kingdom of antichrist, etc. But M. jewels authority in these cases is but simple. He lived almost sixteen hundred years after Christ, and is yet alive, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen of England, in the mids of the calvinists rout, and tyranny. The same sentence with a small change of words, may with like reason be pronounced upon Luther, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, Bucer, Caluine, Beza, Bawdy Bale, Hooper, Cranmare, and the rest of that wicked rout.  
It were a thing worthy to be known, why S. bernard should be condemned in respect of his age, and of the rout, which this man telleth us the Popes then bare, and these Apostates should be believed, and honoured with all men's assent yielded to their sayings and teachings, their age being four hundred years later, the tyranny, cruelty, villainy, and outrage, which in sundry places by them of that side is used, far surmounting any what so ever severity of government, which the Popes used in that time, their learning not equal with the learning of S. bernard, their wit much inferior to his, of either's virtue, and good life, what shall I speak? To compare theirs with his, it were a kind of blasphemy, so holy a Father was he, so dissolute Apostates are these.   
Item there. jewel. 
That all kings, and Emperors receive their whole power at his hand, and aught to swear obedience, and Fealty to the Pope. For these be his words, even in this b●rke so boldly dedicated unto your Majesty: It is a great eye soar, saith M. Harding, to the ministers of antichrist, to see the Vicar of Christ above Lords, and kings of this world, and to see Princes, and emperors promise, and swear obedience unto him. Confut. fol. 178. b  
Harding.  
That all Kings, and Emperors receive their whole power at the Pope's hand, I never said it, ne wrote it, nor that they ought to swear obedience, and Fealty unto him. These words are not to be found, neither in the places, which you have coted, nor in the whole Confutation else where. What, and how great obedience Christian Princes own unto the Church, and unto Christ's Vicar the chief Governor of the same, this is no place at large to discuss.  
The words that you allege, I acknowledge to be mine. If that, which there followeth be joined withal, the whole circumstance of my discourse declaring what is my meaning, considered: nothing shall seem said beside truth, or reason. After the words before rehearsed, immediately thus it followeth.  
But they, 
Confut, 178. b. It is no absurdity the shepherd to be in authority over the whole flock. Distinct. 96. C. du● sunt.  that are the faithful subjects of the Church of God, think it no absurdity, that the shepherd be set, not only above the Lambs, and Ewes of the Church, but also above the Weathers, and Rams themselves. It is a very great folly for them to find fault with the Superiority of the Bishop, of Rome, who can never prove that he is not the Vicar of Christ. If he were not his Vicar, yet being a Bishop, he is above any temporal Prince, concerning his priestly office. Lo M. jewel, by these, and other my words in that place, you might have seen, had you not bend your wit maliciously to stir her Majesty to hatred against us, what are the things, and causes, in which I report the Princes, and highest estates of the world, to stoop unto Christ's Vicar, and to promise him obedience. As for Homage and Fealty, such, as Vassals render unto their temporal Princes, in regard of temporal Dominion, whereof by sound of your speech you seem to mean, I spoke not one word. Is this the charity of your Gospel M. jewel, by such untrue means to incense the Prince against us?   
Item there, jewel. 
Whereas Pope Zacharias by the consent, or the conspiracy of the Nobles of France deposed Chilpericus, the true, natural, and liege Prince of that Realm, and placed Pipinus in his room: Lo, saith M. Harding, ye must needs Confess, that this was a divine power in the Pope: for otherwise he could never have done it. Thus much he esteemeth the dishonours, and overthrows of Gods anointed. Confut. Fol. 182. a.  
Harding.  
Nay rather Lo saith M. Harding, ye must needs confess, that M. jewel belieth him, and both untruly reporteth his words, and falsifieth that Story. For truly to speak, it was not Pope Zacharie, that deposed Childerike. Let it be weighed, what I say touching this matter answering to the objection, which the Apology maketh against the Popes in general. These be my words.  

Confut. Fol. 181. b. King Childerike of France deposed, and Pipine advanced to the crown.  If the Pope Zacharias deposed Childerike (for so I find him more commonly named) the king of France, only upon his own pleasure, or displeasure, as ye say, and placed Pipine for him: can ye tell that story, and not see, what a strength of authority is in that See, which is able with a word to place, and displace the mightiest king in Europe? With a word I say, for I am sure you can show us of no army, that he sent to execute that his wil Is that the power of a man trow ye, to appoint Kingdoms? Can the Devil himself at his pleasure set up, and depose Kings? No surely. And much less can any member of his do the same. Remember ye what Christ said, when the jews objected, that he did cast out devils, 
Math. 12.  in the name of the prince of devils? Beware ye sin not against the holy Ghost, who confess, that the Pope hath pulled down, and set up Kings. Which thing undoubtedly he could not do profitably, and peaceably, but by the great power of God. And yet did that line of Pipine, 
The prosperity of the line of Pipine and Charles surmounted all other. What did Pope zacharias in the deposing of king Childerike.  and Charles the great, which the Pope did set up, flourish above any other stock, that ye can name sense the inclination of the Roman Empire. Which in that transposed state of so great a Kingdom, maketh no obscure Argument of heavenly approbation, and divine providence.  
Neither did the Pope Zacharias depose Childerike, because he fancied him not, as ye slander, but only consented to lose his subjects from bond of oath made to him, at the general, and most earnest request, and suit of all the Nobility, and commonalty of the whole realm of France, 
What manner a man Childerike was.  finding him very unprofitable, and unmeet for the kingdom, as one who being of no wit, and therefore commonly named Stupidus, as much to say, a dolt, was altogether beside like a Sardanapalus, given wholly to belly cheer, and to filthy love of women. Therefore in your own words ye confess a divine power in the Pope, as by whom God directeth the wills of faithful princes on the earth. The more such examples ye bring, the worse ye make your cause. I would hire you to ease me of the labour of proving such a notable fact.  
You, that find so great fault with Pope Zacharias for consenting after a sort to the deposition of Childerike a beastly man, an unprofitable, and unworthy King of France, why do ye allow, cherish, and commend so much Christofer Goodman, and john Knox, with their fellows, and helpers, that were together at Geneva, for writing, enticing, and doing, what in their power did lie, to depose the noble, and lawful Queens of England, and Scotland, and with the Blasts of their traitorous Trumpets, to remove them from the right of their Crowns, and royal estates? Saith not Goodman, that Wyatt did his duty in taking Arms against Queen Marie, and that all such were Traitors, as deceived him, and took not his part? If all be rightly construed, the queens Majesty of England now being (I suppose) hath no great cause, 
Goodman's books named the first, and second blast against the monstrous regiment of women. Item an other, how to obey or disobey. With other the like firebrands of knoxe, and Gilbie. Goodman in the Treaty, how to obey, or disobey, pag. 204.  either to commend them for such seditious Blasts, or to like well of you, and your companions, for giving ear, wind, and favour to the blowing of the same. If Goodman had been Pope of Rome, as Knox, they say taketh upon him to be Pope of Scotland, o Lord what Counterblastes would ye, and your good fellow Trompeters e● this have blown up against him? Long ere this t●e whole world should have rung of it, and the pulpits, which ye use as your Horns, and Trumpets, should have stooncke of your breath. But it is well, that he hath a Good name, and is no Pope.   
Item there. jewel. 
Whereas also Pope Boniface the eight, for that he could not have the treasury of France at his commandment, endeavoured with all his both ecclesiastical, and worldly puissance, to remove Philip the French king from his estate, and under his Bulls, or letters patents, had conveyed the same solemnly unto Albertus the king of Romans: M. Harding here telleth your Majesty, that all this was well done, to the intent thereby to fray the King, and to keep him inawe, and to reclaim his mind from Dissobedience Confut. fol. 1●2. b.  
Harding.  
Neither was this the cause of Pope Bonifacius his falling out with the French king, that you assign, nor applied he all his both Ecclesiastical, and temporal power, to deprive the King of his Crown, nor ever said I, that all this was very well done, as you report. With so many Untruths you abuse the patience of her Highness. Let my words be weighed, as I uttered them myself, and then may it be judged, whether I answer to the slanderous objection of the Apology reasonably, or you out face the matter with lying falsely. These be my words. 
Confut. fol. 182. a. The causes of the strife between Philippus Pulcher, and Pope Bonifacius.   
Concerning that ye say of king Philip surnamed Le Bel, if we may believe Paulus AEmylius the best writer of the French Chronicles, the cause was such between Pope Bonifacius, and that King, that if he did not only excommunicate him, but also offered gift of his Kingdom to Albert the Emperor, as Platina your Author herein writeth: he may seem therein to have done not altogether so evil, as ye pretend. For as both AEmylius, and Platina do witness, the cause of their falling out was, that, whereas the Pope being first sued unto by Cassanus 
Cassanus.  a Christian Prince, and a great Conqueror in the East, to join with him for the recovery of the holy land, sent the Bishop of Apamea to the French King for his necessary aid in that so common a quarrel of all Christendom: he being offended, either that the suit was not first made to him, either for that the said Bishop had done his Ambassade with show of more authority, than the King thought it became him, or upon some other private grudge: did not only utterly refuse to send any help toward the voyage, but also contemptuously, beside common order, and cruelly, committed the Pope's legate to prison, and there kept him, until such time, as through the Popes Interdict, the King was compelled to set him at liberty. Now of giving away his kingdom, this chief French Historiographer maketh no mention. And if the Pope so did, why may he not seem to have done it rather to fear him, and to reclaim his mind from disobedience? Verily Platina writing it declareth, how before the Pope proceeded to that extremity, the French King did, what in him lay, to withdraw the people of France from the obedience of the Church, and See Apostolic. All these things with even judgement weighed, that Pope seemeth not so much worthy of the blame, which by your malign report ye charge him with, specially the occasion being first given of the kings unlawful demeanour. But what so ever may be judged hereof, yea though the Pope therein be without all excuse, what is that to you? How serveth it you to any colour of excuse of your Schism, and cutting of yourselves from the rest of Christendom Christ's mystical body?  
Thus there. And whereas M. jewel maketh so much ado about that, which in deed I said not, but which he untruly beareth the Reader in hand, I say, that is, that if the Pope gave away the kingdom of France from the Prince, he did it to th'intent to fray him, whereat he ieasteth in the Defence, saying, A pretty devise, to fray a king, to pull the Crown Imperial from his head: to this I answer. I spoke it not absolutely, but asked, why, if the Pope so did, the case being well weighed, he might not seem rather to have done it to fray him, and to reclaim his mind from disobedience, as by the event it was showed, that so he did.  
For the French King returning to obedience, and being reconciled, kept still the crown, notwithstanding that gift. And when so ever any Prince at other times revoked his evil purpose, and conformed himself to right, such gifts of titles were also eftsoons by the Popes revoked. In deed certain Popes used that practice, as a mean only to withdraw Princes from wicked attempts, and most commonly the same took good effect. I deny not, but some times, by such practice Princes were removed from their estate, and other enjoyed their rooms, but the same were such, as persevered incorrigible.   
Item there. jewel. 
Now touching your majesties noble progenitors, the kings of this realm, where as we, as our loyalty, and allegiance bindeth us, justly complain, that Pope Alexander. 3. by violence, and tyranny forced king Henry the second to surrender his crown Imperial into the hands of his Legate, and afterwards for a certain space to content himself in private estate, to the great indignation and grief of his loving Subjects: And that likewise Pope Innocentius the third stirred up the Nobles, and Commons of this realm against King john, and gave the inheritance, and possession of his dominions unto Ludovicus the French king (as for the misusing of your majesties most dear Father of most noble memory, king Henry the eight, for as much as the smart thereof is in fresh remembrance, I will say nothing) to these, and all other like tyrannical injuries, and just causes of grief, M. Harding shortly, and in light manner thinketh it sufficient to answer thus: what though King Henry the second were il entreated of Pope Alexander 3.? what though king john were il entreated of that zealous, and learned Pope Innocentius Tertius? What though King Henry the eight were likewise entreated of the Popes in our ti●es? Confut. fol. 340. a.  
Harding.  

Many, and sundry false parts practised by M. jewel at once.  Here all things are laid forth with Rhetorical amplifications to the most advantage, withal, many untrue parts be practised. The Popes are falsely belied, The wicked deeds of the Kings are craftily conceeled, My words are impudently falsified, My whole purpose and meaning is misconstrued, The end, for which I spoke thereof, drawn thereunto by special occasion ministered by the Apology, which was chiefly to be treated of, is not so much as with one word touched, My tale is cut of in the mids, and may not be suffered to be told out to the end. Now because there is no dealing with M. jewel, but the books, whence every thing is alleged, being laid open, and every place, that is handled turned unto (for there was never juggler that beguiled men's eyes, more with legerdemain, than he beguileth men's minds with his false sleights, if his words be simply believed) let my Confutation of the Apology be viewed, and there I shall be found, touching these odious points of these prince's Variance with the Popes of their time, to have uttered these words, far otherwise, than he here reporteth.  

Confut. fol. 339. b.  Concerning the case between these three Kings of England, and the Bishops of Rome for the time being, I say little. If they did well, and the bishops evil, they have their reward, the other, their punishment. If otherwise, or how so ever, each one at God's judgement shall have his deserved measure. But be it granted, all were true ye say, though we know the more part to be false. 
Henry the second. S. Thomas Arch bishop of Canturbury. King john.  What though king Henry the Second were evil entreated of Pope Alexander about the murdering of S. Thomas the archbishop of Canturburie, and King john likewise of that zealous and learned Pope Innocentius the third, about the stir he made against the Church for cause of Steven Lankton archbishop of Canturburie, 
Henry the .8. This is no just cause to forsake the Church.  King Henry the eight likewise of the Popes in our time, about matters yet fresh bleeding? Is this a good cause why ye (who have nothing to do with Prince's matters now ended and buried) should forsake the Church, change your Faith, change the whole order of Religion, and condemn all before your time for a thousand years?  
Because the Bishops of Rome have done evil, will ye give over the Faith of the Church of Rome? Because the Popes did wrong to Princes, will ye do wrong to yourselves? Because the Popes were at Variance with these three Kings, will ye be at Variance with God? Because they excommunicated them, will ye excommunicate yourselves? I have heard of a fool, that being stricken of one standing a loof of, would eftsoons strike an other, that stood next him. But I never heard of any so foolish, that seeing an other stricken, would therefore kill himself. Verily your Apostasy, and departing from the Catholic Church, is to weighty a matter, to be defended with so light a reason.  
Thou mayst see good Reader, that here I take not upon me in Defence of those Popes to answer unto these matters, nor shortly, as M. jewel saith, nor at length, nor in light manner, nor in sad manner: which matters he calleth Tyrannical injuries, and just causes of grief. The more clearly to show, how little good matter our new Usurping Clergy have to bring for the excuse, and Defence of the Alteration they have made in Religion, and of their Schism, and departing from the Catholic Church, because in their Apology they alleged these Practices of the Popes: only I demand (their tale for their better advantage being granted to be true, which yet I said expressly was known to be false for the more part) what relief their cause could have thereby, and how the evil doings of the Bishops of Rome (if it were granted they did evil therein) could be drawn to Defence of their own worse doing. To which demand M. jewel by his silence in his pretenced Defence maketh all the world witness, 
Defence Pag. 733.  how unable he is to answer. Howbeit in that place he useth his common sleight, by cutting away the chief part of my tale, wherein lieth the weight, and so dischargeth himself of the pains of answering. Any book may so soon be answered.  
Touching these Popes, and these Kings, when M. jewel, or any of his fellow Ministers, shall truly, and with sufficient reason prove unto us, that Henry the Second did well, when he gave occasion that the blessed Martyr S. Thomas archbishop of Canturburie was murdered, that all King john's attempts against the Church for cause of Steven Lankton archbishop and primate of the same province were just and right: and that King Henry the eight did well, and according either to the holy Scriptures, or doctrine of the ancient, and learned Fathers, when he took upon him to be Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England, immediately under Christ, which no temporal prince ever took upon him before: and likewise when for maintenance of the same title he hanged, headed, and quartered so many holy and learned men of all degrees, now blessed Saints, and crowned Martyrs in heaven: when I say, either he, or they, or any of them shall prove this much unto us, in such sort, as I said before: then will we say with them, o worthy Kings, o naughty Popes, yea then will we say too, o the crow is white. Nevertheless I do not here justify all the deeds of the Popes. But what so ever they did, that is no sufficient cause, why these men should forsake their Faith, and depart from the fellowship of the Church.   
Item there. jewel. 
But concerning the Majesty, and right of Kings, and Emperors, M. Harding telleth us, they have their first authority by the positive Law of Nations, and can have no more power, than the people hath, of whom they take their temporal jurisdiction. Confutat. Fol. 318. b.  
Harding.  
If I have herein spoken evil, give witness against me of evil. Ye would feign find a fault, I perceive, if ye wist wherein. You seem not well to understand, what you say, nor whereof you affirm. But you allege the Scriptures, Per me Reges regnant, 
prover. 8.  By me Kings do reign, And, there is no power but from God: very learnedly forsooth. As though the authority, 
Rom. 13.  that Princes have by the positive law of Nations, and the power, which they have of the people, were not of God, as who useth that mean to convey that power unto them.   
Item there. jewel. 
M. Harding even in the self same book, under certain general threats, chargeth your Majesty with disordered presumption, by the example of Ozias the wicked King, upon whom, as he untruly saith, God sent his vengeance for the like. Confut. fol. 298. a.  
Harding.  
You would feign the Queen's Majesty should conceive hatred against me, I perceive M. jewel, and thereto you apply all your skill, and cunning. But Sir, who deserveth more thanks at God, and the Princes for the time being, he, that telleth them the Truth, and in time giveth warning to beware of God's Vengeance, before it be to late: or he, that for his own worldly interest, holdeth his peace, and leadeth them into a wrong way, from the which if they return not back, they are sure at length to feel, either the temporal smart of God's Vengeance in this life, or the everlasting smart in the life to come? Ye flatter, ye flatter your Princes M. jewel, ye deceive them, ye blind them, ye work all means possible, that the Truth be not brought to their understanding, lest, were it known, and of them perceived, ye should be turned out of your wealthy rooms, and driven again to Geneva (I had almost said, Gehenna) from whence ye came. Certainly ye shut up the kingdom of Heaven from Princes, and others, so many as be so far accursed of God, as to believe your wicked generation, that ye neither entre in thither yourselves, nor suffer others to enter.  
The place where the words be, with which you would incense the Queen's wrath against me, hath no general threats, as you say, but contain such true matter, as I am not a shamed of: confute it, if you can: verily in your Defence ye have not done it.  
Ye confound (say I) the offices of the spiritual Governors, and temporal Magistrates. What Kings, 
Confut. fol. 298. a.  and Princes may do, what they be commanded to do, and aught of duty to do, in God's name let them do, and well may they so do. Who is he that gainesaith? If by the pretenced example of David, and Solomon, ye animate them to intermeddle with Bishoply offices, then beware they (say we) that God's Vengeance light not upon them for such wicked presumption, which lighted upon king Ozias for the like offence. 
2. Par. 26.   
I marvel you deny, that the Vengeance of God lighted upon king Ozias, for the like Presumption to that, whereunto by your monstrous law, and Doctrine ye animate your Princes. Which part deny you? That God's Vengeance lighted upon him? Or that the Presumption is like? For proof of the Vengeance, ye have the plain Scripture. 2. Paralip. 26. which saith, that, 
Ozias punished for presumption.  as he would have burned incense to our Lord at the Altar of the sweet perfume, which belonged to the office of the Priests only to do, a Lepre rose in his forehead, whereupon the Priests drove him out of the Temple, and he himself also made haste, that he were gone out, 
2. Par. 26  saith the text, eo quòd sensisset illicò plagam Domini, for that straight way he felt the plague of our Lord.  
Touching the Presumption, it is like. For in both it is an undue giving of adventure to do that thing, which belongeth to Bishoply, 
Priestly authority and power given unto the Queen by the Parliament.  and priestly office. And what is that which Bishops, and Priests may do, which ye have not by your Act of Parliament given the Queen authority to do? What power, or authority is excepted, where all things, and causes be expressed, where I say, by solemn oath taken before God and his holy Angels, ye bind men to acknowledge her for the chief and supreme Head (for by your new word, governor, ye take not away I trow the meaning of your former word Head) in all things and causes, as well spiritual, as temporal? Ye know, ye know M. jewel, this is a very large Commission for a woman to exercise in Christ's Church. Tell us not of your new devised Injunction, as for a poor shift ye are wont to do: so thin a cloak will not fence you against so great a storm of weather.  
Although the Queen that now is, have no great delight in the exercise of all manner such authority, as ye have put her in, yet what if after her time, there come in her place an other Prince, King, or Queen, of an other manner courage, and fancy, whom it shall like well sometimes for his pleasure, strange devotion, ambition, or pride, to do the office, which by law of your Parliament is committed unto him, 
2 Par. 26.  as it is written of king Ozias, that, when he became mighty, and of great power, his heart was lifted up, and he would needs do that, which belonged only to the priests office? If it shall like such a Prince, be he your Sovereign Lord, or Sovereign Lady, to go into your pulpits, and there after your manner to rave, and rail at the Pope, at the Papists, and to tell the people a piece of your lusty Genevian Gospel, whereby they may be stirred to allewdnesse, and carnal liberty: If I say, the Prince, that shall succeed the Queen that now is, shall take upon him so to do: what will ye say in this case M. jewel, and your good Brethren? Will ye come unto him, and tell him, Sir, if it like your Majesty, you may not so do? Will ye say, that it belongeth to you, and to such Ministers of the word, as you are, and to none else? Will ye resist him in that attempt, and drive him out of the Church, if by that time ye shall have any Church standing at all, as the Priests of jewrie resisted, and drove out of the Temple King Ozias? If your hearts shall serve you so to do, and he reply against you, saying, that by grant of your own Parliament (which is a most assured warrant) ye have given him the supreme power, authority, and government in all things and causes, as well spiritual, as temporal, and that therefore he will use, and practise such power, as he may by your own grant: what have ye then to say? Will ye then face him out with your pretty little worth Injunctions devised by two or three Ministers? Will that serve the turn trow ye? It will not, it will not, ye may be assured. Now let us hear with what other matter M. jewel chargeth me.   
Item there. jewel. 
Thus be saith unto your Majesty, and with all his skill and cunning, 
Confut. fol 277. Confut. fol. 328. a Confut. fol. 172. b rejoined. 314. Conf. 87. a Conf. 269. b Rei. 42. a. Conf. 43. a Conf. 269. a 323. b. 334. a. 338. a. 348. b. A bundle of Untruths.  laboureth to persuade your majesties Subjects, if any one, or other happily of simplicity will believe him, that the godly Laws, which your Majesty hath given us to live under, are ¹ no Laws: that your parliaments are ² no parliaments, that your Clergy, is ³ no Clergy, our Sacraments, no ⁴ Sacraments: our Faith, no ⁵ Faith: The Church of England, whereof your Majesty is the most principal, and Chief, he calleth a ⁶ malignant Church a new Church erected by the d●●il, a Babylonical Tower a Herd of antichrist, a Temple of Lucifer, a synagogue, and a School of Satan, full of Robbery, Sacrilege, Schism, and Heresy.  
Harding.  
First, that I say thus unto the queens Majesty, it is a gross, and a palpable lie, and a lie in sight. For all know, that read my Confutation, that in my book I directed not my words unto the Queen, but unto M. jewel, and unto his companions, that conferred with him towards the making of the Apology.  
That I say in my Confutation, The Laws made in the queens time, be no Laws, it is an other lie.  
That I say, The parliaments, be no parliaments, it is likewise an other lie.  
That I say, The queens Clergy, is no Clergy, although I said it not, (and so is it the fourth lie) yet here I may say, it is a very womanly Clergy, if it be a Clergy at al.  
That I say, Their two Sacraments, are no Sacraments, 
The Faith of Heretics, not Faith, but perfidy.  it is the fifth lie. Sacraments they may be, though Schismatical, Heretical, corrupt, and polluted Sacraments. The manner of the ministration of them, I utterly condemn.  
That I say, Their Faith, is no Faith, it is the sixth lie. I confess it to be a Faith touching the points, wherein they agree with the catholic Church. In the other points, I say, it is no Faith, but error and heresy. Albeit, Arius the heretic had a Faith, Eunomius had a Faith, Nestorius, Euctyhes, Sabellius, Photinus, Apollinaris, briefly all Heretics had their Faiths, but all were false Faiths, as much to say, no Faiths, but (as the Latins call it) Perfidia. M. jewel, for some show of upright dealing, hath filled his margin in this place with cotations as thick as they may stand one by an other, directing the reader to my books. If it shall please the reader diligently to peruse the places, both in my Confutation, and in my Rejoinder, he shall try him to be, as he is every where, a false, and a shameless liar.  
As for the queens Laws, 
The queens Laws, and parliaments.  and parliaments for change of Religion, and Faith, what have I to do with them, whether they be laws, and parliaments, or no? Be they, as they be. It is not my profession to discuss that matter. If there be any that doubt thereof, let the learned men of law be demanded their opinion. If they will not, or if they be loath to speak what they think, let the question be differred, until the time come, that M. jewel, and I shall be placed, where we shall no more contend about the authority of man's laws, 
2. Cor. 5.  but shall each of us receive according to that we have done in our bodies, that is to say, accordingly as we have in our doctrine, and life either kept, or broken Gods laws. The age to come perhaps, shallbe able to say more therein, than this present time. It is an old said saw, Filia temporis Veritas: Truth is the daughter of time. Let us not trouble ourselves about this odious question M. jewel I pray you, but refer it over to the time to come. Yet because in your pretenced Defence ye bear men in hand, that I seem to say, 
Defence. pag. 595.  that the Parliament holden in the first year of the queens majesties reign, was no Parliament, for that the Bishops refused to agree unto the statute made for change of Religion: I will here truly lay forth my words, in which you avouch, I seem so to say, that it may appear to all men, what a quarreler you are. These be my words.  

Confut. fol. 276 a.  Where have ye treated of your matters? That matter hath been treated (say ye) in open Parliament, with long consultation, and before a notable Synod, and Convocation. First in what Parliament? Mean ye the first of our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth? or any of those of king Edward the sixth his days? etc. If ye mean, (as by reason you must) the parliaments of these later days, the first of all did make most for you, and yet how open was it for you? Had ye any place at all in it? Were ye admitted within the doors? Or had ye any thing to do in that assembly? Consider then with what Consultation your purposes were concluded. Did they tarry many months about it? Had they Bishops? Had they Divines, and the most learned, to reason too and fro with all liberty? Was the authority of the Universal Church of Christ, and the doctrine of the Ancient Fathers considered? Ye say in Latin, Plenis Comitijs, that is, in the full and whole assembly, as though none at all had there resisted, but every man had yielded to your matters. What say ye then of the Spiritual Lords a great part of the Parliament, and without all doubt the part, which must be chief, and only regarded, when the Question is of Religion? How many of them gave their voice to your Gospel? Yea which of them all did not resist it? etc. As of the Spiritual Lords ye had none at all, so of the Temporal ye had not all: and so had ye also in the lower house very many, and well learned, that spoke against you. 
* These words following M. jewel nipt away in the Defence.  And more would, had conscience been as free, as authority was dreadful. And yet, call ye this, a full Parliament, and a Parliament, which had all his parts wholly favouring you? *  
Upon these words M. jewel maketh much a do in the Defence, as if I had denied that Parliament, to be a Parliament, for lack of the bishops consent. But whether I said so or no, let these mine own words before rehearsed, be the trial.  
Touching the matter itself, he saith (how truly, I doubt) that in the parliaments of England for any Statute to be lawfully enacted, the consent of archbishops, and Bishops hath not been thought necessary, 
Defence pag. 595.  and that matters have passed only by the more part of voices, yea although (these be his very words) all archbishops, 
Defence. Ibidem.  and Bishops were never so earnestly bend against it. And yet he saith further (whereat I marvel) that Statutes so passing only by the voices of the Lords Temporal, though the Lords Spiritual dissent never so much, have nevertheless always been confirmed, enacted, and published under the names of the Lords Spiritual, and Temporal. If it be so, than I perceive, it faith with the lords Spiritual, as it faith with me. For as M. jewel hath published, and said many things under my name, that I never said, nor meant, to th'intent to discredit me, if any happily be so simple that will believe him: So by this tale, laws be published under the name of archbishops, and Bishops, who are the Lords Spiritual, unto which they never gave their assent, but contrary wise, earnestly dissented.  
What this is to be called in the Statutes of the Realm, I know not, but in the writings of private men, such as Master jewels, and mine are, this practice of fathering words and sayings upon a man, which he never said, nor wrote, is accounted unlawful, and false, and commonly is named forgery, falsifying, and belying, the chief flowers, wherewith M. jewel always decketh his garland.  
He referreth me for further proof of this matter to the Records of a Parliament, holden by king Edward the first at S. edmund's Bury, the archbishops, and bishops being (as he saith) quite shut forth, 
Anno Domini. 1296  where (he telleth me) it is written thus. Habito Rex cum suis Baronibus Parlamento, & Clero excluso, statutum est etc. The king keeping the Parliament with his Barons, the Clergy (that is to say, the archbishops, and Bishops) being shut forth, it was enacted etc. Perhaps the inferior Clergy was excluded, who as I have heard Lawyers say, in old time came to the parliaments, and had their place in the lower house. But that the archbishops, and Bishops were excluded, thereof I doubt.  
Item (saith he) in the time of king Henry the third a statute touching the legitimation of Bastards, 
An. 1273. In provisione de Martona. cap. 9  paste wholly with the Lords Temporal, whether the Lords spiritual would, or no: yea, and that contrary to the express Decrees, and Canons of the Church of Rome. All these things, saith he, the wise and learned could soon have told me. And feign would I know of the wise and learned in deed, whether all these things be true, or other wise. Verily for my part I have great cause to doubt. If an other man had said them, I should rather have believed them: As for M. jewel, I have so generally found him false in reporting all men's sayings, which I examine by their books, that I see good cause to misturst him every where, when so ever I lack the books, from whence he bringeth his allegations. And although all that here he reporteth touching this matter, were truly reported, yet thereby it is not proved, that all was lawfully, and well done. But hereof, as I said before, I refuse to entre dispute.  
But now whereas M. jewel committeth Religion, and all matters touching Faith, unto the Lords Temporal, and Commons assembled in parliament, and will that all orders and Statutes by them made and enacted concerning the same, stand for good and lawful, though the Bishops descent never so much: By this he maketh the Faith, not a Standard to measure our opinions, and judgements by, as it ought to be, but he maketh the wills and fancies of the Lords, the Standard, whereby to measure our Faith. 
Faith made changeable according to the change of times.  And so the Faith shallbe changeable according to the change of times. For whereas all men know, in how few things the Lords descent from the will and pleasure of the Prince: who seeth not, how thus it may come to pass, that our Religion, and Faith shall change at the pleasure of every Prince for the time being, and that so at length we shall have no stable Religion, nor Faith at all? If M. jewel will say, it behoveth all men to know God's word, and not to suffer themselves to yield unto any thing, that is not allowed thereby: what remedy can be provided against all error, when Princes, and Lords shall find such Doctors, and Preachers, as M. jewel is, who shall easily persuade the people, that to be the meaning of God's word, by which the Princes, and Lords may acheeve their desires? But hereof I shall perhaps have occasion to speak more hereafter.  
Now whereas he complaineth so grievously of me, for that I call their Church, I mean them that made the Apology, and their favourers, a malignant Church, a new Church erected by the Devil, a babylon Tower, a heard of antichrist, a Temple of Lucifer, a synagogue, a School of Satan, full of Robbery, Sacrilege, Schism, and Heresy: If he, his fellows, and their followers will repent them heartily, and unfeignedly of their errors, and heresies, and return home again unto the Catholic Church: if they will cease to divide, and scatter abroad with the devil the author of division, and gather together with Christ, and repair unity: if they will leave the manifold, and absurd confusion of opinions and doctrines, which their sundry sects do profess, and maintain stubbornly: if they will leave to prepare a way for antichrist, by their evil doctrine leading the world to all liberty of the flesh: if they will call to God for grace, and dispose themselves to humility: if they will at length hear the Catholic Church, if they will acknowledge their wicked doctrine against the daily Sacrifice, to proceed out of Satan's School, as it is confessed by Luther himself: if they will not maintain their Robberies, and Spoils of Churches, as just deeds: if they will forsake their Incestuous, and Sacrilegious Marriages: Briefly if they will amend wherein they have offended: I will gladly revoke those words, and how so ever in respect of time past, they have deserved so to be spoken of, I will speak of them no other wise, then of the Children of the Church, then of our dear brethren, then of God's friends.  
Thus I have answered the chief parts of M. jewels epistle to the queens Majesty, and by repeating mine own words (which I was forced to do) I have showed evidently to the Readers eye, how shamelessly he belieth me, and my Treaties. Whereof the Reader may take a view, and so judge, what credit he deserveth in the rest of his Defence. As for the rest of his epistle, consisting wholly of flattery, I think not worth the answering.  
Neither hath he used any more truth in his Preface to the Christian Reader, and in his Epistle to me set at the end of his Defence: where he filleth his magent with great numbers of Quotations, pretending thereby the absurd, and untrue points in the Text reproved to be found in the Treaties, which so busily he quoteth. Now if I should in likewise answer to every such part in the said Preface, and Epistle contained, by these few it may appear, to what hugeness my book would grow, and of the whole what unprofitable matter would rise, sooth none other, but a continual and loathsome declaration of his untrue dealing in one sort or other. But for so much as the same is by this brief Answer to his Epistle dedicatory already sufficiently discovered: that other labour may seem needless. As we find him in this, so we find him in the rest, though otherwise not very constant, yet in the rate of his writing one manner a man, that is to say, one, that every where maketh his only advantage of lies, falsifyings, and corruptions.    

How unjustly M. jewel objecteth sharp speech, and uncourteous words unto his Adversary, and how just cause there was, that such order of speech should be used. The .2. Chapter.  
GEntle Reader, consider I pray thee indifferently, how the case standeth betwixt M. jewel and me. Before he entereth into his Defence of the Apology, between his Epistle to the queens Majesty, and his Preface to the Reader, he hath extraordinarily inserted four leaves. In which he laboureth all that he can, to perform two things, to discredit me, and to advance his own credit. To bring this to pass, First, he accuseth me, next, he excuseth himself. He accuseth me of uncourteous Words, he excuseth himself, of fowl Untruths, setting forth a colourable View of a few of the same. How reasonably he doth the one, and how sufficiently the other: by that I shall here declare, thou mayst judge.  
First, touching words, Where so ever godly zeal, and just grief moved me to use sharp speech, albeit nowhere I use so sharp, as the indignity of the thing required: of all those places he hath caused certain my words to be culled out, and to be laid together, as it were in a table before the Reader. And because he would not seem scornful, even there reproving me for the same, he calleth them forsooth, certain principal flowers of M. hardings modest speech. And lest he should at any time leave his common custom of falsifying all that he taketh in hand, even here also he playeth that part as kindly, as any where else. For although some such words or, the like be in deed found in my writings against him, yet they bear not such an owgly and loathsome vizard, as he putteth on them. As for example, whereas sometimes for good cause I can not find in my heart, to call these men's rash Innovation of the ancient religion, their wicked abrogation of certain Sacraments, their vile profanation of the rest, their horrible contempt of the body and blood of Christ in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, whereas I say, I can not find in my heart to call these things, Godly procedings, restoring of the Gospel, the sincere word, the right Ministration of the lords Supper, as they would all men to call them, but contrariwise Devilish spite, wickedness, and villainy: to cause the matter to seem more odious, he reporteth my words thus, your Devilish spite, your Devilish wickedness, your Devilish villainy, &c: as though I had spoken them to him, and to his fellows specially, whereas for the more part such words are spoken (not in the second, but in the third person) of the Heretics of our time indefinitely, and in general. Which nevertheless if I had spoken unto him, and them directly, it had been no grievous sin, their desert considered.  
For therein had I followed the counsel, which S. Antony that blessed man gave unto his Scholars a little 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. Avoid the poisons of Heretics, and follow the hatred that I have borne them. Ye know, that I had never any peaceable talk with them. How so ever it be, it had been M. jewels part, to have used more truth in his writing.  
But why did he not set forth my whole sayings, where such words be placed? What reason is it, a man to burden his Adversary with certain words only, and with silence to dissemble his entiere sentences? By what laudable example hath he done thus? Which of the old Fathers, ever did so? If no man ever did it before these days, then, so far as the Catholic Church hath not erred in Faith, and hath no need now to receive a new Gospel of Luther, Zuinglius, or Caluine: by this practice, he showeth himself, aswell a follower of the inventors of new malice, as a maintainer of new Heresies.  

Brentius the first author of this new devise, of laying the adversaries sharp words together in one heap, practised by M. jewel.  
This devise of laying together in a heap all the sharp words, with which one feeleth himself pricked, culled out of the adversaries writings, is very strange and new, and before this age, which bringeth forth many rare novelties, was never used of any learned man. In our time it is begun, and for aught I know, first practised by Brentius, who in the beginning of his book against Bullinger, entitled, Recognitio propheticae & Apostolicae doctrinae, &c: written in defence of his new doctrine of Ubiquity, layeth together in a heap all the words, that Bullinger had uttered in his book against him, which might seem sharp, rough, and ungentle: so softly must these men now be handled, after that they have spent all their intemperate railing upon the Pope, the Papists, the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, the daily Sacrifice, the other Sacraments, and the godly Ceremonies of holy Church. Wherefore M. jewel is not like to have the glory of this new devise: he must be content to yield it unto john Brentius, whose ape and follower he is in this, as in many other points worthy of small praise.  
Now if Bullinger the grand Captain of the Sacramentaries, of which sect M. jewel is a professed maintainer, thought it not unseemly for the gravity of his Ministership, to be so plain with Brentius, as to put him in mind sometimes of his deserved titles, by saying, he was, Rixator, Spiritus inflatus, Calunniator, etc. a Branler, 
In Responsione Brentij ad primam partem Bullingeri. pag. 8. &. 9  a pufte Spirit, a spiteful speaker, a skoffer, a mocker, a Hickescorner, a perverter, a liar, unclean, impudent, a babbler, a brabbler, a craker, a thrower of Christ out of his heavenly seat, mad, light, childish, a jangler, a reviler, a slanderous person, an Eutychian, a Sophiste, a railer, worse than Swenckefeldius himself: Again, if he thought it not discommendable in himself being the chief superintendant of Zurich, to call Brentius book written in defence of that new heresy, Brentianas' nebulas, figmenta. etc. The mists and devices of Brentius Head, vain, and peevish ●oies, knavish follies, a doctrine dissolving the hope of the faithfulles assured salvation in heaven, a madness, a fantasy, Sophistry, crafty fetches, most false devices, a feeble write, Sophisms, guiles, a book of Riddles, a fabulous monster, a Sophistical egypt, stinking trifles prodigious Ubiquity frantic words, &c: If Bullinger I say, one of your noblest Worthies, thought it not unseemly for his degree and state, to use such bitter eloquence, and order of speech in reproving Brentius, and was never, and, it is like, should never have been reproved for it among them of your own sacramentary Sect M. jewel: why are you so heavy a Master to me, whom you esteem much less, than Henry Bullinger the Successor of your great Patriarch Zuinglius in the chair of your doctrine at Zurich, as to blame that in me, which you could not find in your heart to disallow in Bullinger? Well how so ever in please you favourably to judge of your own great Masters, and lay load of reproaches upon me: yet this much you may call to your consideration.  
Words considered alone without composition, sound good, or evil, according to their signification: and all manner of words may be used without blame. Of the sentences, and whole sayings only, where the circumstance may be considered and weighed, fair, or fowl speech is conceived. Now if thou wilt take the pains Reader, to turn to the places of my books, whence M. jewel hath picked out those words, for use of which he reproveth me, as a man of uncourteous utterance: thou shalt right well perceive (in case heresy have not utterly bewitched thine understanding, and bereaved thee of all judgement) the verdure of my speech to be such, as may seem convenient for a vessel of the holy Ghost to taste of.  
It may please M. jewel to consider, that by degree of School, and by lawful calling otherwise, I stand in the place of teachers. And therefore though at this present the pulpit be denied me, yet I find not myself wholly so discharged of the office of teaching. Now having no other convenient mean to teach, but by writing: what ought I at this time to write rather, than Confutations of his, and his fellows false doctrine, and Defences of the Catholic Faith? Whereas this much I could not do, but that it behoved me to deal with him, who above all others most busily impugneth God's truth, and consequently with those of his side: I thought it not good, for ryving of hard blocks, to use soft wedges.  
And though I had little hope by any way to rive a sunder the hard knot, wherein their hearts, and Heresy are fast grown together: yet that some others by them enuegled might be brought to a better mind, who not being so desperate, be nevertheless hardly withdrawn from their errors, by reason of long custom, and carnal liberty by the same maintained: I judged the style and order of writing, that I have used, to be most profitable for their behalf. For they seeing the Captains of deceivers so with just sharpness rebuked, and their Heresies with deep strokes so deadly wounded, will the rather be induced to abhor their former errors, to bethink themselves, and by their reproof, learn to amend their own faults as oftentimes young Princes, and noble children be corrected, with beholding correction ministered to other children of base condition.  
Howbeit, if all should be accounted to use uncivil, and uncourteous speech, out of whose writings such words may be gathered, as M. jewel reproveth in me: I know not, what Doctor, what Father my escape that reproach. Neither S. Cyprian wrote all things so Martyrlike, nor S. Basil so meekly, nor S. Ambrose so gravely, nor S. Chrysostom so sweetly, nor S. Augustine so temperately, nor S. Gregory so humbly: but with search, no small multitude of such words might easily be found in their learned and godly works, with no less vehemency of spirit uttered against Heretics, and other wicked persons. What shall I say of S. Hierom, whose utterance against Heretics of less malice, and against other men of more honesty, than these men are of, is such, that to many he seemeth to thunder, and to lighten, rather than to speak?  
But what speak I of men? I report me to those that have perused the books of the old, and new Testament, whether the like tokens of earnest zeal, and just grief, be not oftentimes found in the Prophets, and the Apostles themselves, who were the Secretaries of the holy Ghost.   

Sundry words found in the holy Scripture of more Sharpness, than they are, which M. jewel reproveth in me.  
The words of the Psalms be not unknown to many.  

Psal. 13.  They be abominable in their studies, saith the Prophet.  

Psal. 13.  Under their lips lieth the Poison of Serpents.  

Psal. 13.  Their throat is like an open Sepulchre.  
Their words be darts. Psal 54.  
Down to hell with them whiles they be alive. Ibid.  
Their teeth are arrows, their tongue is a sharp sword. Psa. 56.  
They are become like Serpents. Psal. 57  
They have whetted their tongues like Serpents. Psal. 139.  
The poison of the Aspis is under their lips. Ibid.  
Thou hast spoken like a fool, said job to his wife. job. 2.  
According to his name, he is a fool, said Abigail of her Husband Nabal. 1. Reg. 25.  
Thou hast played the fool, said Samuel to king Saul. 1. Re 13  
The number of fools is infinite. Eccle. 1.  
Thou liest in the head, said Daniel to the wicked judge. Daniel 13.  
The Prophets are like roaring Lions, and the Princes be Wolves catching their prey. Ezechiel. 22.  
The Princes be like roaring Lions, and the judges be Wolves. Sophon. 3.  
Thy Prophets Israel be like Foxes in the wilderness. Eze. 13  
Woe be to the sinful nation, people laden with iniquity, the wicked brood, mischievous children, said isaiah. Esa. 1.  
O my people, ribalds oppress thee. Esaie. 3.  
Again, o ye Princes of Sodom, o ye people of Gomorrha, said he. Ibid.  
They are become rank Staliens, they neigh, each one at his neighbour's wife, saith jeremy. jeremy. 5.  
O thou Canaan's brood, and not sprung of juda, o thou old thief, said Daniel to the ungodly judge. Dan. 13.  
The children of the devil came out of thee, saith Moses. Deuter. 13.  
The men of Gabaa were the children of the Devil. jud. 19  
One of the Daughters of Belial. 1. Reg. 1.  
The sons of the Devil. 1. Reg. 10.  
A man of the Devil named Siba. 2. Reg. 20.  
Many Dogs have becompassed me about, saith David of Christ. Psal. 21.  
Save my life from the hand of the Dog. Ibid.  
They are dumb Dogs, that can not bark. isaiah. 56.  
As a Dog that returneth to his Vomit, so is a fool that doubteth his folly. prover. 26.  
He that holdeth an ill woman, taketh a Scorpion, saith the Wiseman. Eccle. 26.   

Sharp, and bitter words uttered in the new Testament.  
But now let us see, whether we may not find speeches of like vehemency and sharpness in the new Testament, where the grace of the holy Ghost is showed more abundantly. If it be much to call a man a beast, what is it to call men Vipers, Wolves, Foxes, Dogs, Swine?  
O ye Progeny of Vipers, said S. john the Baptist to the Scribes and Saducees. Matth. 3.  
O ye Serpents and Viper's brood, said Christ himself to the Scribes and Pharisees. Matth. 23.  
O generation of Vipers, said the blessed baptist to the people, as S. Luke reporteth. Luke. 3.  
Inwardly they are ravening Wolves, saith Christ of false Preachers. Matth. 7.  
Ravening Wolves shall enter in amongst you, saith S. Paul. Act. 20.  
I send you forth as sheep among Wolves, said Christ to the Apostles. Matth. 10.  
Say unto that Fox, quod Christ of Herode. Luke. 13.  
give not a holy thing to Dogs. Matth. 7.  
It is not good to give the children's bread to Dogs, said Christ. Matth. 15.  
Have an eye to the Dogs, saith S. Paul. Philip. 3.  
Like a Dog that cometh again to his Vomit, saith S. Peter. 2. Pet. 2.  
Cast not your pearls before Swine, saith Christ. Matth. 7.  
Like a Swine wallowing again in the dirt, saith S. Peter. 2. Pet. 2.  
Go behind me Satan, said Christ to Peter his Apostle. Math. 16.  
Many young women are turned back, and gone after Satan. 1. Tim. 5.  
Satan dwelleth among you. Apocalyp. 2.  
The synagogue of Satan. Apocalyp. 3.  
The Devil taketh away the word out of their heart. Luke. 8.  
One of you is a Devil, said our Lord of judas. joan. 6.  
Ye are of your Father the Devil, it was said to the jews. joan. 8.  
The children of the Devil are manifest, saith S. john. 1. johan. 3.  
The Ministers of Satan. 2. Cor. 11.  
They are holden captive of the Devil at his wil 2. Timoth. 2.  
O full of all deceit, o thou son of the Devil, said S. Paul to Elimas. Act. 13.  
False Prophets, lying Masters, they deny God, they buy and sell you, they are like unreasonable beasts, they have their eyes full of adultery, they follow the way of Balaam of Bosor, fountains without water, clouds tossed with the winds. etc. 2. Petr. 2.  
Disobedient, vain janglers, deceivers of minds, abominable, to all good work reprobates. Tit. 1.  
Ye are like to whitted Sepulchres. Matth. 23.  
Liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. Tit. 1.  
God shall strike thee thou painted wall, said S. Paul to Ananias. Act. 23.  
O ye foolish Galathians. Galat. 3.  
False Apostles, guileful workers. 2. Cor. 11.  
The enemies of the Cross of Christ, whose belly is their God. Philip. 3.  
O ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in hearts and ears, ye have ever resisted the holy Ghost, said S. Steven unto the jews. Act. 7.  
As jannes', and jambres withstood Moses, so these withstand the truth. 2. Tim. 3.  
high minded, proud, blasphemous. Ibidem.  
Their word creepeth forth like a canker. 2. Tim. 2.  
Their tongue is full of deadly poison. jacob. 3.  
These Dreamers defile the flesh, despise rulers, and speak evil of them that are in authority. judae.  
As beasts, which are without reason. Woe be unto them. For they have followed the way of Cain, and are utterly given to the error of Balaam for lucre's sake, and perish in the treason of Chore. Ibidem.  
Why tempt ye me ye hypocrites? said Christ. Matth. 22  
Woe be unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. Mat. 23  
Woe be unto you blind guides. Ibid.  
O ye fools, and blind. Ibid.  
hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then, etc. Matth. 7.  
It were not hard Christian Reader, here to lay forth a greater heap of words gathered out of the Scriptures, which M. jewel reproveth in me, as uncourteous, and uncivil, and proceeding altogether of choler. But these few may suffice for show, that if we consider words only, and not the Circumstance of the sentence, and the just cause why they were with such vehemency uttered: the holy Ghost may seem also chargeable of uncourteous and uncivil speech, by whose prompting the Scriptures of God have been written.  
If the matter of M. jewels grievous accusation depend of words considered in themself only, the Scriptures have words, that being put a part, sound more roughly, than any yet by the written, or by him noted. And so far is that pretenced fault in both Testaments, no less then in my books. But if all be to be weighed by the sentences, wherein such words be placed, and by the desert of them in whose reproof they be uttered, as reason is it should: then I appeal to all men of judgement, the due circumstances, and causes well considered, whether I have at any time passed the bounds of a zealous defender of the Catholic Religion, whereof I make profession.   

That the use of sharp speech is convenient according to the desert of M. jewel, and of his fellows.  
LEt the rehearsal of my whole sentences with their circumstance, in which the words be found that do so much offend, be differred until anonne. And here to turn thy tale unto you M. jewel, and unto your fellows, let it be lawful for me to come unto the causes, by which I was justly moved so to write, and to the very things themself, for which ye deserve so to be written of, 
The odds betwixt M. jewel and them of his side, and us.  and with such courtesy of words to be greeted.  
Who be you M. jewel? and who be they of your side? Who am I, or rather, who are we? For of myself I am content no account be made, but only as I apply mine endeavour to defend the Church, and the Catholic Faith by you impugned. As for us, say the worst ye can of us, we are Catholics. By your own confession, your doctrine hath not been in all Churches, at all times taught, and therefore ye have told us, we know not what of your Church, that it is invisible secret, unknown, and lurketh in corners, no man can tell where: and therefore ye are not Catholic.  
We remain in that we have received, ye are departed from that ye received. The doctrine for which ye make such stir, is it not openly known to all, from what men ye had it, and how late ye learned it? Where was this fifth Gospel, so much as whispered in any known corner of the world, before that lewd Augustine Friar Martin Luther broke his vow, ran out of his Cloister, and yoked himself to his wanton Nun?  
Where was your sacramentary doctrine preached, before Friar Huskin, that new named himself Oecolampadius, likewise broke his solemn promise to God, forsook his Religion, and coupled himself to a young yoke fellow? Before their time, who heard the sound of your Gospel? Where had ye any Diocese, any Bishop, any Church, any Priest, any Chapel, any so much as a Parish Clerk in the whole world?  
Tell us not, as ye are wont, of Wiklef, Huss, Jerome of Prague, Berengarius, Bertram, and a few other, which were but biles and botches in the Church, and be in no wise worthy the name of Church. forget not what you say in your Apology: that Luther, and Zuinglius, came first to the Gospel. Remember ye call that time, the first appearing the spring, and the first grass, as it were, of your Gospel. If it be so, how be ye Catholic? or how be ye of the Catholic Church, which is so called in respect of the universality of times, 
Vincentius Lirinen.  places and persons? As for us on the otherside, we are able to show you the continuance of our faith and Doctrine, by orderly successions of Bishops, going upward, even from those learned and holy Fathers, whom for none other cause, but only for the Catholic Faith of Christ's Church, most unjustly ye keep in Prison, to S. Gregory, who sent godly Preachers to convert the English people of our country unto the Faith of Christ, and from S. Gregory further upward unto S. Peter, and S. Paul, that preached the Faith in Rome, and consequently unto Christ himself.  
If we would speak unto you in the person of the Catholic Church, whereof we are a part, we might say unto you those words of Tertullian spoken to Heretics: Mea est possessio, olim possideo, prior possideo, 
Tertul. li. Prescript. adversus haereticos.  habeo origines firmas ab ipsis authoribus, quorum fuit res. Ego sum haeres Apostolorum. The Scripture, and the right sense of the Scripture is my possession, I am in possession of old, I claim possession by former right, 
The Church continueth to the worlds end, without all intermission. Matt. 28: johan. 14  I have the assured originals from the first authors, by whom it was set forth. It is I, that am the Apostles heir.  
The Church M. jewel, as ye ought to know, continueth from Christ's Ascension unto the end of the world, without intermission, and without exception of any age or years. Will ye have us prove it? What can we say, if ye will not believe Christ, nor God himself? I will be with you (saith Christ) all days unto the end of the world. Again: I will beseech my Father, and he shall give you an other comforter, to remain with you for ever the Spirit of truth, which the world can not receive. God saith to Christ in isaiah, 
isaiah. 5●.  This is my covenant with them: my spirit which is in thee, and my words, that I have put in thy mowth, shall not depart from thy mowth, and from the mowth of thy seed, and from the mowth of thy seeds seed, from this time for ever.  
Lo here ye hear, both the words of God, and the Spirit of truth, by whom the words may be rightly understanded, promised to remain with the Church for ever. Thus we are well assured, that the Church hath never failed nor wanted God's word, god's Spirit, and God's truth. But ye my Masters of the new learning do say, that the Church failed, and was destitute of God's word, and of his spirit of Truth, for the space of nine hundred years and more, until Martin Luther came, and restored the lost Gospel. By virtue of which Gospel never preached before, ye claim the right of the Church, and so would dispossess us, wherein of necessity ye must grant one of these two: either that Christ the Son of God, promised more, than he performed, which were heinous blasphemy: or that your Church hath continued till this day, and shall continue to the worlds end.  
If to eschew the reproach of so wicked a blasphemy, ye grant the continuance of your Church, ye must tell us, where it was before Luther began to preach that ye call the Gospel. Name the place, where was it? Or was it somewhere without a place? Dic quibus in terris, & eris mihi magnus Apollo. If it were at all, where were your Bishops? What were their names, or were they men without names? Bring forth your Originals, your Registers, your Rolls of Bishops, that followed one after an other by lawful succession. For this were a sure way for proof of your right, 
Tertull. In prascript. Optatus. August.  much commended and used of the best learned Fathers. Your Acts and Monuments, where be they? Have ye none of greater antiquity, than those late of Foxes making?  
If ye had a continual succession, how came Luther, and Zuinglius first to the Gospel? how, was all the light quite out before? how, were all the fonteines of the water of life utterly dried up before his time? for so ye writ in your Apology. This, this can not stand together M. jewel, by no means, as all the world may see. So than it is, we keep our ancient Possession, ye heave and shove to remove us from it. We be of the household, ye are strangers. We are the heirs of the Apostles, ye are foreigners. We are the lawful Children of the Church, ye are Bastards: to be short and plain, whereas we are Catholics, what followeth, but that ye be Heretics?  
The case standing thus, what great offence have I committed, if where I defend the common cause of the Church, being moved with due zeal, and just grief of mind, to see your ungodly dealings, I forget sometimes the flattering Titles, wherewith ye would your proceedings to be magnified, and use words more agreeable to your deserts? O ye say, I use uncourteous, and uncivil speech.  
Why sir, if ye skreake like Frogs, must we say, ye sing like Nightingalles'? If ye crow like proud Cocks, must we say, ye mourn like simple doves? If ye bite us like Masti●●s, must we say, ye lick us like gentle Spanish? If ye consume us, and devour us like ravening Wolves, must we say, ye profit us like good Sheep? Must we tell the world, that your Serpents be fishes, your Snakes be Lamproys, your Scorpions be crevices, briefly, that your deadly Poison is wholesome treacle? What were this, but to please men, and to deceive God's people?  
But let us go from Metaphors, and come to the plain matter. If your Doctrine be false, as by most sufficient ways we have proved it to be: shall we be uncivil, except we soothe it? If your deeds be ungodly, as the world seeth, and ruth: shall we be uncourteous, except we justify them? If ye say Nay for Yea, and Yea for Nay in God's causes: shall we be blamed, as men uncivil, and uncourteous, except we uphold your Yea, and your Nay? We can be content to lack the praise of such sinful Civility, of such wicked Courtesy.  
If any privily pike money out of our purses, steal our goods, rob by the high way, kill men, and attempt treason to their Prince's person: standeth it with good manner, to call them Pikepurses, thieves, Robbers, Murderers, Traitors: and whereas you, and your fellows teach, and stubbornly maintain a false doctrine concerning the real presence (that here I speak of no other points) by the Church, and by Luther himself the first founder of your own Gospel condemned for Heresy: must it needs be an uncourteous part to call you Heretics?  
To touch some of your rawest gauls, for making proffer to which ye wince and kick so much every where, ●nd specially where ye lay forth all my sharp words with such diligence gathered together out of my books into one heap before your Preface to the Reader: For so much as it is given forth by Luther's own confession, that by the conference and disputation which the Devil had with him, he was persuaded to defy the Mass, and become enemy to the blessed Sacrifice of the Church, and yourself M. jewel have given your verdict in favour of Luther, and Satan, 
Satan's doctrine. Satan their School Master. In the Reply art. 1. Division. 2.  allowing Satan's Doctrine in that point, and Luther's conformity, embracing the same also for your own part, as you have openly witnessed in your Reply: what offence was it to say (for which you show yourself grieved) that ye joined with Satan, and concerning the spite ye bear at the Mass, to call Satan your Schoolmaster?   
That I called this new founded Church of the Protestants a Babylonical tower, not without just cause. 
It angreth you, that I call this new Church of yours (for so a God's name we must name it) Your Babylonical Tower. And this is for a heinous word scored up among the rest in your said roll: you tell the Queen of it also in your Epistle to her Majesty: but how justly ye be offended therewith, let it be considered, by that I shall here briefly declare.  
Dissensions among the Protestants.  
Who knoweth not, that is any thing acquainted with the affairs of our age, into how many Sects they have divided themselves, that forsook the Catholic Church, sithence Luther began to lead us a new dance in Religion: what controversies, debates, and strifes about the weightiest points of our Faith, have been stirred up, and most earnestly maintained among them? Who hath not heard of the brawling, and skolding between Luther, and Zuinglius, and the upholders of either side, about the Doctrine of the eucharist? Neither hath the matter been handled with any better quiet, between the Osiandrines, and the Stancarians, touching the justification of man, the one Sect attributing it unto Christ's Divine nature, the other unto his humane nature only.  
Again, what stir hath been made about the Doctrine touching Hell, between jacobus Smidelinus, and Nicolaus Gallus on the one part, teaching that Christ suffered also in Hell, and felt the torment of that everlasting Fire, and the Preachers of the Sea towns of Saxony on the other part, who tell their people, there is no Hell at all?  
The like strife is about the Doctrine of free-will, some holding with Luther, some with Caluine. They be divided likewise in their determinations touching justification, some imputing it to Faith only, as Mathias Flacius Illyricus, some partly to Faith, partly to Charity, as Philip Melanchthon, and Georgius Maior. Of Penance, some make three parts, some make but two.  
About the number of the holy Sacraments their discord is more notorious. The Governors of the congregation of Geneva, from whence our new Church of England hath fetched their light, admit two. So doth Illyricus, and many Preachers of Saxony, that dance after his Pipe. The Doctors of Lipsia will have three, not one more, nor one less. Melanchthon at Wittenberg, and they of his band, will needs have four at the least. Others some there be, that content themselves with one. All the rest they refuse. And now of late years, as this Gospel is a Proceeding Gospel, and remaineth not long in one sort of Doctrine, there be under the kingdom of Pole, that have abandoned the necessity of all the Sacraments of the new Testament, and require the jewish Circumcision to be restored. It is muttered also, that in some places, where this Ghospel is hottest, that the Paschal Lamb is called for. O merciful God, whither will this Gospel proceed at length?  
But what need I to speak of the strifes and debates, that were, and be in our time betwixt the chief Masters of this new Religion? They were at debate, not only side against side, men against men, Preachers of one Church against Preachers of an other Church: but also many of them, and that of the most famous, were at debate with themselves. Bucer with Bucer, 
Bucer.  Melanchthon with Melanchthon, Luther with Luther, Caluine with Caluine, Peter Martyr with Peter Martyr. What a do had Bucer to keep himself in credit with any side, who, after he ran out of his Cloister, and took unto him a Yokefellowe, first became a Lutheran, after that a Zwinglian, and again a Lutheran, and last of all, after he came into England, as it is well known, nor perfit Lutheran, nor perfit Zwinglian, but an uncertain, and ambiguous Mongrel between both?  
Melanchthon, 
Melanchthon.  as the world hath seen, and as it may be proved by sundry his editions of his Common places, and other writings, was so mutable in his Faith, that he seemeth to have made himself a slave subject to all occasions of mutations. As he was never stable in his life time, so a little before his death, he turned wholly from his old Master Luther, and became a Calvinian sacramentary, as his Epistle witnesseth written to the Palsgrave of Rhine, and so died in the worst change of al.  
To declare how Luther 
Luther.  disagreed with himself, both in deeds and writings, it would require a whole book. The same hath been at large set forth by Cochleus, and other learned men of our time. What be the contradictions, wherein Caluine 
Caluine.  fighteth with himself, and other his infinite errors, and confusions, Nicolaus Villagagno that learned man, and valiant knight of S. john's Order, hath diligently discovered.  

Peter Martyr in Strasburg a Lutheran, in England a zwinglian.  As for Peter Martyr, I report me to the whole University of Oxford that heard his lessons, whether at his first coming thither, he were not a Lutheran touching the matter of the blessed Sacrament, and after he had been sent for to come to London, and had been schooled in the court in king Edward's time, became a Zwinglian.  
Who so ever will stand in his defence, this that I shall here say, can not be denied. At Strasburg, from whence he came into England, he professed the Faith of the Lutherans, for otherwise he should not have received stipend for his Lecture of the Magistrates there. But at Oxford he changed his Faith of Strasburg, for the Faith of king Edward's Court. For which cause he was not received again at Strasburg, at his return out of England in Queen Mary's reign, and therefore he took such condition, as he could get at Zurich in Suitzerland. So Peter Martyr of Strasburg, agreed not with Peter Martyr of Oxford, as the world knoweth, and his books do witness. And it may be doubted, whether Peter Martyr of Oxford, agreed with Peter Martyr of Zurich. What confusion is this?  
To dwell no longer in this loathsome matter, what Babylonical confusion is in the chief Doctors of this new found Gospel, if there were nothing else to be said, it might appear by that we find, that Gaspar Querchamer 
Gaspar Querchamer.  a learned lay man, hath gathered together six and thirty places repugnant the one to the other, upon the one only Article of Communion under one or both Kinds: and by that Osiander writeth of Melanchthon and his followers, that they held twenty Opinions, 
21. Opinions touching the Article of justification.  divers and disagreeing the one from the other, touching the Article of justification. Whereunto he addeth his own different from th'other, and also from the truth, and so maketh up the number of xxj. dissonant Opinions.  
All this being weighed and considered, I trust it shall not be taken for any heinous crime of my part, that I called that synagogue, where such men be the chief Apostles, and Prophets, a Babylonical Tower. Yea now, if ye list M. jewel to aggravate that grievous fault of mine, I say again, that it is worse than the Babylonical Tower, how much worse it is, confusion of Doctrines to be ●ounde in them, that have charge of Souls, than confusion of tongues in them, that build up stone walls.   

Whether the chief Devisers of this new Gospel might not justly be called Lose Apostates.  
You have put in your heap of bitter words pretended to be gathered out of my books, this saying, as by me spoken to your companions. Ye are Lose Apostates. Which saying in very deed in such form of words, is not mine. For trial whereof the Reader may repair to the place directed by your cotation. The place is in my Confutation of your Apology. fol. 323. a. By the note of this saying you thought to discredit me, for that is the thing you seek most chief, being otherwise unable to answer to the points of doctrine. What thereby you have obtained among your dear brethren the married Moonkes, and Friars, I know not, ne reck not: verily for the same I am never a white a shamed to show myself before good men.  

Lose Apostates.  But with which of these two bitter words, are you grieved M. jewel? With Lose, or with Apostates? Amend ye the one, and I promise you to revoke the other. 
Who is an Apostata.  Because every man knoweth not, what is meant by this words, Apostata, it may here be said, that Apostata is he, that forsaketh either the faith, which in Baptism he promised to keep, or that Rule, and Order of Religious life, which by solemn vow and open protestation, at his entry into Religion, he promised to lead his life in. Of the first sort, julianus that wicked Emperor, and Porphyrius, are examples. So are the great Sultan's Mammaluches, and many of the great Turk's janizaires. Of the second sort be such Moonkes, and Friars, and all other whatsoever Religious, that foresake their habit, willingly depart out of their Cloister, and return unto the order of secular persons. Of which sort there be more seen abroad in the world at these days, than ever were in our Forefathers time. If I call these Apostates, I call them by that common name, by which all the world hath ever called them. And therefore the offence is very small, if it be any at al. Verily it is no greater, then to call them thieves, that for theft be hanged at Tyborn.  
As touching the other term Lose, 
Lose.  whereas since the Apostles time upon Devotion many bereaved themselves of their own liberty, and for God's sake bound themselves by solemn Vow to a strait and hard order of life, and this sweet Gospel of yours setteth such at liberty, teacheth them to break their promise made to God, to cast of the yoke of Chastity, and to solace themselves with their Yokefellowes (for so they call their strumpets) to forsake the Vow of Voluntary Poverty, and to enjoy all the worldlywelth they can procure, and to shake of the yoke of all Obedience, and to be under no rule, but the rule of this Gospel, that is to say, to keep what rule they list: this being so, what great sin was it to call them Lose? Speak we well, when of brute beasts, breaking out of a pound, stable, rope's, fetters, chains, or from the bridle, we say, they are broke●●●ose 〈…〉 ●e accomp●●d ill speech, 〈◊〉 we say of M●n●●●, ●nd ●riers, that ●onne out or their Cloisters take Queans under the name of holy wedlock, break all vows, and all order, that they be loose? What bands be stronger to bind man with all before God, and in conscience, then voluntary Promises, than Oaths, then solemn Vows? Who so ever maketh no conscience to break these bands, if he be not a Lose man, I know not whom we may call a lose man. And if such a one be a Lose man, why may he not be so called, specially that others may so the rather be afraid from the like contempt of God?  
The founder of your Gospel Martin Luther, was an Austen Friar, nevertheless he married the wanton nun of Nymick in Saxony. Peter Martyr your great Rabbin, was a Regular canon of the Order of S. Augustine. He married at Strasburg Dame Katerine a lose Nun, 
Peter Martyr, and dame Katerine the nun his wife. Oecolam padius. Bucer a Dominican. Pelican a Franciscan Castalio a Carthusian. Hooper. Barlow. Dounhan. Skory. Barkley.  that ran out of her Cloister at Metz in Lorraine. Shall it be an uncivil part, to call them lose Apostates? The Birgittine friar Oecolampadius, the Patriarch of your fellows the Sacramentaries, broke his vow, fled from his Religion, married a wife (save the honour of true wedlock) so did Bucer ablacke Friar, so did Conrade Pelican a grey Friar, so did Castalio a monk Cartusian. And for good manners sake, shall we be afraid to call them lose Apostates?  
As for Mooncke Hooper the usurper of Worceter, and Gloue●ter, Barlow of Chichester, Friar, or canon, or both, as I hear say, Sir Downham of Westchester, the Bonhome of Asheridge, Friar Skory of Hereforde, all married, and the two old good Fathers, Friar Barkley of  and Welles, and Friar Coverdal 
Coverdal.  the Quondam of Exeter, which after the death of their old wives have of late yoked themselves again to two young women, for their comfort in age, forbearing to speak any worse word of them, because they be your very friends, may I not be so bold, as to call them lose Apostates?  

TOuching other bitter words gathered by you out of my writings into your roll, 
huguenots of France. Gues of the low Country.  though your evangelical brethren the huguenots of France, and Scotland, and the Gues of the low Country, that have rob and spoiled so many Churches, so many Monasteries, Nonneries, and other places, and have burnt so many thousands of fair books with the Libraries, and committed so many horrible outrages: I may not, lest I seem uncourteous, call them thieves, church-robbers, the devils ministers, Satan's brood, scholars of Satan's school, calvinists, Satanistes, Devilish Rabble, Turkish huguenots, etc. For these be uncivil, and unmannerly words, saith M. jewel, and it is a great offence to use them.  
Though Friar Luther were taught of the Devil in a night conference (as he 
† See the Preface before my last Rejoinder toward the end.  confesseth himself) to abandon the Mass, and to work all the spite he could, against the most blessed Sacrifice of the Church: yet for civilities sake, he may not be called the Novice of the Devil, nor his Followers, the Enemies of the Sacrifice, neither may that be called the devils School, were the Devil Luther's schoolmaster never so much.  
What Turkish wickedness hath proceeded out of this Doctrine, who seeth not? yet by M. jewel, it is beside good manner, to call it Turkish Doctrine.  
The Professors of this doctrine, and specially M. jewel himself, do omit no occasion, yea they seek all occasions they can, to reveal and blaze abroad unto the world, 
Cham's brood.  the defaults and imperfections of the Catholics, without which men live not, and chief, if perhaps some Abuses have crept into some particular Churches, they make much of a little, following therein the fact of Cham, 
Gen. 9  who revealed the nakedness of his Father Noe. This notwithstanding it is noted in M. jewels roll of my sharp words, for a grievous offence, that I call such persons, Cham's brood.  
Who ever wrote so filthily, and so bawdelike, as Friar Bale 
Bale.  that Irish Prelate of Oserie? The heart can not be clean, whose ears can abide to hear such unclean words. Yet forsooth because he always railed at the Catholic Church, and at the Clergy thereof, and wrought so mightily in the vineyard of their lord, that is to say, in despite of the Pope, and of all ancient order, and religion: it is skored up by M. jewel for a bitter speech, that I called him Bawdy Bale, giving warning by that term to all chaste hearts, to refrain the reading of such unchaste and filthy books.    

That it was no great offence to call M. jewel himself a Liar, a Falsifier, a Boaster, a Scoffer.  
AS for yourself M. jewel, who ever was so vain, so foolish, so insolent, so cockish, so mad, as to make such a Challenge to all learned men a live? And now how unable you are to defend it, what wise man seeth not? Yet because you think yourself shamed for ever, except you stand to it stoutly: ye proceed without regard of truth, or modesty. And now seeing yourself brought to this distress, that you must either yield with some shame, or prosecute your Challenge with more shame: ye choose rather to seem impudent in lying, and to pass all measure in craking, than any thing overseen in that you first took in hand. And albeit, both I, and others, have made most evident proof hereof, and the thing itself speaketh so much, yea and your own very friends see it, and be right sorfor it: yet forsooth to call M. jewel a liar, a slanderer, a craking Challenger: by verdict of M. jewel himself, it was unmannerly and uncivilly done.  
But sir, sith you require me to be so courteous in my writings against you, why did not you yourself in yours against me, use more courtesy? Is that commendable in you, which is reprovable in me? Or else, what, have you a special dispensation to say what you list, and to require all others to adore you, and say, ave Rabbi? Shall it be lawful for you, to cry out upon us, tolle, tolle, crucifige: and must we sing unto you, Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus? Whiles ye bark, and bite, must we cast a dish of fragments unto you? Whiles ye play the Bear with us, must we throw honey unto you? Whiles ye play the part of Satan, must we light a candle before you?  
S. Paul the chosen vessel of Christ, teaching Titus, 
Tit. 1.  how to demean himself towards such as you are, said, Increpa illos durè, rebuke them sharply. But what soever you say, or do, must we needs sooth you, and smooths you? Must we, struck you and cooxe you, as men do cursed boys, after they have done shrewd turns? If you pass all men that ever wrote, in number of lies, in vanity of boasting, in the common custom of scoffing, as now it hath been proved against you: shall we fear, that we seem not to lack the civility you speak of, to call you a liar, a boaster, a scoffer? What is the matter, that doing so ill, you require to be spoken of so well?  


By this, or no way else, like it is, we should please M. jewel.  PErhaps whereas the Rents of the Bishopric of Sarisburie cause men all to belorde you, your ears being of long time accustomed to such honourable greetings, you look to be honoured at our hands, as you are of your poor hungry craftsmen, that having learned to read English prettily, sue unto you for Ministerships. And then whereas you lie impudently, following them we must say, were it not, that your good Lordship saith so, verily we should have thought otherwise. And whereas you falsify your testimonies, we must put the fault in your Spectacles. When you hue and mangle the Doctors so foully, that all the world may see it: we must bear you in hand, that when your Lordship wrote so, the book was not at hand. When you serve us with a point of Scurrility, we must say: O how it becometh your L. to be merry? When you shoot at random, diverting altogether from the special point that is to be answered, unto impertinent matter: we must say, your L. shooteth fair, though somewhat wide of the mark. When by no wit, nor cunning, you are able to make good your Challenge: yet than we must say, that your L. lacketh no words, and hath given a good Push towards it. To be short, (for these be the special points for which you accuse my utterance of uncourtesy) when you speak big, and Goliathlike upbraid all the host of God, to wit, the whole Catholic Church of these last thousand years: what must we do, but to show token of fear, 
1. Reg. 17.  as the Israelites under king Saul did, and give back, that you may boast, and crack alone?  
Truly touching your dignity, what account so ever you make of yourself, I take you but for M. jewel Bachelor of Divinity, sometime person of Sunningwel between Oxford and Abington. And that is the greatest degree, that ever I knew you called unto. If the queens Highness of her special favour towards you, have given you the rents of the Bishopric of Sarisburie, you are the more bound to thank her, and to consider, what account you have to make of it. It is not money, that can set you one step higher in ecclesiastical degree. A Bishop you are not I am right sure, neither can all the Kings, and Queens of the world, nor all the parliaments of England, by any their own only power and authority make you a lawful and a true Bishop. The same I told you in my Confutation of your Apology, which point you have not sufficiently answered: as it shall appear. Yet was it very behooveful for you to have fully answered. But I bear with you, as therein not lacking good will, but ability. Study for it, so long as you will, you shall never be able to make it good, that you are yet a right Bishop.  
Therefore in this respect you ought to bear with my bold utterance the more, taking you for no greater man in right, than you were, when you subscribed in Oxford to the Real Presence, to the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to those other points, that now you impugn so busily. In very deed, this much I confess, that in case you were a Bishop, though an unworthy Bishop, yea a wicked Bishop: yet for the dignity of that Vocation, and for the Orders sake, I should, and would reverence you accordingly.  

Act. 23.  Whereas it was told S. Paul, after he had reviled Ananias, that he was the high Bishop, he revoked his word, and submitted himself to that was written, Thou shalt not curse the governor of thy people. 
Exod. 22.  Whereby he doth us to understand, that had he known, he had been no Bishop at all, he would not have revoked his word (that in your opinion, is uncivil and uncourteous) but have let it stand in force. You being as ill a man, as ever Ananias was, and having done much more spite unto the Church of Christ, and more dishonour unto God, then ever he did: bear with me for speaking truly and earnestly without flattery. 
Act. 23.  The example of S. Paul (saying to Ananias, Thou painted wall, not knowing him to be the high Bishop, and yet occupying a more honourable room, than you are yet called unto) leadeth me not greatly to repent of any of those words spoken of you, or of your fellows the Sacramentaries, and Protestants of our time, which to impair my credit, you have culled out of my Books, and laid together in one heap. And what so ever I have written or said, that toucheth your person specially, and irketh you: I take God to record, therein I respected not M. jewel the private man, but M. jewel the public enemy of Christ's Church, the professed Impugner of the Truth, and Catholic Religion, the despiser, and profaner of the holy Sacraments, the breaker of unity, the enemy of God. And for my warrant in so doing, I have the examples (which here I laid forth before) of the Prophets, of the Apostles, specially of S. Paul, S. Jude, and S. Peter, of S. john the baptist, of our Saviour Christ himself.  
Yea I say furthermore, what is that sharpness of words, which in this case, I mean, when the authority of the Counsels, and holy Fathers is so lightly contemned, when Gods holy Mysteries are so turkishly profaned, when the Church is so falsely slandered, when unity is so with most certain danger of Christian souls broken, when the whole state of the Catholic Religion is so wickedly overthrown, briefly when God himself is so horribly blasphemed: In this case I say, what sharpness of words is there, which just grief of a Christian heart, and godly zeal, causeth not to seem, not only excusable, but also laudable, yea necessary, yea with praise, and reward to be honoured?  
If, when the Children of Israel, defiled themselves in Fornication with the women of Moab, God in anger said to Moses, take all the chief of the people, 
Num. 25.  and hang them up in Gibettes against the Sun, that my wrath may be turned from Israel: where there is so much both bodily and spiritual fornication, yea sacrilegious Incest, not only committed, but permitted, but taught, but counseled and exhorted, and for some part commanded against the honour and will of God, our Moyseses, and Aaron's, the true Governors withholden from executing their duty: shall it not become us, whose hearts God toucheth, at least with words to show the grief of our minds, and with convenient sharpness of speech to rebuke the heinous wickedness that is committed, and so (for so much as in us lieth) to revoke God's people from it?  
If Phinees, being nor high Priest, nor magistrate, but only as yet a private man, 
Ibidem.  was highly praised, and rewarded of God, for his zeal in killing one of the Israelites for whooredom committed with an harlot of Madian, to stay God's wrath: shall we seem to deserve blame, for uttering only words in reproof of so far more heinous crimes, if not to stay God from his just wrath, nor the offenders from their wickedness, yet the people of God from the like example?  
What, you are very nice M jewel, that find so great fault with me only for certain sharp words bestowed in reprehension of your, and your companions so divers, and so grievous enormities. You are not taken up for halting (as they say) pardy. Halting may have some excuse of humane infirmity. This that is reprehended in you, is not only halting, it is falling down right. Neither are you so much to be rebuked for your own wilful falling down, but much more for that you study and labour all that you can, to pull all others down into the pit, that yourself are fallen into.  
Now in this case, the pit being so dangerous, is it not well, and dewtifully done, to give warning to God's people to beware of it? All that I writ, is for the people's sake. For with you, and such as you are, I have little hope to do any good. such one's the Apostle advertiseth us, 
Tit. 1.  not to deal withal. Now how shall the people be duly warned to beware, whose senses be more lively in worldly, then in spiritual things, except the dullness of their mind be stirred up with the fear of great peril? And how can the greatness of this peril be signified unto them, but with words of some vehemency? As for example: If I should say to one that goeth forth by night, sir, the way you shall pass through, is uneven, by reason of little holes and furrows: And you take not heed, you may happen to stumble, or perhaps to wrentche your foot. Upon this warning, will he be so careful how to go, as if I say thus, If you love your life, beware how you go that way, for there be great pits, and dungeons, that you shall hardly escape, and if you fall, you are sure to break your neck.  
The case is like in this behalf M. jewel. The people be always going forward, and for lack of knowledge, they pass forth, as it were by night. Now, so far as we are persuaded, the way they go in at this day in England, to be perilous, as that which through Schisms, and Heresies, and other manifold wickedness thereof ensuring, leadeth them to everlasting damnation: should we not deceive them, if we told them, that Dungeons were but furrows, that deep pits were but stumbling holes, and that there were no great Danger in the way?  
For this cause therefore M. jewel, that the people of God might be the more a afraid to hear you, and believe you, and to follow your damnable ways: I thought it good and expedient, in writing against you, and against the heresies of our time, to use sharper words, and speech of more vehemency, than otherwise I would have done, if I had written to you privately, or so, as knowing that my books should have come to no man's hands, but to yours. I knew you would wince, and kick at it. But spare not, little care I therefore, so that by my labour profit redound to Christian People.    

For what cause in writing my Confutation of the Apology, I used such verdure of style, as might seem not over flat, but tempered with convenient sharpness.  
BEfore I began to set my pen to the paper, I considered well with myself, what it was to stir up such Hurnettes, and to provoke such Wasps to anger. Touched I them once, were it never so gently: I knew, they would strait way flee at my face, and buzz about me, and that possibly I should not save myself from their stinging. Yet having a good heart, and being right willing, for the Truths sake, and for the Defence of Christ's Church, to sustain that Smart, what so ever it should be: I took advise, with myself, how to temper my style so, as both God's cause might seem sufficiently defended, and they not justly offended.  

Three ways of writing against an Adversary.  Whereas then there be three ways of writing against such Adversaries of the Church, used diversly of the Fathers, upon divers occasions of time, place, person, and matter, of which the one is cold, soft, meek, lowly, and demure: an other hot, rough, stern, and vehement: the third tempered with a convenient mediocrity between both: though at the first in my Answer to the Challenge, I inclined more unto the soft and gentle way, afterward in my Confutation of the Apology, and in my rejoinder, I chose the mean, that by the one extreme I might not seem to work upon choler, and to seek revenge, rather than Defence of God's cause, by the other, to be too abject, and to show less confidence in our cause, to thencouragement of such cockish Adversaries.  
Now cometh me M. jewel, and meddling little with the matter itself, and the very chief points in controversy (whereby he giveth out a secret confession of the weakness of his side) he inveigheth at my person, and with all his Rhetoric doth what he can, to bring me in discredit with the Reader for my sharpness and vehemency of speech. And feign would he all men to believe, that I lack Discretion, that Choler ruleth my pen, that I use words of more heat and bitterness, than it becometh either my vocation, or the cause. By this he seemeth to discharge me, of what so ever is reprehensible in that other extreme. Wherewith I am content. For I had rather his quarrel should be extended to the reproof of my person, then to the prejudice of the cause. And doubtless if I had inclined to the other extreme way of writing, he would not have failed, but have turned all to argument of weakness of our side. In deed naturally by words and gesture we show courage, when our matter is good: and of cold manner of handling, there groweth a suspicion, that the matter is nought. Had I therefore always written coldly and softly, I had ministered unto M. jewel a joily occasion to insult upon me, as though our cause had been the weaker.  
And so he would have taken that advantage against me, which Cicero, 
Cicero in Brut●. M. calidius.  as he writeth of himself, once took against Marcus calidius. This M. calidius (as he witnesseth of him) was an excellent man, and was endued with all singular graces appertaining to a perfect Orator, save that he was not vehement, nor applied himself to stir and move the minds of them, that heard him. Cicero and he were once matched together in a cause. calidius accused one Quintus Gallius, laying to his charge before the judges, that he had prepared poison wherewith to have destroyed him. For proof of it, he declared that he took him in the manner, and that he had in readiness against him, handwritinge, witnesses, signs, examinations, and showed the matter to be manifest, and disputed of the crime very exquisitely, but yet soberly and coldly.  
When Cicero came to make Defence in the behalf of Gallius, among other things that he treated like a cunning Orator, at length he goeth from the crime objected, and from the matter itself, to the manner of calidius action, and made the softness of his demeanour, and coldness of his utterance, an argument of the others innocency. And there he beareth calidius in hand, that all was but a feigned matter. For saith he to him, wouldst thou calidius, 
Cicero in Brute.  have handled this case in such wise, except thou hadst feigned? Vbi dolour? Vbi ardor animi? etc. Where showedst thou any grief? Where any heat of the mind? Nulla perturbatio animi, nulla corporis, frons non percussa, non femur, pedis (quod minimum est) nulla suppl●sio. In all thy handling of the matter, thou showedst thyself to feel no trouble of mind, nor of body. Thou smotest not thyself on the forehead, thou gavest not thyself a clap on the thigh thou didst not so much (which is the least of all) as once stamp with thy foot.  
Thus concluded Cicero against calidius. And thus doubtless would M. jewel have concluded against me, if I had written my answer, my Confutation, and my rejoinder, in such kind of style, as the contrary whereof he bestirreth himself so much to disprove in me. Yea he would have borne the world in hand (which nevertheless sometimes he doth in effect) gathering argument of the soft and cold manner of my writing, that I had but feigned to please men, and had been persuaded otherwise in my heart. How so ever I had written, he was determined to reprehend me.  
In very deed had I thought, that he would not have abused my softness to show of the more confidence in his cause, and that the same should not have brought any prejudice to our cause: I would have forborn all roughness and sharpness, and would more gladly have followed the temperate and quiet vain of mine own nature. Howbeit what he was like to find at my hand, I gave him warning at the first: where I said, that, 
In the preface to M. jewel before my Answer.  if perhaps I should sometimes seem to scar, or lawnce a festered bunch, that deserved to be cut of, I would him to remember, how the meekest and the holiest of the ancient Fathers in reproving heretics, oftentimes have showed themselves Zealous, earnest, eager, sharp, and bitter.  
Now to end this matter, wherein I confess I have dwelt longer, than I intended when I began, I pray thee gentle Reader (if fear of Excommunication stay thee not from reading heretical Books) for some part of my discharge, and that M. jewels falsehood in this thing also, as in all other that he taketh in hand, may appear, to view his book of the Defence, and mine of the Confutation To make the case mo●e odious, on my side, and to bear● thee in hand●, that I 〈◊〉 used sharpness in writing contrary to mine own promise, behold, how foully he hath falsified my words. Thus falsely he layeth the matter forth.   
jewel. 

M. jewel falsifieth, this place by cutting away, and by changing words.  M. Harding in the Preface before his Confutation of the Apology.  
(than thus he maketh me to speak.) The manner of writing, which I have here used, in comparison of our Adversaries, is sober, and gentle etc. And in respect of their heat, bitterness, and railing, as many tell me, over cold, sweet and mild.  
Harding.  
Here good Reader, with his etc., he cutteth of my words, that do fully answer his objection, and quite altereth the sense of the place, by changing, But, into And, and by leaving out my whole tale, that there followed, whereby any reasonable man might be satisfied, Thus all his reproufes of me, and all his other objections against the catholic doctrine will be found false, if every man's sayings be only viewed, and so to any indifferent man they shall seem sufficiently confuted by conference of the books only. If his continual falsifyings be not espied, and tried out, marvel it is not, if the Reader conceive sinister opinion of me. Let all be tried by the books, not by his false reports: and I doubt not of the judgement of all that be indifferent in their judgements. As for those that be partial, and wilfully addicted to their own likings, I make less account of them, than I have pity of them. My whole saying then truly reported is this.  
The manner of writing which I have here used in comparison of our adversaries, is sober, soft, and gentle, yet vehementer, rougher, and sharper, then for my wont, and nature: but in respect of their heat, bitterness, and railing, as many tell me, over cold, sweet, and mild. How so ever it shall seem to thee Reader, herein I have done as I thought best. Well I am assured, I have not gone far from the steps of the most praised ancient Fathers, of whom who have been commended most for the spirit of meekness, the same, although toward other offenders have showed themselves like mild Moses, yet having to do with Heretics, commonly have demeaned themselves like earnest Elias. If liars should be entreated in like sort as true reporters, slanderers, and backbiters, as faithful friends, heretics, as catholics, Apostates, as steadfast Christians; blasphemers, as saints: truth should be injured, wickedness flattered, virtue misprised. Of whom the truth was impugned or resisted with malice, them little spared either the Prophets, or the Apostles, or Christ himself.  
Thus may all this matter for which M. jewel hath made so much ado, seem to have been sufficiently answered before.  
Neither with more truth hath he alleged that other saying of mine, which standing by itself alone, as he hath placed it in his book immediately after the former falsified saying, giveth out a colourable show, as if I condemned myself. Thus he layeth it forth.   
jewel. Again in the same Confutation. 
There is no man of wisdom, or honesty, that would with so immoderate upbraidings impair the estimation of his modesty. fol. 300. b.  
Harding.  
But in that saying M. jewel, I rebuke the impudent lies, and slanders of him, that wrote the Apology, who there raileth immoderately at the Bishops (whom the holy Ghost, 
Act●. 20.  as S. Paul saith, hath ordained to govern the Church of God) saying, that neither they know, nor will know the things pertaining to their charge, nor set a jot by any point of Religion, save that which concerns their belly and riot. And there further uncharitably he burdeneth them, as if they were so wicked, as to command Christian Princes to destroy all Religion, and to crucify again Christ himself. In my answer to this, among other words thus I say.  

Confut. 300. b.  Put the words of this railing Defenders amplification aside, and the whole sentence that riseth of all this talk, is only this. It is not reason Bishops be judges in matters of faith, and not secular Princes. Now to give a colour hereto, and to move Princes to take the matter into their own hands, they say, as becometh them and none else. For there is no man of wisdom, or honesty that would with so impudent lies diminish his credit, and with so immoderate upbraidings impair the estimation of his modesty. Neither be these men so hot in this matter for any love they bear to secular Princes. For if any such Prince be not a favourer of their Gospel, then have they a Blast of a Trumpet to blow him down, as it appeareth by their books made against the monstrous regiment of women, and by the good obedience their French brethren the huguenots keep toward their king in France. Other examples of the like evangelical obedience in other countries I leave to men's remembrance.  
The circumstance of this whole matter considered (which may better be seen in my book) I report me to the discrete Reader, whether any just cause be ministered to M. jewel, to pike quarrel to the words by him alleged, specially, if they be wholly and truly alleged.  
But why did he nip of those four words, with so impudent lies? Doth not this discover his falsehood, and show of whom that saying was meant? It seemed good to such a liar, to shift away the mention of Lies from the Readers eyes, that he might not seem charged therewith. Thus all his advantage standeth in falsehood. But what shall a man say? To require plainness and truth of such a Defender of untruth, were to require him, either to unsay all that he hath said, or to say nothing at al. For certain it is, falsehood can never be defended by truth.  
Now it remaineth, that I require the Reader, to confer the pieces of sentences that M. jewel hath culled out of my writings, with the whole sentences, as they are by me written, and with the circumstance of the places, whence they be picked out. That being done, let it be weighed, whether I speak over bitterly, or he be answered according to his desert. For example I think it good here to lay two or three before the Reader, that so he be admonished to do the like himself, for trial and judgement to be made in the rest. Here to lay forth all, were to print again a great part of my books. 
Special words of discourtesy noted by M. Jewel.   
In the first place then M. jewel hath noted these words.  Your Devilish spite. rejoinder. Fol. 18. b. 
Consider Reader how, and upon what occasion, these words are there uttered. There thou findest thus. First he maketh his entry with a solemn prayer protestantlike, as if he were about to make a Sermon, and his favourable hearers ready to sing a song. Then he accuseth the inflammation of my choler, because alluding to the words of Daniel, I glanced at the name of the Foreronners of antichrist, therewith rubbing him and his holy companions, as it were on their gaulle, for the Devilish spite they show to the blessed sacrifice of Christ mystically represented, and truly continued in the daily Sacrifice of the Church, now called the Mass. Here I said not, Your Devilish spite, directing my talk to you M. jewel, but the Devilish spite, they show to the blessed Sacrifice of Christ, speaking indefinitely of the Protestants, and Sacramentaries of our time.  
And why may I not reasonably call their spite against the Sacrifice, a Devilish spite, sithence Luther was taught it of the Devil himself by a night conference with him, as the will of God was, 
See the Preface before my second Rejoindr. Fol. 34. b.  he should confess it in open writing himself. Whereof I speak in my preface before my last rejoinder, there setting forth the same famous Disputation between the Devil and Luther, out of Luther's own book.  
The second note of bitter words that M. jewel layeth to my charge, is this.  Your Devilish wickedness. 
But where found he these three words? His cotation is this, Rejoinder, Preface to the Reader.  
But what if I have uttered no such piece of sentence in all that Preface? True it is Reader, I have no such saying there in deed. If thou wouldst feign save M. jewels honesty, and try the truth, peruse that whole Preface: if thou find it there, let it be blown abroad, that he belieth me not in this point, though he have so done in many other. If thou find it not, give us leave to say, as truth is, that for lack of good matter against the Catholic Doctrine, he deviseth of his own head, slanderous Lies against his Adversary. Which is the common practice of them, whose cause is naught.  
And why hath he put this note in the second place? O it had been a fowl crase to his worship, being such a famous Minister of the word, as he is, to have begun this new devise with a flat lie. And thereof was he not ignorant. And for that cause he placed the other Note before this, whereas following order, he should have placed this, before that. For that which is taken out of the Preface that is set before the book, by reason, and order, should be placed before that, which is taken out of the eighteenth leaf of the same book. By this he hath now deserved to hear that told him (your Devilish wickedness) which was not told him before. For wherein can a man show himself more wicked, and more Devilish, then in devising false slanders against his brother, whereof the Devil, called in Greek Diabolus, hath his name, and of S. john is called the Accuser of our Brethren? 
Apoc. 12.   
In the third place he chargeth me with these three words.  Your Devilish villainy. Confut. fol. 256. b. 
These be not my words, let my book be trial. What so ever there I say, I speak it upon right good occasion, as the Reader viewing the place, and conferring it with the words of the Apology, shall judge. Whereas M. jewel, or who soever penned the Apology, compareth the Catholic Clergy with wicked jeroboam, and the worship, wherewith the Church serveth God, with the worship of jeroboams Idolatrous Calves, and saith that the Catholics have made the Law of God of none effect through their own traditions, uttering such otherstuffe savouring altogether of devilish spite against the Church: hereupon moved with just zeal, there thus I say.  
Neither be these things ye speak so much devilish villainy of, our own tradditions, but for the more part, either of the Apostles of Christ, or of most holy and ancient Fathers. judge good Reader how truly this man chargeth me.  
The fourth note is this.  Your railing words of Satan's prompting. Rejoinder. 67. a. 
I said not, your railing words, but, you utter railing words of Satan's prompting. And the same I say again. For unless the Devil had prompted you, you could not have spoken such devilish blasphemy against the blessed and dreadful Sacrifice, as there you do. And how agreeable those words are to the words, that Satan uttered against the fame in his Disputation with Luther, it shall appear to him, that readeth the same disputation, truly set forth in my Preface to the Reader, before my last rejoinder. Fol. 34. b. The place who list to see, hath thus.  
That you are the enemy of this blessed Sacrifice, even here you confess it for yourself, and for your fellows: where you utter railing words of Satan's prompting, calling that, against which you profess your hatred, errors, abuses, and sacrilege, maintained to the open derogation of the Sacrifice, and the Cross of Christ.  
another note of uncourteous words imputed unto me by M. jewel, is this.  You are joined to Satan. Satan your Schoolmaster. rejoined. 12. b. 
Neither be these my words, thus laid together. In deed because Satan brought Luther in hatred of the Mass by his night disputation that he had with him, and M. jewel alloweth Satan's opinion, and doctrine touching that point, and commendeth the Friar for believing it: I say there by way of question, thus. Who seeth not that considereth the place, how friendly these three Doctors join together in league against the Mass, Doctor jewel, Doctor Luther, and Doctor Satan? The former words noted by M. jewel I say not.  
Touching the other words imputed unto me, Satan your Schoolmaster, neither be they mine, uttered in such order. Thus there I say, and here I revoke not.  
Here M. jewel defendeth, both Luther the chief Usher of the School of this new found Gospel, and Satan himself the head Schoolmaster. Now in this place, how soever my words seem to M. jewel uncivil, his Defence of Satan in that case seemeth to me ungodly, and if I said Satanical, I trow, I should not greatly offend.  
The sixth Note is this.  Ye are moved by the instinct of Satan. Confuta. 43. b. 255. a. 
This is utterly false, specially as concerning the place of the first cotation. For there the instinct of Satan, is not attributed unto M. jewel, nor to this new Clergy of England, but only unto Friar Luther. And upon how good and just occasion, let it be judged by the circumstance of the place.  
There I say, that within these fifty years this Gospel of theirs was hidden only in Luther's breast, powered in by the instinct of Satan th'enemy of mankind, finding the friars heart wholly inflamed with covetise, ambition, disdain against john Tetzet, and the order of the Dominicans, rancour and malice against the Pope, and Albert archbishop of Mentz, for that he was removed from the preferment of his Pardon preaching, whereby he found himself well cherished, and was maintained in wealth, and pleasure.  
Neither in the other place, fol. 255. a. say I, ye are moved by the instinct of Satan: I say otherwise. And the thing in deed whereof there I speak (which here I avouch again) they have done by the instinct of Satan. So will all the godly judge, I doubt not, who with the circumstance of the place, shall weigh my words there, which be these.  

Confut. 255. a.  Lastly concerning Prayer, what hath been ordained by our holy Forefathers of all ages, directed with the spirit of God, for the maintenance and increase of it to God's honour, all that in few years by the instinct of Satan, to promote his kingdom, ye have utterly abolished, and by wicked violence brought the people from Devotion to a careless Idleness, from speaking to God with hearts, and lips, to a spiritual dumbness, from Prayers to Chapters, from holy thinking, to unprofitable hearkening.  
What can you reasonably answer M. jewel? By what instinct have the devisers of your Gospel brought the people so far from devotion, and fervour in praying, but by the instinct of Satan? If you say, the people be as devout now and given to prayer, as in old time, before your Gospel was heard, the very stones will gainsay you, and control you. And if you doubt whence this instinct cometh, sith the Scripture calleth the Holyghost, Spiritum precum, the Spirit of Prayers: 
Zach. 12.  from whom the contrary instinct proceedeth, you can not be ignorant.  
The 7. Note of bitter words, wherewith he chargeth me, is this.  Your Father the Devil. Confutat. 2. a. 
If I had said so, it had been bitterly spoken, I confess. But all bitter speeches are not to be discommended, as neither all bitter medicines. For than we should discommend the holy Fathers, the Prophets, the Apostles, john the Baptist, and Christ himself, who as it is before declared, oftentimes spoke bitterly. It is to be considered, what he deserveth to hear, who is bitterly spoken unto.  
Now true it is, in the place, that M. jewel hath here coted, I speak not of him, nor of his fellows, that laid their heads together to the setting together of the pieces of the Apology, but of all Heretics in general, who have the Devil to their Father in deed. For if the Devil be author of Division, 
The Devil Father of all Heretics. johan. 8.  and the Father of lying, as the Scripture calleth him, all Heresies being Lies, and all Heretics being Liars: how far swerved I from the truth, when I called the Devil, the Father of Heretics? But who seeth not, how here M. jewel bewrayeth himself, and showeth his guilty conscience? For why should he be offended with any such saying, unless he thought himself therein touched? So judas bewrayed the guilt of his own treason, saying, Nunquid ego sum Rabbi? 
Matth: 25  Is it I Master? But what mean you M. jewel? May not a man speak of Heretics, as it beseemeth them to be spoken of, but you must take pepper in the nose? Can we not speak aught of Heretics, but your part must be therein? If you will needs have it so, take it so, and God amend you. If the reader list to confer the place, thus there I say.  

Confut. 2. a.  But what mean all Heretics (may we judge) by coveting so much, to be seen that which they are not? Forsooth they mean none other thing, than their Father the Devil meaneth, when he goeth about to beguile man. For than what doth he? Useth he not this policy, to change his owggly hew, and put himself in goodly shape of an Angel of light? 
2. Cor. 11.  For he is not unwitting, that, if he showed himself in his own form, such as he is, every one would fly from him, and none lightly would be deceived by him. Heretics do the like. Although they hate the Church never so deadly, yet to have the more opportunity to hurt it, pretend themselves to be of the Church.  
Lo M. jewel, speaking of Heretics in general, and indefinitely, I said, their Father the Devil, not your Father the Devil. By this your undue complaint, you bewray yourself as the Rat doth oftentimes by his own noise: and even so you seem to acknowledge the Devil for your Father, and to enfeaffe yourself of the estimation, and opinion of an Heretic, with which by me you were not charged. The more you ought to bear with me, if I hap to stumble upon your right title hereafter. With like reason good Reader, I could easily discharge myself of the rest of the vehement and sharp speeches objected by M. jewel: but I account not the matter worth, whereon to bestow so much labour. This for that may suffice.  
Now it may please thee to peruse that here followeth, and to consider, whether M. jewel be innocent himself in the points, whereof he taketh occasion so immoderately to reprove his Adversary.    

M. jewel countercharged with the like sharpness, and discourtesy of words, as he reproveth in his Adversary. The 3. Chapter.  
BUT Sir, tell me, I pray you, what is your judgement touching these, and the like uncourteous words, and speeches, as you call them, with which for the more part, you untruly burden me? Think you that in no case such manner of utterance is lawful to be used? If you think so, you are deceived M. jewel. The example of Christ, john Baptist, the Prophets, the Apostles, the ancient holy Fathers, show it to be lawful: who, as it is before rehearsed, in certain cases used it so often. Verily I doubt not, but in this case (I mean, when a Catholic hath to convince an Heretic) it is most lawful: yea not only lawful, but also most expedient for causes above touched. Neither in this case to use such order of speech, is to be accounted Discourtesy, and Incivility, as your unnecessary Civility interpreteth: but right zeal, and just severity. That spirit of God, which adviseth us by the mouth of the wise man, 
Prou. 26.  to answer a Fool according to his foolishness, admonisheth us no less, in the treaty of God's causes with Heretics, to use such verdure of Language, as may best repress the sauciness, and pride of their stomachs.  
Nevertheless if you thought such sharp language to be utterly unlawful, as a thing that may not stand with true modesty, and civility: how happened it, that so often times you forgot yourself? It is no courteous dealing M. jewel, to reprove that in others, that you so commonly do yourself. Touching bitter language, whereof so bitterly you complain, it may please you at your good leisure, to call to remembrance, whose words among infinite others these are, with what spirit, what charity, what modesty they have been by you uttered. Which words, as for a great part they have the outward show of no less heat, and vehemency, than you note in mine: so to any man of right judgement, they seem to be of a far more spite, and malice.  

A few principal flowers of M. jewels modest, quiet, and charitable speech, uttered against the Catholics, taken, as they came to sight, out of his pretenced Defence, found, partly in the Apology, partly in the text of the said Defence, some few also in the Margin.  

Frantic anabaptists, and Heretics, as ye be. Defence. 389.  
Ye Scribes, ye Pharisees, ye Hypocrites. 625.  
Of the house of God ye have made a Cave of thieves. Defence. Pag. 2. & 304.  
Of the Church you have made a Cave of thieves. 48.  
The Temple now a days is a den of thieves. 706.  
The Church they have made a den of thieves. 739.  
You have blended God's wine with puddle water. 66.  
You have turned the beauty of Zion into the confusion of Babylon. 2.  
Ye have turned God's Temple into the synagogue of Satan. 328.  
They are without either shame of man, or fear of God. 
In the Preface to the Christian Reader.   
They wilfully withstand the truth.  
They be given over to maintain lies. 
In the Preface to the Christian Reader.   
They are the children of untruth.  
They are the Children that will not hear the law of God.  
Your hot raging spirit. 2.  
Leave this Hypocrisy. 377.  
The jews your ancient Fathers. 632.  
Your Fathers the Phariseis. 2.  
Your forefathers the Phariseis. 31  
Your fathers cried out, what shall we do, etc. joan. 12. 327.  
S. Jerome said of your fathers, non tam indigneutur, etc. In Sophon. c. 3. 328.  
Ye confess Scribes, and Phariseis to be your fathers. 625.  
Your fathers cried out against Christ, Nos legem habemus. 484.  
Christ was called a Samaritane, by your ancient Fathers. 631.  
This is very the leaven of the Scribes and Phariseis. 66.  
For malice they deprave our sayings. 23.  
Your Idolatrous, and blasphemous fondness. 290.  
They batter us with lies. 23.  
In spite of the Popes. 33.  
The Pope's blind preiudices. 40.  
The Pope, his Cardinals, his Bishops, sleep, and do nothing. In the Preface to the Reader.  
The Pope's flattering Parasites. 160.  
One of the Pope's soothing Pages, and clawbacks. 329.  
The Church of Rome is the very harlot of Babylon, and row of devils. 453.  
The canonists be the Pope's Parasites. 722.  
The Tyranny of the Bishops of Rome. 457.  
The Pope's Barbarous Persianlike Pride. Ibidem.  
The Church of Rome is nothing else but a mother of falsehood, and school of Pride. 609.  
Idolatry is in the Church of Rome. 628. 629.  
The Pope useth neither God's word, nor discipline. 550.  
The Church of Rome hath most shamefully, and wickedly erred. 565.  
The Pope speaketh more reverently of Peter, then of jesus Christ. 593.  
The Pope's Advocates, Abbates, Bishops, open enemies to the Gospel. 618.  
Your Pope's Retainers. 695.  
They make decrees expressly against God's word. 620.  
The Pope will pluck from us, the Gospel, and all the confidence we have in Christ jesus. 723.  
The Pope hath blinded the whole world this many hundred years, and no man may condemn him though he carry away with him a thousand souls into hell. 729.  
Frantic government of the Pope. 733.  
The second Council of Nice was vain, peevish, wicked, blasphemous. 502.  
Before the Scriptures they prefer their own Dreams. 70.  
Hicke Scorners eloquence. 356.  
Hicke Scorners logic. 270.  
Hypocritical eloquence. 2●0.  
They are very Church robbers. 228.  
These shows, sales, and markets of Masses, carrying about, and worshipping of bread, other idolatrous and blasphemous fondness. 290.  
Blockish, and old wives tale. 296.  
Harvest of massmongers. 302.  
Truth is with cruelty and tyranny kept under. 334.  
They agree together as the Phariseis and saducees, as Herode and Pilate. etc. 342.  
The very foes of the Gospel, and enemies to Christ's Cross. 354  
Your faction. 611. 615.  
Adultery, ribaldry, whoredom, murdering of kin, incest, brothel houses, flocks of Concubines, herds of harlot haunters, beastly sensuality, abominable naughtiness. 384.  
Like anabaptists, and Libertines. 395.  
Naughty persons, and hypocrites. 429.  
They abhor and flee the word of God, as a thief flieth the gallows. 464.  
Ye rend in pieces, and burn the ancient Fathers. 500  
Ye condemn the Scriptures. 505.  
Your Droves, and herds of monks. 508.  
They let concubines to farm to their Priests. 510.  
Their cursed paltry Service. 511.  
They mumble up their Service in a Barbarous tongue. 515.  
The canonists at this day for their bellies sake etc. 560.  
They have choked up the fonteine of living water with durt● and mire. 573.  
They have forsaken Christ, and the Apostles. 576.  
With most notorious sacrilege they sever the Sacraments. 584.  
They lean to ignorance, and darkness. 590.  
They have spoiled, and disannulled the ordinances, and doctrine of the Primitive Church. 592.  
Your wilful ignorance. 602.  
Blind balam's wilful purpose. 602.  
They make decrees expressly against God's word. 620.  
They take part with Annas, and Caiphas. Ibidem.  
Unlearned Bishops, slow bellies. 623.  
Error, Idolatry, Superstition, tyranny, Pomp. 626.  
The Council of Trident is a Conspiracy, not a Council. 626.  
Prince's Ambassadors be used as mocking stocks at the Councils. 631.  
With spite they leave out Princes. 635.  
O glorious Thraso. 640.  
They set not a jot by any point of religion, save that which concerns their belly, and riot. 642.  
This is proud, this is spiteful. Ibidem.  
Princes be despitefully scorned and abused by them. 697.  
They harden their hearts against God, and his Christ. 715.  
They are men far more ungraceous, and wicked then any diceplaiers be. 728.  
Tyranny of the Pope's kingdom. 732.  
They were fools, and mad men. 733.  
A very spiteful dealing. 54.   
Content thyself good Reader with these few, taken out of the whole heap. To lay forth all, were to print his Huge book again. For of such stuff in manner, and of vain Scoffs, the whole consisteth.  
Now because M. jewel hath laid together an other Heap of words culled out of my books, which of his courtesy he would needs call Scoffs, and Scorns: here to make an even reckoning with him, I have thought good to return unto him coin of the same stamp, told out of his own bags, though it be more cankered, then mine is.  
Scoffs, and Scorns be unseemly, saith M. jewel. Defence. pag. 8.   

Scoffs, and Scorns against God, his Church, and his Saints.  

I trow ye would prove, that God the Father made holy water, and said Mass. 496.  
Christ an Abbate. 66.  
S. Peter said mass with a golden Cope, and a triple Crown. 300.  
The Apostles had keys given them, but no house to open. 163.  
As if Christ, and the Pope were joined purchasers. 608.  
If Christ were not Christ, then S. Patrick should be Christ. 231.  
Peter and Paul had never Papale Christianity. 674.  
Sir Clement, jacke of Andrew. 536.  
The Roman faith was heard of through out the whole world, and so was the capitol of Rome. 437.  
So long as the Church of Rome can speak for herself, all is well. 715.  
The spirit of Rome. 606.  
S. Augustine's unceasoned fantasies. 370.    

sacramentary Scoffs.  

Who taught M. Harding, that Christ hath change of divers bodies? 86.  
Your shops, and gainful booths. 333. meant of Altars.  
Came Christ to save bread, and wine? 254.  
Came the Son of man from heaven to save Accidents? 254.  
Where was Christ's body ever promised to your Mouth? 274  
The poor Spiritual forms, and holy Accidents are put to all the pains. 261.  
The man in the moon newly Christened. 37.  
How can a few drops of cold water bring us to the hope of resurrection? 221.  
These be their keys of the kingdom of heaven. 249.    

Scoffs against the Pope, Bishops and Priests.  

One Principal Archangel, Pope in heaven. 100  
The Emperor was the Pope's Summoner. 671.  
The Pope a special Master Key. 160.  
The Pope hath the holy Ghost I trow, at his commandment. 724.  
The Pope a lord Paramounte. 161.  
The Pope's own Minions, and Champions. 468.  
Dame joane the Pope. 374.  
This is one of the Cardinalle virtues of Rome, to take tolle of Bawdry. 369. in mark  
princehood 〈◊〉 apostolic, joily large words, and carry great sound. ●●●.  
What if Christe● Vicar himself be Antichrist? 433. In Margin.  
Your Pope no more a Bishop, than Annas, your Priest no more a Priest, than the Priest of Dagon, or Baal. 659.  
May Bishops. 664.  
Blind Sir Robert the archbishop of Armache. 597.  
Blind Sir Robert of Scotland, and M. Pates of England silly poor Bishops. 714.  
The blessed Bishops of the Second Nicen Council. 502.  
These be the great Worthies of the world. 714.    

Scoffs particular, and general.  

M. Harding skippeth into God's chair. 23.  
M. hardings mystical Catholic ears. 232.  
So coy, and careful M. Harding is for holy forms, and his kingdom of Accidents. 248.  
M. hardings Almanac. 22.  
How long hath M. Harding been a wizard? 209.  
M. hardings face died in Scarlet. 183.  
M. Harding Proctor for the Stews. 370.  
M. hardings Dimi Communion. 195.  
M. hardings young untiedy Arguments. 650.  
Albertus' Pighius the stoutest Gallant of your Campe. 24.  
M. Harding will trouble his Godfathers, and cause them to give him a new name. 416.  
M. hardings mouth no just measure. 8.  
If you had not studied your Copia verborum, you could never have been so copious. 388.  
And do you know his heart by towting in his ear? 157. In Margin.  
Alas your poor Chickens would die for cold. 28.  
No harald could lightly have said more in the matter. 496.  
All the same is substantially proved by t●●●o●●e, and delivery of a horse. 499.  
It is not a Fearnbushe, Ergo, it is a Fox. 255.  
It is concluded in Louvain in great solemn sadness, etc.  
M. hardings Beaupeeres of Louvain. 492.  
Your innumerable Louvain Vanities. 537.  
Your Lovanian divinity. 696.  
Your Lovanian Logic. 650.  
Your poor Lavanian brethren. 623.  
One of your late English Doctors of Louvain. 183.  
Your late covent at Trident. 28. 43.  
Your late Conuentcle of Trident. 606. 619. 627. 630.  
Monks are waxen nice, and crank. 624.  
We must suppose they sat mute in a mummery. 627.  
I marvel, there is not some Patriarch from Sodom, and Gomorra. 713.  
A mystical folly of follies. 515.  
Your Captain general, Albertus Pighius. 498.  
canonists the Popes Pages of honour. 530.  
Your lists, and gainful territories of Purgatory. 537.  
It pitieth me M. Harding to see you so vainly to bestow your spiritual cogitations. 512.  
Your spiritual Clergy M. Harding is nothing else, but a spiritual filthiness. 513.  
This is a lusty kind of Divinity. 599.  
Full wisely. 610.  
Sadly, and sagely, and well to the purpose. 612.  
O worthy and grave reasons. 613.  
A discrete, and worthy Proctor. 621.  
A sage exposition. 181. In Margin.  
One pang of your Eloquence. 552.  
As for lies, shames, and slanders, etc. If ye be full freight, yet ye may divide them among your poor Lovanian brethren. It shall be a work of Supererogation. For iwis, they have enough already. 623.  
This is no doubt the holiness that Christ brought into the world. 625.  
O profound divinity. 626.  
A wise piece of counsel, and meet for a Doctor of Divinity. 631.  
Had you not had a shrewd sharp wit M. Harding. etc. 630.  
Alas M. Harding, although ye little pass for your Divinity, yet why have ye no more regard unto your Logic? 622.  
It pitieth me M. Harding to see your follies. 623.  
O glorious Thraso. 640.  
A worthy Argument, and full wisely applied. 477.  
With what cement can ye make these silly lose parts to cleave together? 637.  
Full Discreetly, 647.  
Discreetly reasoned.  
Your priestly Conclusions. 653.  
Thus ye fetch your matter round, within, without, and round about. 659.  
Your may Bishops, otherwise by you called Nullatenses. 664.  
Ye fill the house full with patriarchs of Constantinople. etc. 668.  
Your Popes by their omnipotent power may minister Sacraments being dead. 669.  
The Emperors in Councils held their peace, and told the clock, and said nothing. 677.  
Ye think no colour to dear to paint out the Pope's face. 695.  
Here we have found a Pope with two capacities. 724.  
The Pope succeedeth Peter in his chair, as if Peter had been sometimes installed in Rome, and had sat solemnly all day with his triple crown in his Pontificalibus, in a chair of gold. 726.  
All these matters be full solemnly proved, and are worthy to be published by Proclamation. 414.  
All this is Hicke Scorners Eloquence. 356.   
Here, if thou be not weary of this Loathsome gheare, gentle Reader, thou mayst also see, with what sober, modest, and learned Notes M. jewel hath painte● the margin of his Book, where so ever he layeth forth some Maimed pieces of my Confutation. Maimed pieces I may call them, for seldom, or rather no where, hath he suffered any discourse of mine to be printed in his Book, whole, unmaimed, and unmangled. In these Notes thou hast the substance of his answers. For if thou mark, what he bringeth in his text beside, and discuss it exactly: thou shall find, specially where any part of Doctrine is touched, that it pertaineth very little, or nothing to the point presently treated.   

M. jewels sober and modest Marginal Notes upon the Confutation.  

Untruth boldly presumed. 96. 238.  
Manifest and mere untruths. 105.  
Untruth most vain and manifest. 107.  
Untruth impudent above measure. 109. 512.  
Untruth vain and Childish. 114. 202. 610. 683.  
A vain untruth. 126. 245.  
An odious untruth. 127.  
Untruth joined with vain folly. 135.  
A great untruth joined with a slander. 146.  
Untruth fond and childish. 191. 254. 611.  
Untruth joined with heathenisse blasphemies. 207.  
Untruth proceeding of unadvised malice. 211.  
Untruth joined with gross ignorance. 215.  
Untruth joined with slander and malice. 219.  
Untruth slanderous. 219. 626.  
Untruth, and one of M. hardings mystical Dreams. 219.  
Untruth horrible and heathenish. Ibidem.  
Untruth so sensible and so gross, that a man may feel it with his fingers. 228.  
Untruth blasphemous and horrible. 297.  
A peevish untruth. 250.  
Untruth trifling and sophistical. 255.  
Untruth shameless and without sense. 258.  
Untruth vain and arrogant. 261.  
Untruth grounded upon mere folly. 262.  
Untruth grounded upon a dream. 266.  
Untruth childish and unsavoury. 267.  
Untruth guilefully enclosed. 278. 662.  
Untruth vile and slanderous. 281.  
Untruths, and most fond and blasphemous follies. 291.  
Untruth fond, and heathenish. 291.  
Untruth proceeding of vain dotage. 311.  
Untruth joined with vile slander. 335.  
A vile untruth. 368.  
Untruth malicious and slanderous. 393. 433.  
Nothing else but mere untruths. 393.  
Untruth fond and peevish. 400. 513. 515.  
Untruth too vain for a child. 400.  
Untruth joined with open folly. 402.  
A great untruth, and a shameless fable. 411.  
Untruth evident to a child. 424.  
Untruth ground upon gross ignorance. 439.  
Untruth manifest without wit. 449.  
Untruth more peevish than the former. 449.  
Untruth utterly void of shame. 449.  
Untruths impudent. 494. 661.  
Untruth so impudent, that I marvel M. Harding can report it without blushing. 513.  
Untruth undiscrete and impudent. 532.  
A whole heap of untruths and forgeries huddled together. 537.  
Untruth without either measure, or regard of shame, 55●, 7●9.  
Untruths joined with open blasphemy. 551.  
Untruth without any savour of wit and learning. 613.  
Untruth most impudent. 626.  
Untruth shameless without measure. 68●.  
Untruth joined with impudent flattery, and extreme folly.    

M. jewels Outcries, bitter, and scoffing Oos.  

O folly. 90. 124. 250. 550.  
O Dangerous Doctrine. 136.  
O marvelous horrible heresy. 207.  
O fond folly. 245. 610.  
O exact folly. 250.  
O fond grossness. 278.  
O brave Captain. 281.  
O earthly Divinity. 284.  
O so careful this good man is for our cares. 303.  
O grave commentary, and a wise matter etc. 303.  
O when will M. Harding confess a fault. 311.  
O a fair bonegrace. 382.  
O vain bravery. 390.  
O natural folly. 396.  
O grave consideration. 424.  
O vain excuse. 506.  
O fond man. 546.  
O so merely this man playeth with his fantasy. 578.  
O worthy and great reasons. 613.  
O profound Divinity. 626.  
O glorious Thraso. 640.  
O vanity of vanities. 647.  
O folly of follies. 673.  
O vain man. 687.  
O ye principal Posts of religion, O ye Archegovernours. 469  
Alas they have it not. 290.   
I leave more than I take of these flowers, gentle Reader. How pleasant the show of these few is unto thine eye, I know not. Verily had not M. jewel driven me unto this practice by his example, I should not have liked the Devise. Now if it offend thee, blame not mine, but M, jewels Invention. I thought such debt could not be better answered, then by payment of the same money. By this thou mayest judge, what stuff in that huge Book is pacte together.    

Answer to M. jewels View of Untruths, that is to sale, he pretenced Defence of such Untruths, as he thought himself best able to justify, with which he is truly charged, and of which he hath not yet discharged himself. The 4. Chapter.  
AFter his heap of sharp words, partly forged by himself, partly called out of my writings, and laid together, as it were in a Table (which seem to him, and to his brethren, so much irksome, how much their conscience is guilty): he setteth forth in an other Table as it were, certain Untruths, to the number of. 31. which he found, among many more, noted against him in my first Rejoinder, and in my Confutation of the Apology. This Table he calleth, 
M. jewels intent in setting forth the View of his Untruths.  A View of Untruths. His intent and meaning is, by the View of these few Untruths, which he hath chosen out, as the least among the whole number, to purchase himself a Defence, or at least way some excuse, for the rest. For feign would he all men to be persuaded, that the rest noted by me and by others, who have confuted his errors, and detected his manifold falsehood, are of no greater weight, than these are.  
What, and how great the rest are, they may see, who list to read our books, in which they be truly set forth. How unable he is to justify them, it shall appear by that he hath said in the View. For if he be not able to discharge himself of these one and thirty the least, how shall he be able to acquit himself of a thousand, and more of greater weight, scoared up against him, by those that have written but upon five, of his six and twenty Articles?  
First 〈◊〉 layeth forth .15. Untruths, which among many more in my Rejoinder I noted against him out of his Reply to the first Article. The first nine he is driven to acknowledge, For he hath said nothing in their defence. If he will say, they be but small Untruths, and therefore not worthy of any thing to be said of them: it may be replied, they are too great to be uttered so near together. 
M. jewel is rife of Untruths in the very beginning of his Reply.  For the first six Untruths be within the compass of. 12. lines in the beginning of his Reply. It were strange, that six great Untruths should be uttered within so few lines in the beginning of a book. For them that can not defend a matter, but with great lies, it is the best policy to begin with smaller lies. For else they should mar altogether.  
This circumstance considered, Untruths must needs seem, both many, and great. Briefly, the whole fifteen Untruths noted out of the Reply, be found in his first Division, that is to say, within less than thrice fifteen lines. It were very ill luck, if they should be proved all to be great and weighty Untruths in the first entry of the book, and that within so little space. There was never any Writer, so vain, or false, 
The. 10. Untruth. Beno, and Vspergensis partially holding with the Emperor not to be believed against Gregory the. 7.  that sowed Untruths so thick, specially in the beginning of a Treaty.  
The first nine then being confessed to be Untruths undischargeable, let us see, how substantially he dischargeth himself of the six other. It is reported (saith he) of Pope Hildebrand (so he calleth Gregory the seventh) that he wrought Necromancy and Sorcery. This noted I for an Untruth, saying, it is not reported by any grave and true writer: but by them that flattered the Emperor of that time. To this he maketh a Reply, This story (saith he) is largely set out by Beno, and Vrspergensis. These be they, whose witness I refused before, as being the emperors flatterers, and bearing malice to the Pope, and therefore over partial to bear credit in that case.  

Gregory the seventh.  How far this worthy man, Gregory the seventh was from exercising Necromancy or Sorcery, and from other vices, it is largely declared by the best writers of stories of that age, namely by Marianus Scotus, by Lambertus Schafuaburgensis, and Leo Hostiensis, and specially by Otho Frisingensis, and of late by Platina, and Onuphrius Panuinus. Furthermore Beno can not bear great credit with us, as he that is condemned by Ecclesiastical censure. 
Vrspergensis set out by Melanchthon only. The. 11. Untruth.  As for Vrspergensis, he is worthily suspected to be corrupted by your fellows of Germany, among whom he was set out in print by Philip Melanchthon, and not else.  
Item, Henry the Emperor was poisoned in the Communion bread, saith M. jewel. Untruth, say I, He was not poisoned, but died otherwise. For proof he replieth, and allegeth Vrspergensis. Likewise Aventinus, and beside, Baptista Ignatius, the writer of Supplementum Chronicorum, Ravisius Textor the Grammarian, and Carrion, writers of our time, and some of them of little credit. Neither in such a case maketh the number of writers any Argument of truth. For the afterwriters being deceived by the Untruth of the first writer, be they never so many in number, cannot make true, 
Henry of Luxemburg, how he died. Lib. 8.  that which was untruly reported at the first.  
Touching the Death of this Emperor, who was Henry of Luxemburg, Paulus Aemylius a grave, and a learned man, who hath examined this matter to the uttermost, writeth that he died of a sickness, which he fell into at Bonconuento in the territory of Sienna in Tuskane, being come thither from Pisa. The same writeth 
* In scholijs in Platinam.  Onophrius. That he should be poisoned in receiving the Sacrament by means of a Dominican Friar, Cornelius Cornepolita seemeth to esteem it for a fable, or to make the best of it, for a matter of a hear say. By that which 
* In Chronographia. The .12. Untruth. Victor's Death.  Nauclerus writeth thereof, it appeareth to be no better than a feigned tale.  
Item, Pope victor was poisoned in the Chalice, saith M. jewel. This noted I for an Untruth, and said, he died otherwise. To this he replieth, and for his saying allegeth Martinus Polonus that vain fabler, the first author of the fabulous Popedom of Pope joan the woman, he nameth certain other of our age, some being as very enemies to the Catholic Church, as he himself is, namely Anselmus Rid, 
Anselmus Rid.  a Protestant of Berna, whom we believe in such a matter no more than we believe M. jewel. For such men be very ready to set out in books any thing, whereby the estimation of our divine Mysteries may be impaired in the judgement of light heads, be it never so untrue. Concerning Pope Victor's death, Vincentius, 
Vincentius Bellovacen.  as good an Author as Martinus Polonus, and a man of much greater learning, writeth, that he died of a dysentery, and so Platina reciteth. In these three Untruths M. jewel hath some colour of a defence, because the writers of the Stories do vary. And he liketh that report best, that is most fabulous and vain, and tendeth to the contempt of the Pope, and of the blessed Sacrament. Such stuff is precious in his sight. Thus it is clear, that he hath not justified these three Untruths. To show a thing to be doubtful is not to clear it of all Untruth. 
The .13. and .14. untruths. Lyra in Daniel. cap. 14.   
As for the other two Untruths where he reporteth Lyra, to say that many Miracles are wrought in the Church by the Priests, and their Companions, to mock the people: notwithstanding any thing contained in his Reply, they remain undischarged, and appear as impudent lies, and falsifiynges, as before. How falsely he demeaneth himself in that pretenced saying of Lyra, it shall appear to him that readeth my Rejoinder. fol. 8. b. etc.  

The .15. Vnthruth  The .15. Untruth is, that he ascribeth the brief Commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles printed with S. Hieromes works, unto S Jerome, which are well known, and by Erasmus (whom he so much esteemeth) confessed, not to be S. Hieromes.  
M. jewels Reply hereto, is this. They are printed (saith he) among other S. Hieromes works, and are commonly known by his name: but by any other Author's name they are not known.  

Bastard works printed among the true works assundrie Authors.  If that were a good Argument to prove them to be S. Hieromes, because they are printed among S. Hieromes works: then were it easy to prove a number of treaties to be S. Hieromes, S. Augustine's, S. Ambroses', S. Chrysostom's, S. Cyprians, and other ancient Doctors of the Church, which are well known not to be theirs, and M. jewel himself would make no small triumph against us, if we should allege any testimony out of such, under the name of the Doctors, among whose works they be printed. For who is so simple, that cannot thus reason, (as for example, the Rule of nuns) it is printed among other S. Hieromes works, 
Regula Monacharum, Inter opera Hieron. To●●. 4.  ergo, it is S. Hieromes? Item, the treaty of the Invention or finding of the Head of S. john baptist, is printed with S. Cyprians works, ergo, it is S. Cyprians? By this Argument you may prove, that the foolish epistle written to Abra S. Hilaries pretenced daughter (in the authority of which epistle you put great confidence for the defence of priests Marriages) was S. Hilaries, because it is p●inted with S. Hilaries works. So might the unperfit work written by some Heretic (by Maximinus Arianus, as some think) upon S. Matthew printed with S. Chrysostom's works, ●e avouched to be S. Chrysostom's, and so should we make that holy and Catholic Doctor, an Author of sundry great heresies. The like Argument might be made for proof, and legitimation of sundry other bastard Treatises, which to father upon those learned Fathers, among whose works they are printed, and be not known by other Authors names, were great injury. I dare boldly say, M. jewel himself (how so ever he thought good thus to shift his hands of an Untruth laid to his charge) would be loath to allow this for a good Argument in his Adversary. For if he would, he is not ignorans, what a cumber he should have to answer unto things, that out of such writings might against him be alleged.  
Hitherto he hath not discharged himself of those fifteen the least Untruths, that be in my Rejoinder noted against him out of his very first Division of his Reply to the first Article. What a do he should have to justify the rest, with which he standeth charged by me, and by other men, who have dubbed him Lord, and Author of a thousand more Untruths: by his feeble Answer unto these few of least appearance, it is soon conceived. Now let us see, how he justifieth the Untruths of the Apology.  
M. jewels pretenced justification of certain Untruths of the Apology, with the Confutation of the same.  

M. jewel the apology. Pa●●●●. cap. 4. Diuis. 2.  
The Council of Carthage (saith he) provided, that no bishop should be called either the highest Bishop, or the chief Priest. 
Untruths noted out of the Apology. The first Untruth.   
To this he forgeth an Answer in my name, and addeth unto it such words, as whereby he thought to set forth unto his reader, a show of some lightness of my part, whereas I answer him in deed otherwise, as it may be seen in my Confutation. part. 2. cap. 4. fol. 53. etc.  
For answer; this may be here, and is in effect said there. Whereas the Apology hath thus, Also the Council of Carthage did expressly provide, that no Bishop should be called either the highest Bishop, or chief Priest: To this I say, that it is false, and that the Council of Carthage hath not so, but otherwise. It speaketh of Primates only, and not generally of all Bishops, and as it appeareth; of the Primates only of Africa. And therefore the Bishop of Rome by that Council is not deprived of his ancient Title of Summus Sacerdos. This is more largely declared in my Confutation, in the place above quoted.   

To this M. jewel maketh his Reply in this wise.  
The words of the Council, alleged by Gratian, are these. Primasedis Episcopus, 
M. jewel allegeth Gratian'S words for the words of the Council of Charthage.  non apelletur Princeps Sacerdotum, vel Summus Sacerdos, vel aliquid huiusmodi: sed tantùm primae Sedis Episcopus. universalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur.  
Why do you allege Gratian M. jewel, whereas you might allege the Council itself, from whence Gratian took these words? And so you found the place thus coted in the end of the Chapter before. 
Distin. 99 Provincia  Item ex Concilio African●. 3. ca 26. By this your shameless falsehood appeareth. For if ye had gone unto that Council itself, ye should not have found these words at all, neither in the Greek (for it is extant in Greek) nor in the Latin: these words I say, universalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur: Which are no more a part of that .26. Canon of the third African Council, than those other words are, there likewise following immediately, unde Pelagius secundus omnibus Episcopis. They are put in by Gratian himself, whereby, as his manner is, he fortelleth the reader, what followeth in the next chapter. So this Untruth is doubled with an other Untruth, and remaineth to M. jewel, as that to which he shall never be able to answer. Of this I shall have occasion to treat more at large hereafter. I wish the Reader for a further discover of M. jewels falsehood, to peruse what there I shall say.   

M. jewel. apology. part. 2. cap. 12.  
Item, Calixtus (saith he) decreed, 
The .2. Untruth.  that Consecration being finished, all the people should communicate. etc.  
To this I answer, that it was the Decree, not of Calixtus, but of Anacletus, and that the request of receiving the communion the Consecration being done, pertained to the Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, and other Clerks attending upon the Bishop celebrating the Sacrifice upon a Solemn Feast, and not unto all the people. Howbeit that the people did then commonly receive every day (which M. jewel in his Defence goeth about to prove with many testimonies, to no purpose) I deny not, 
Pag. 227.  ne never denied, but this spec●●● Dec●●● of Anacletus i●●● be 〈…〉 of th● Clergy only, 
Anacletus in prima Epistola Decretali.  that attend●● upon the Bishop as the Circumstance of the place in th● Epistle of Anacletus showeth. This is to be seen in my Confutation, fol. 9●. a.   

To this M. jewel replieth and saith.  
Here M. Harding is soon reproved even by his own Dectours, Darandus, Hugo, Cochlaus, Clichth●ueus. For thus they say, Omnes olim, tum Sacerdotes, tum Laici cum sacrificante communicabant, etc. Hi● unum de hae re Canonem recit●bo, qui Calixto ●scribitur. Hereto I answer.  
If I say otherwise touching this point, than these (whom M. jewel calleth mine own Doctors) have said, therein I am gainsaid it will not follow, that I am reproved. D●randus, and Hugo say nothing that is contrary to my understanding of Anacletus Decree. As for Coclaeus, and Clichthoveus men of our time, what if they took it otherwise, than I do? That is their Private sense. It followeth not thereof, that I am deceived.   

That Anaclet●● Decree touching the necessity of Communion to be received pertaineth on●y to the Clergy.  

Nicol. Cusanus epi. 7. ad Clerum & literatos Bohemia. Degradentur  I have good cause rather to believe Cardinal Cusanus, who seemeth to have examined this Decree farther, and more exactly, th●n these two late writers have done. For thus he reciteth the Later part of the Decree, as it is in the Original, out of Burchardus: Sic enim Apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Romanae tenet Ecclesia, & si hoc neglexerint, deg●adentur. Let all communicate, that were present at the Consecration (saith the Decree) for so the Apostles have ordained, and so the holy Roman Curche holdeth, and if they omit it by contempt, let them be degraded (or deposed) from their Degree. Cusanus willeth the word, Degradentur 
Degradentur  to be weighed, and thereof gathereth, that the Decree speaketh only of them of the Clergy, that were present at the Consecration, and were admitted into Sancta Sanctorum, the holy place, where none came, but such as were in Ecclesiastical Orders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, of the Clergy, as they are called in the. 9 Canon among the Canons of the Apostles, whereunto the Decree maketh relation. Hereof I have spoken sufficiently (beside the place of my Confutation above mentioned) in my first Reionder. fol. 220. a. and again, fol. 308. a. Thus you remain still charged with this Untruth. For it is not enough to say what is written, but to discern what is best written.   

M. jewel. The Apology. part. 2. cap. 8. Diuis. 2.  
Gregorius Nazianzenus saith speaking of his own Father, 
The .3. Untruth.  that a good and a diligent Bishop doth serve in the ministery never the worse, for that he is married, but rather the better.  
Here I told M. jewel, that he used his accustomed Figure Pseudologia, which is as much to say, as lying in plain English. For in deed he never said it. And so much do I tell him here once again. But let us consider of his Reply, wherein he seemeth to play the part of a worse Liar than before. Thus he saith.  

An untruth proceeding of gross ignorance, or of great impudency.  This error of M. hardings grew of ignorance. For nazianzens' words be very plain: Meo Patri Mater mea etc. My Mother being given to my Father of God, became not only his helper, for that had been no great wonder, but also was his leader, and Captain, both by word, and by deed training him unto the best. In Religion and godliness she doubted not to become his Mistress. Nazianzenus in Epitaphio patris.  

The faithful woman travailed with her unfaithful husband, to bring him unto the Faith, she did not so after that he was made Bishop. August. Confess. li. 9 cap. 9  All this, and much more uttered by the learned son of his godly Mother, is to be understanded of the time, when his father was an Infidel. She being a Christian woman, and come of a Christian stock, being married unto her husband remaining yet without belief in Christ, used all the good means of a helper, guide, leader, schoolemaistresse, and teacher, to induce him unto the Faith. Which thing by God's grace at length she performed, as the holy woman Monica S. Augustine's mother, did likewise, in winning Patricius her husband, unto the Faith of Christ, not long before he died, as S. Augustine witnesseth. But that ever she took upon her so to teach him, after that he was chosen bishop of Nazianzum, for that M. jewel is not able to show us so much as one word, or half word, and yet that doth he constantly affirm in his pretenced Defence. 
In the Defence. page. 178.  This being so, what maketh it to the justification of his Untruth? It may please thee good Reader to peruse that I say of this hereafter, where I treat of it at large, and confute this impudent Untruth of M. jewels thoroughly. 
Confutation. fol. 76. & in sequent.  Howbeit I confuted the same also sufficiently in my Confutation of the Apology.   

M. jewel. The Apology. part. 6. cap. 5. Diuis. 2.  
Pope Liberius (saith he) was a favourer of the Arian Heretics. 
The 4. Untruth.   
That he was a favourer of the Arians, it is utterly untrue, say I. And it were not hard (if I were desirous to furnish forth a great Book with heaps of Doctors sayings, as M. jewel is) to allege very much to the contrary, and in his Defence, that he was a man of great constancy, and never bore savour toward the maintainers of that horrible heresy. The contrary appeareth by that Theodoritus writeth of him Libro Ecclesiasticae Historiae. 2. cap. 17. Athanasius in Apologia saith, he was banished, for that he would not subscribe unto the Arian Heresy. Tripart. Lib. 5. cap. 16.   
M. jewels Reply hereto is this. 
The Author hereof is S. Jerome, de Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus, in Fortunatiano. And one of M. hardings own principal Doctors saith, De Liberio Papa constat fuisse Arianum.  
That Pope Liberius was no favourer of the Arians.  
Here have we two new Untruths added unto the old. Mark Reader, what is that M. jewel affirmeth, and that I deny. It is this, that Pope Liberius was a favourer of the Arian Heretics. S. Jerome in the place by M. jewel alleged, saith not, that Liberius was a favourer of the Arians, but that by the importunity of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia, 
Hieron. in Catalogo Scriptorun Eccl. 107.  he was compelled to subscribe unto Heresy, as he was going into banishment for the Faith. Pro Fide ad exilium pergentem, primus solicitavit, ac fregit, & ad subscriptionem haereseos compulit, saith S. Jerome, if these were his his own words, and not words added unto him by Heretics, as some have judged. Now if a man be compelled to do a thing, will M. jewel say of him, that he is a favourer of the thing? Favour presupposeth love, liking, and good wil What we like not, but abhor, and hate, that can we not favour. If Pope Liberius bare favour toward the Arian Heretics, than was it not compulsion, that he subscribed unto that Heresy. If he were compelled to subscribe, as certainly he was, if he subscribed at all: thereof he ought not to be called a favourer of the Heresy. It was for fear of punishment, and of Constantius the emperors displeasure, it was not of favour. For if he had favoured it, he should not have been thrust out of his Bishopric, and turned out into banishment, but have been great with the Emperor, as other bishops were, that to please him, and for worldly preferment, sticked not to subscribe.  

Hieron. in Chronicis.  S. Jerome writeth hereof otherwise in Chronicis, saying, that he subscribed, victus exilij taedi●, overcome with the loathsomeness of his banishment. How so ever it was, and by what extremity so ever he was driven to subscribe, certain it is, that he was not a favourer of the Arian Heretics. Let M. jewel consider of this matter in the like case. 
Did M. jewel favour the Papists, when he was feign to subscribe to their Doctrine?  He once subscribed in a solemn assembly of learned men at Oxford unto the Pope's supremacy, the real Presence, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to other parts of the Catholic Doctrine, which now he so earnestly impugneth: I trow he will not have this much said of him, that then he was a favourer of Papistry. And doubtless he that would say so of him, should bely him. So were it true, that Liberius through fear subscribed to the Arians, yet it is not true, that he was a favourer of them. And so M. jewel hath not yet discharged himself of this Untruth.  
But who is that one of M. hardings own principal Doctors, that saith these words, De Liberio Papa constat fuisse Arianum, As concerning Pope Liberius, it is certainly known, that he was an Arian? What is the cause that here M. jewel nameth him not? Why doth not he so much as by a cotation in the margin signify, what Doctor this is? Is he now grown more shamefast, then heretofore, that he would be loath to be found a notorious liar in that place, where he laboureth to discharge himself of Untruths? Well though he were a shamed to be taken with a lie, yet was he not a shamed to make a lie. This Principal Doctor of mine (for so it pleaseth M. jewel to be merry) is Alphonsus de Castro. How may this be known? Forsooth even by M. jewel himself, who in his pretenced Defence writeth thus, word for word, where without all error (ye may be sure) he bringeth much matter to show, that the Pope may err. 
Defence. page. 617. lin. 2. Alphonsus impudently belied.  Certainly (saith he to me) Alphonsus your own Doctor saith, De Liberio Papa, constat fuisse Arianum. Touching Pope Liberius, it is well known, he was an Arian. And where saith Alphonsus thus? Mary saith M. jewel in his marginal cotation, Alphonsus contrà haeres. lib. 1. cap. 4. But read that Chapter who will, verily in the books of sundry prints that I have seen, he saith it not. If it were once so printed, and afterward by th'Author revoked, it ought not to be alleged. Thus M. jewel going about to justify his Untruths, doubleth his untruths. So shall they do, that take upon them to defend Untruths. To the objection made against Pope Liberius, my answer was sufficient before in my Confutation, 
Confutation. fol. 285. b.  and so it remaineth, for aught that M. jewel bringeth in his Defence to the contrary, if all be judged by learning.   

M. jewel. The Apology. part. 6. Cap. 5. Diuis. 2.  
Pope Zosimus corrupted the Council of Nice.  

The 5. Untruth. Confutat. fol. 286. a.  To this I say in my Confutation, Zosimus is belied, he corrupted not the Council of Nice. M. jewel replieth.  
This matter most plainly appeareth by the records of the Council of Aphrica.  
Of this matter M. jewel ye have treated both in your Reply in the fourth Article, and in your pretenced Defence, very untruly. What so ever you have to say for proof of that blessed Popes forging of the Nicene Council, 
Copus Dialog. 1. Cap. 6. & 7. Stapleton. Artic. 4. fo. 30. & in sequent. Dorman Fol. 94. etc.  it is clearly confuted by M. Stapleton, and by M. Cope, in whose dialogs you would seem to be much conversant, which either of pride you disdain to acknowledge, or of falsehood you dissemble to know. Because the matter requireth a long discourse, and the same is already well handled both by M. Stapleton in the Return of Untruths, and also by M. Dorman in his disprove of M. Nowel's reproof: I remit the reader unto them, promising him, that by reading them, he shallbe satisfied at large, and judge M. jewel convict and cast in a great Untruth.   

M. jewel. apology. part. 6. Cap. 5. Diuis. 2.  
Pope john (the .22.) held a detestable opinion touching the Immortality of the soul. 
The. 6. Untruth.   
See my Confutation reader. There have I fully answered to that is laid to this Pope's charge, 
Confutation. Fol. 285. b.  touching the state of the Soul after this life. The Apology burdeneth him with a wicked, and detestable opinion of the life to come, and of the Immortality of the Soul, for so it speaketh. Most certain it is, that M. jew. there said Untruth, if the Apology be his, and that here again he doubleth his Untruth. And what I said in my Confutation, true it is, and he shall never be able to refel it. Let us now consider, what truth there is in his Reply.  
Gerson (saith he) in Sermone Pashali (writeth) Pope john 22. decreed, 
Gerson is impudently belied by M. jewel.  that the Souls of the wicked should not be punished, before the day of the last judgement. Which error the University of Parise condemned for heresy, and caused the Pope to recant. Hereto he addeth these words most impudently.  
Concil. Constantien. in Appendice. In primis. Quin imò johannes Papa. 22. dixit, et pertinaciter credit, Animan hominis cum corpore humano mori: & extingui, 
This is impudently ascribed to john. 21. being spoken of john. 23.  ad instar animalium brutorun. Dixitque mortuum semel, etiam in novissimo die, minimè esse resurrecturum. Thus far M. jew. in his View of Untruths.  
What shall I say, but that all is false? First touching this saying here in English, pretended to be alleged, as out of Gerson in Sermone Paschali: whereas among all Gersons works, there are but two Sermons bearing this title, In Festo Paschae: 
In quarta part operum Gersonis. Linea. 28.  in neither of both is this saying to be found. Yet M. jewel maketh himself so sure of it, that he is not ashamed to allege it again word for word, in the pretenced Defence, pag. 617. where he beginneth the sentence thus in Latin, johannes Papa. 22. decrevit. etc. and thus coteth the place, Gerson in sermone Paschali.  
It is a fowl thing M. jewel, and a wicked impudency thus to belie the Doctors. Certain it is, Gerson never said it, nor in sermone Paschali, as you report, nor any where else, that this Pope john made any such Decree. Neither was his error, as you untruly burden him, that the Souls of the wicked should not be punished, before the day of the last judgement. That ye writ touching this Pope, either proceedeth of malice, or of ignorance. If ye be malicious, God amend you: if ye be ignorant, thus ye may understand the truth.   

What was the proper error of Pope john. 22. touching the Souls departed.  
The error of Pope john the. 22. was not, that the Souls of the wicked be not punished before the day of the last judgement: but that the souls of the good, see not the face of God, before the last day. His Position, or opinion was conceived with these terms, as the Scholastical Doctors then used to speak, or the like, as we find in Adrianus that learned Pope, 
Adrianus in 4. Sententiarum. quaest de Sacramento Confirmationis.  and in the extravagant of Pope Benedictus undecimus, who succeeded him next. Animae purgatae ante finale judicium non habent stolam, quae est clara & facialis Visio Dei. That is to say, The purified (or cleansed) Souls have not their Stole, which is the clear vision of God and sight face to face, before the final judgement.  
This matter was much disputed of among the learned Divines of that time. The Question was thus propounded, as it appeareth by Benedictus extravagant. 
●enedictus. 11. in Extravagante.  An anima justorum hominum, in quibus nihil erat purgabile, cùm de hoc seculo decesserunt, vel si quid erat, iam purgatum fuerat ex toto, post mortem suam videant Divinam essentiam, ante corporum suorum resumptionem, & judicium generale. As much to say in English: whether the Souls of just men, in which there was nothing to be purged, when they departed out of this world, or if there were any thing, the same had been now wholly purged, after their death, see the Divine essence before the receiving again of their bodies, and before the general judgement.  
Of this Question some Doctors than held the affirmative, some the negative. Amongst them that held the Negative, this Pope john. 22. was one before he was Pope, and perhaps also afterward. But he held it only as his private opinion. As touching Decree, or definition in that behalf either against, or with the truth, doubtless it can not be proved by any story of estimation, that he made any. Who of all men is more to be believed herein, then Benedictus the eleventh that was Cardinal in his time, and succeeded him? This Benedictus saith, that Pope john prepared himself to make a Decision and a perfit determination of that question. And to th'intent the truth might be exactly tried out, he gave commandment in his public Consistory (whereat the said Benedictus was then present, as he saith himself) unto the Cardinals, Prelates, and Doctors of divinity, who were there in great number, to provide for the due examination of that question, that when they should be required, every man should say deliberately, what he thought of it. Yet (saith Benedictus) being prevented by death, as it pleased our Lord, he could not perform that he intended. The same was performed by Benedictus straight after Pope john's death.  
Now this was an error in Pope john, I deny not. Yet for the same is not he to be accounted an heretic, as neither S. Irenaeus, Theophylactus, and S. bernard are, who seem to have been of the same opinion, as it is by some learned men gathered and judged of certain sayings found in their works. Certainly it was no heresy, for so much as the matter was not at that time expressly defined by the Church, but afterward by Benedictus the eleventh, and at length by the Council of Florence under Eugenius the fourth.  
This is the untrue doctrine of Pope john. 22. of which Gerson speaketh, far otherwise then M. jewel reporteth him, in a Sermon, that he made before the French king then being, in festo Paschali.  
In that Sermon having uttered a few sentences touching Peace, taking occasion of his Theme, which was, that Christ said to his disciples, Pax vobis, after his prayers made, and the Theme repeated again, even after the manner that Preachers in England used in the catholic times: thus he beginneth. 
Gerson. Serm. 1. in Festo Pa●schali.  salvator noster, & verus miles, etc. jesus Christ our Saviour and true knight, straight after his blessed Passion in the first instant of his death (which was on the frydaie at the ninth hour) went down unto Hell, to give the true peace, the peace of glory and bliss, unto his friends the patriarchs, Prophets, and the other just, that were in Limbo Patrum, that is to say, in the resting place of the Fathers. And it is verily to be believed, that he gave this glorious peace to all them that were in Purgatory, and that he delivered them, as a king doth at his first joyous coming unto a place. And of purpose this did he unto the Thief, who of likelihood had not yet fulfilled his penance for all his sins: who was in that very hour made blessed, and saw God face to face, as the Saints do in Paradise. This day (saith Christ) shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Luke 23.  
Immediately upon this follow the words, by which it appeareth, that by verdict of Gerson, Pope john's error was, as is afore said. For there he saith. Propter quod apparet falsitas doctrinae Papae johannis. 22. quae damnata fuit cum sono buccinarum vel tubarum coram rege Philippo awnculo tuo per Theologos Parisienses, etc. For the which thing the falsehood of the doctrine of Pope john the. 22. appeareth, which was condemned at the sound of Trumpets before king Philip thy uncle by the Divines of Paris.  
Remember good Reader, this error of john. 22. was not condemned by the Divines of Paris, when he was Pope, but before, when he was a private Doctor, and lived in the realm of France. Whom notwithstanding Gerson calleth Pope, for that, he was Pope afterward, and died Pope. And thus wrote Gerson of him long after his death.  
Lay all this, and that I said before in my Confutation together M. jewel, and this matter of Pope john the. 22. is fully answered, and you remain still charged with Untruth, and all the scornful talk that you utter of Purgatory in your pretenced defence page. 617. is found, vain, light, and unlearned, and utterly beside the purpose. For the question, wherein Pope john is said to have erred, was only touching the souls of the just and perfect, who were fully purged before their departure hence (in quibus nihil erat purgabile, cum de hoc seculo decesserunt, as it is showed in Pope Benedictus Decretale before mentioned) or were purged elsewhere, 
Defence. pag. 617.  after the separation from their bodies. So that by this, Purgatory is not taken away at all, as your skoffing tale, that liketh you so well, pretendeth it to be. Neither were the Heretics, that of S. Augustine are called Arabici, the first Authors of this error, as you say, but the Armenians, and Grecians, if we may believe Guido.   

M. jew. Untruly attributeth that to Pope john. 22. which was written of john. 23.  
Now touching that you have alleged out of the Council of Constance, in Appendite, as you call it: I marvel with what face ye bring it in. And what a great falsehood is it, to put in your book the name of Pope john the. 22. for john the. 23. who was not borne within a hundred years after john the. 22. The name of this john the 23. was before he took upon him to be Pope, Balthasar de Cossa, as there ye have it declared. Neither was it certain, that he held that detestable opinion touching the Death of the body and Soul together, it was but brought into the Council of Constance in a bill of complaint, containing many other heinous Articles against him, which were not proved. It was a matter of Diffamation, it was not of probation, as by the bill itself it is expressed. For there ye find these words.  

In Appendice Concilij Constantien.  The said john the. 23. was of these things defamed grievously before the clergy, and the people. Therefore it is thus said there of his Acousers: Denunciant, dicunt, ponunt, & si necesse erit, probare intendunt, etc. They denounce, say, and put, and if it shall be necessary, they intend to prove. They that accuse, and intend to prove, if need be, have not yet proved. And God forbidden, all things should be taken as true, whereof some be accused.  
How so ever it be, john the. 23. is not john the. 22. no more, than john jewel is john Capon. Neither was that three and twentieth john a true Pope, lawfully elect, but an usurper, as two others were with him at the same time, which were deposed all three at the Council of Constance, and a new Pope chosen. So by this place ye have proved no heresy against Pope john the. 22. nor against any true Pope at all, but only have showed yourself a shameless shifter, and one, that hath a more malicious mind to hurt the authority of the Pope, than matter of just accusation against him.   

M. jewel. The Apology. part. 6. cap. 6. Diuis. 1.  
The canonists say, the Pope can do asmuch, 
The. 7. Untruth.  as Christ himself can do.  
To this I said, it is false, and slanderous. M. jewel replieth.  
These words be most manifest, and out of all question: 
Extrà de translatione Episcopi. Quanto. Hostien.  Excepto peccato, Papa potest quicquid Deus ipse potest. Except sin, the Pope can do asmuch, as God himself can do.  
This is a most manifest, and out of all question (to use this man's own words) a foul corruption. Certainly Hostiensis saith not so. But because the Pope is the Vicar of Christ in earth, and God ratifieth, what so ever he doth in binding, or losing, so it be done duly, and rightly, clave non errant, as the canonists speak: having reckoned certain things, wherein the Pop● hath authority as under God, and as Christ's high officer, he concludeth with these words. Breviter, except peccat●, 
Ibidem.  quasi omnia de iure potest, ut Deus. Briefly, except sin, he hath power, as a man would say, in all things, of right, as God. Thus saith Hostiensis, and not as M. jewel belieth him. And this saying being rightly understanded, is a true saying.  
What soever the Pope doth, or God doth by the Pope, that is above the power, and authority of man: the same is he said to do, not as man, but, ut Deus, as God, because he doth it, as being the Vicar of Christ, as bearing the steed of God. And therefore it is said by the learned canonists (wherewith also M. jewel beside learning, 
Cap. Romana. 1. respon. de appel. 6. Hostiensis foully corrupted by M. jew.  or reason findeth fault) that the Consistory of God, and the Pope is one Consistory, as a Bishops, and his Chancellors Consistory, is one and the same Consistory.  
Now, let us consider the impudency of this false Minister. First he avoucheth his shameless lie boldly, as though, where truth faileth, for show of proof, the matter might be stowted out. The words (saith he) be most manifest, and out of all question. Excepto peccato, Papa potest, quicquid Deus ipse potest. That is to say, the Pope can do as much, as Christ himself can do. But what if these words be not most manifest? Is it not then a most manifest impudency, so to affirm of them? What if they be not out of all doubt? Is it not then out of all doubt, that this Minister is a Minister of lies? Certainly the words of Hostiensis be those very precise words, which here I have alleged, and no other. See then good Reader this man's truth, whereof he so much craketh.  
First, 
How many untrue parts M. jewel playeth at once.  he corrupteth the sentence by leaving out sundry the Doctors words, and telleth his tale for him in such wise, as he may find occasion to carp him. For he hath nipt away, first, this word, Breviter, which admonisheth the redaer to have recourse to that goeth before: then this word, Quasi, which being added, by good discretion mitigateth and qualifieth the saying, that otherwise perhaps might seem over vehement: then again, those other words of necessary importance, ota, de iure, and, ut. Next, he corrupteth the sentence by putting too of his own those words (besides Papa, for which I greatly blame him not) quicquid, and, Ipse, and that by way of emphasie, that the whole might seem the more absurd.  
Besides all this he inverteth the whole sentence, and maketh of Hostiensis true and reasonable saying, a blasphemous, and ●onde saying of his own, whereof that great learned man did never so much as dream. And who would think, that any man having his right wit, would speak so vainly, and so far biyonde all sufferance of Christian ears, that the Pope can do as much, as God himself can do? And yet must all this be faced out, and M. jewel must have leave to say, it is most manifest, it is out of all question. Who ever saw one little poor sentence so nipt, so hackte, so hewed and mangled, so turned, and cast in a new mould? And because it liked him well, that is to say, because it should mislike all good men: he hath made great store of it, and hath placed it in sundry corners of his books, verily in his last most vain Defence of the Apology, in very many places.  
With such stars he giveth light to the congregations of his sect. If this be not impudency, what is impudency?   

M. jewel. The Apology. part. 6. cap. 6. Diuis. 1.  

The. ●. Untruth.  Some of them have said, The Pope is the light, that is come into the world. And who so is an ill doer, fleeth that light.  
M. jewel falsifieth the Answer that I make unto this objection, by cutting away those words, wherein the answer consisteth: 
Confutatio. 287. a.  as it may be seen in my Confutation. Thus there I say, and the same here I say again: we answer you on the behalf of Cornelius the Bishop of Bitont● in Italy, 
joan. 1.  that he never said, (The Pope is the light, which should come into the world) in that sense, as it is spoken of Christ. Neither is the Reply ye make, directed unto this answer. For against the same ye have in deed nothing to reply. If that Bishop in an Oration made at th● Council of Trent spoke undiscreetly, where it was lawful for all to speak freely, what they thought good, as it is, or at least ought to be in our parliaments in England, what is that to us? Neither are we bound to justify every man's private tale: nor if any speak perhaps at a time unadvisedly, can that stand you in any steed for defence of wicked Schisms, and Heresies, with which ye are charged. Howbeit Cornelius the Bishop of Bitonto there spoke not altogether, as you english his words: and his saying being favourably expounded, in a convenient sense (as doubtless he meant it) may be tolerated.   

M. jewel. The Apology. part. 4. Cap. 1. Diuis. 1.  

The. 9 Untruth.  They have decreed, that a Priest, for Fornication ought not to be removed from his Cure.  
You have foully falsified my Answer hereunto M. jewel: And in your pretenced Defence ye have cut of from my Confutation, much, that maketh directly against you, as ye have done through your whole Book. 
Confut. fol. 158. a.  See my Confutation who will, and he shall find you proved a foul liar. And who be they I pray you, that have thus decreed?  
In your said Defence you are feign to flee to your common friend the Gloze upon the Decrees, out of which ye serve yourself of much gay stuff. And what saith the Gloze? It saith thus: Dicunt neminem etc. Why M. jewel, dependeth your whole proof upon the Glosers dicunt, that is, upon a They say? Ye tell us, they have decreed: and being required to show it, you send us to the Gloze, and yet there ye have no certain Decree, but an uncertain dicunt. Ye have little knowledge in your Canon law, I perceive, as great a lawyer as ye make yourself, and as great a lawyer as he is, to whom ye gave the Archedeaconrie of Northwiltshire, to th'intent he among others more should help you in patching together the Aphorisms, and pieces of your lying Books. After this ye go for proof hereof from the Gloze, to the margin of the Gloze. It is pity this man hath not authority to make Gloss of his own authentical, to prove his toys by, and that the marginal notes may not stand him in steed of substantial authority.  
But at length there, as also in your Reply in the view of your Untruths, Panormitane is brought in, and he a God's name is my greatest canonist, say you: whereas ye know well enough M. jewel, 
Extra. De consangui, & affini. Non debet.  the Canon law is not my profession. But what saith he? hody ex simplici fornicatione Clericus non deponitur: for simple fornication now a days a Clerk is not deposed. Why M. jewel, this speaketh but of the practice that then was, and your promise was to show us, where it was decreed, you forget yourself pardie.   

Fornication punished in the Clergy.  
But sir understand you, what in the Canon Law is meant by deposition? 
Deposition what it is.  If ye think, it is nothing else, but a Priest to be removed from his cure, for, so you take it: you are deceived. For it is a far more grievous punishment. Deposition by the definition of the canonists, is a removing of a Clerk from the ministery of the Altar for ever. Panormitane by you alleged saith, that now a days a Clerk is not deposed for simple fornication, as in old time indistinctly he was deposed. As you find in cap. A multis. Extra de aetate & qualita ordinand. Yea (saith he) in old time every mortal sin was thought worthy of Deposition. 
Distinct. 4 ca erit aunt lex.  By Panormitane, a Priest committing simple fornication, is punished otherwise, then by Deposition, diversly in divers respects. For the which you are referred to the chapter, At si Clerici. Extra. De iudic. Where he treateth more fully of this matter, and as it were of purpose. There shall ye find, how he is to be punished.  

Canone Apost. 25. C. Maximinianus. 81. dist. & alijs capitibus eo tit. Deposition of two sorts.  And here to say somewhat thereof for the better instruction of the Reader, In the Canons of the Apostles it is plain, and also in divers other old Canons, that, as for theft, perjury, and other crimes, so for fornication, a Clerk, of what order so ever he were, should be deposed.  
Deposition is of two sorts: the one, which is solemn, and with terror, when not only by sentence, a Clerk is deprived of his holy Orders (though the character yet remain, but unprofitable to the execution of holy Orders) but also in deed and actually his head is shaven, his sacred ornaments taken away, and then himself turned into lay apparel, as Cranmer, and Ridley were in Oxford. This kind of Deposition, is properly called Degradatio, 
Degradatio.  which is not used, but when the offender's fault is so great, that he is to be delivered to the secular power, to be punished, 
C. Novimus ext. de verb. signif. etc. 1. de haereticis. libro. 6. Depositio properly.  executed, or to be walled up for ever. The other kind of Deposition is, which is done only by sentence without actual Degradation: and that is called properly Depositio, the which is here meant.  
They that were thus by only sentence, though not actually, deposed from the Clergy for their notorious and outrageous offences, were grievously punished. First, it was a great loss to lose their Orders, and dignity of the Clergy. Then also they lost all their spiritual livings, and offices, and all privileges of Clerks. Besides this, they were without all hope to be restored again to the ministery. 
C. 1. cum 11. capit. seq. dist. 5●.  And withal, they were condemned to some straight Cloister, there all their lives long to lament, and bewail their offence, and so to do penance: 
C. Sacerdos cum. c. seq. 81. dis.  But they might receive the blessed Sacrament of the body of Christ, except they were stubborn, and would not obey the sentence.  
But sometimes in the Canons, to be deposed, signifieth, 
Dicto Can. Apost. 25.  to be deprived of Ecclesiastical livings, or to be suspended from execution of holy orders for a time. Howbeit, it is not oft so taken, but in the two significations aforesaid, for deposition from holy Orders by sentence, or, for Degradation.  
And no marvel though the old Canons of the Apostles and decrees of ancient Fathers did so grievously punish the Clergy for fornication, theft, perjury, and other mortal sins. For in the primitive Church, when the sun of justice was up at mid day, and devotion hot, sin was so much abhorred, and punished, that to the very lay people that were Christians, seven years penance was wont to be enjoined and decreed by the law for every mortal sin. 
C. hoc ipsum 33. q. 2. etc. praedicandum in Glosa. 22. q. 1. Distin. 34. C. fraternitatis. Ita decretum est in Concilio Laodicensi. Item in Carthaginensi. 3. & in 8. synodo, ut in Gratiano c his qui cum 4. ca ibi sequent. 26. q. 7. etc. mensuram de poeniten. dist. 1. C. prasbyter. 82. dis.  But in process of time, as the Devotion and heat of Christian zeal decreased, and the multitude of sins, and sinners increased: so these straight pounishementes, and penances were mitigated. For as Pope Pelagius saith, Quamuis multa sint quae observari Canonicae jubet sublimitatis authoritas, tamen defectus nostri temporis, quo non solùm merita, sed corpora ipsa hominum defecerunt, districtionis illius non patitur manner censuram. Although there be many things, which the high authority of the Canons commandeth to be observed, yet the defect of our time is such, in which not only the merits, but also the very bodies of men be decayed, that it will not bear the censure of that old straightness to continue in force. Therefore all penance in secret Confession was at length referred to the arbitrament, and judgement of the glostly Father, who should consider the contrite heart of the sinner, and his weakness, and other circumstances, and so enjoin him such penance, as he thought sufficient.  
And also withal, this open punishment of deposition for the open sin of fornication in a Clerk, was in Concilio Grangrensi changed into ten years penance to be performed after a very straight, and austere manner and form, as that Council prescribeth. Which is so straight, that if it were observed now adays M. jewel should have no cause to complain, that the Canons did favourably, or to gently punish fornication in the Clergy. But though every man ought to do the best he can to do satisfaction, and to repent of his sins before God: yet in the open government, and public rule and policy of the world, the law must be such, and appoint such things, as may be obtained, and observed of men, and as the people, and time beareth: else it will be quite contemned, and trodden down, and be never a whit observed.  
The Civil law doth punish adultery with death, 
L. Gracchus C. de adult.  but we see the contrary now every where. Yea it can not be established now in many Countries, such is the state of the time, and people. 
Toto tit. de cohab. cler. et mulier. extra.  Therefore if the later Canons do not so severely punish fornication in the Clergy, as the old Canons did: we must rather bear it, and lament it, then be offended with it, and reprehend it. For such is the state of the time and the world, that you may rather wish, then establish to any good effect, the rigour of the old laws, and statutes both in civil, and ecclesiastical rule. But you shall never prove, that the Church winked at fornication in the clergy, or that it did not the best it could at all times, and now doth, to extirpate this vice in every sort and degree of men, and especially in the Clergy, as far, as possibly it may be, and no farther. For such government, as can not take place in common weals, we will leave to M. jewel, and his companions, who go about with double brazen Canons, and not by ecclesiastical Canons to reform the world, as now in France it appeareth.  
Look and consider, 
Concil. Trident. Sessio 25. c. 14. in decret. reformat.  what the Council of Trent lately decreed against vicious and lewd Priests, that defile themselves with women, and keep concubines: and you shall well perceive, the Church doth all that may be, as the time now serveth, to punish and extirpate that foul fault out of the Clergy, which your Bishops, and ministers in England maintain openly, keeping in the face of the world their strumpets under the name of wives, contrary to their oaths, vows, and solemn professions made to God, and to the world: and yet are they not ashamed, to lay the maintenance of this vice to the Catholics charge. Yea some of them be openly known, that will not stick to come from unlawful beds, yea from other men's wives, and like sad prophets step into the pulpits, and there rail at the unchaste life of Priests, and Votaries, as they call them.   

M. jewel. The Apology part. 6. cap. 14. Diuis. 1.  

The 10. untruth.  In the Council of Chalcedon the Civil Magistrate condemned by sentence of his own mouth, three Bishops, Dioscerus, Iwenalis', and Thalassius, for heretics, and gave judgement, that they should be deposed.  
That all these three (say I) were condemned in that Council, we find not. Much less, that they were condemned by any Civil Magistrate for Heresy, do we find. 
Confut. 315. b.  Read what followeth in my Confutation. To this M. jewel maketh his Reply, saying.  

Concilij Chalcedon. Actione. 1. pag. 831.  These be the words pronounced openly in the Council. Videtur nobis justum esse, eidem poenae Dioscorum Reverendun Episcopum Alexandria, & Iwenalem reverendum episcopum Hierosolymorum, & Thalassium reverendum episcopum Caesariae Cappadociae subiacere, & a sancto Concilio, secundùm regulas, 
See the Defence. pag. 683.  ab episcopali dignitate fieri alienos.   

That Dioscorus only was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon, and that not by the Civil Magistrate, but by the bishops.  
This testimony M. jewel helpeth you nothing at al. Nay let it be truly englished, and duly considered with the circumstance, and it shall appear to be quite against you, and all together with us. And therefore craftily in this place ye forbore to put it in English. It seemeth you saw not the place in the Original, but that you trusted your note book. For they were not only these three Bishops, of whom it was thought just, that they should be condemned, but also three others, for six there be spoken of by name.  
For brevities sake, 
Concil. Chalcedon. Actio. 1. pag. 831. colum. 2.  certain words of less weight without altering of the true sense left out, thus I report you truly the words of the Council of Chalcedon. The honourable judges, and Senators said, For asmuch as Flavianus of holy memory, and the reverend Bishop Eusebius, are found unjustly deposed: it seemeth unto us good right, that Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, Iwenalis' Bishop of jerusalem, Thalassius B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius B. of Ancyra, Eustathius B. of Berytus, and Basilius B. of Seleucia in Isauria, (who were the Captains and rulers of that Council at Ephesus, where Flavianus and Eusebius were unjustly deposed) should suffer the same punishment, & à sancto Cancilio secundùm regulas ab Episcopali dignitate fieri alienos, asmuch to say, and that they should be put out of their bishoply dignity, by the holy Council according unto the Canons.  
This is no sentence in judgement pronounced against Dioscorus, and the rest, as M. jewel taketh it. Those noble lay men said, what to them seemed just and right, but by these words they gave not sentence of condemnation, or deposition. They leave that unto the Council by express words.  
A sentence definitive in judgement standeth not in these, or the like words, it seemeth to me, or, I think it good, &c: But in these, or the like, I pronounce, I condemn, I ●bsolue, etc. The sentence of Dioscorus condemnation (for he only was condemned, all the other bishops were pardoned) was solemnly pronounced in the Council by Pope Leos Legates, in the name and stead of the Pope. Which thing I have sufficiently set forth in my Confutation, 
Confutat. pag. 316.  where thou shalt find Reader the sentence of condemnation expressed in English, word for word, as it was pronounced in the Council. And that very sentence is in the Council. Tomo. 1. Concil. Chalcedon. Actione. 3. pag. 8. Columna. 2.  
Again with what face could M. jewel allege these words, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euagrius. lib. 2. ca 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem lib. 2. cap. 17.  to prove, that the Bishops were condemned by the Civil magistrate, whereas those noble men themselves said the contrary, that they judged it right, they should be deprived of their bishoply dignity (not by them, or by their sentence, but) à sancto Concilio, of, or by the holy Council, and that according unto the ancient Canons of the Church? Which words he might also have found fully reported in Euagrius, in two sundry places: that there was no cause why he should so confidently tell me of the one of those places, as he doth in the Defence pa. 683.  

Dioscorus deposed, not by the Civil Magistrate, but by the Council of Chalcedon. Act. 3. pag. 862.  After that Dioscorus was condemned, by sentence of Pope Leos Legates, and consequently by all the bishops assembled in the Council, there was a solemn Instrument of his condemnation made, and sent unto him. Where these words are, by which it is clear that the Council condemned him, and not the Civil Magistrate by sentence of his own mouth, as M. jewel untruly reporteth. Cognosce te ipsum, propterea quòd divinos Canones despexisti, & inobediens extitisti huic sancto & universali Concilio, etc. Octobris mensis praesentis terti● decimo die, à sancto & universali Concilio esse ab episcopatu depositum, & ab omni Ecclesiastica fanctione submotum. Because thou hast despised the holy Canons, and hast been disobedient unto this holy and universal Council, etc. know thou, that in the thirteenth day of this present month of October, thou art by the holy and universal Council deposed from thy Bishopric, and removed from all Ecclesiastical function. Lo M. jewel, all this was done, not by the Civil Magistrate, but by the Council.  
As for the Civil Magistrate, to whom your Gospel committeth all, by report of that Council, is so far from condemning Bishops by sentence of his own mouth, that he may not so much as be present at the examinations in such a case. Ask ye of me how I prove it? Look in that Council, and ye shall find these very words: Quando quaedam regularia examinantur, neque judices, 
Act. 3. pag. 838. colum. 2.  neque alios aliquos Laicos interesse oportet. When certain regulare matters (that is to say, touching the Canons or rules of life) are in examination, neither judges, nor other lay men must be present.  
And as concerning the condemnation of Dioscorus, when it was done, or rather when it was a doing, neither Martianus the Emperor, nor his officers knew of it. For said the judges and senators unto the Bishops in that Council, 
Actio. 4. Pag. 872. colum. 1.  Dioscorus à vobis damnatus est ignorant Divo Vertice, & nobis. Dioscorus hath been condemned of you, without the knowledge of the emperors Majesty, and of us. Now if he had been condemned by the civil officers, I trow M. jewel will not say, that they knew it not. For if they condemned him, they knew it. But they knew it not, 
The five other Bishops not condemned.  when he was condemned, ergo, they did not condemn him.  
Now touching the other five Bishops, who with Dioscorus bore all the sway in that wicked Council of Ephesus, of whom Iwenalis' was one, and Thalassius an other: It appeareth by the Council of Chalcedon, that they repented, and revoked their error, and so upon suit made by the Bishops for them, were admitted into the Council, and suffered to continue in their former rooms. After the condemnation of Dioscorus, and signification openly and solemnly made, that all the Bishops agreed together in belief, and after they had all subscribed to Dioscorus condemnation, among other joyful acclamations, that were made according to the ancient manner, this was one, 
junenalis and Thalassius were not condemned In the Council of Chalcedon. Actione 4 pag. 872. colum. 2.  uttered by the Bishops: Ipsi quinque Episcopi fidei subscripserunt. Sicut Leo, sic sapiunt. The five Bishops themselves have subscribed to the faith. As Leo (the pope) thinketh and holdeth, so they think and hold.  
Hereupon the noble judges, and Senators said: Piissimus noster Imperator, etc. Our most godly Emperor understanding your petitions, hath permitted unto your arbitrement to deliberate of Iwenalis', Thalassius, Eusebius, Basilius, and Eustachius the reverend Bishops, and to determine what soever it shall please you. Your reverence therefore knowing, that ye have to make account unto God of these things, think with yourselves, what is to be done with them. Then Anatholius the reverend B. of Constantinople said: Petimus eos intrare. Our request is, that they may enter into the Council. Then all the Bishops cried, rogamus eos intrare, etc. we pray that they may come in, who believe like as the synod believeth, and hold as the synod holdeth. Assint qui subscripserunt epistolae Leonis ad Synodum. Let them be here, that have subscribed unto the Epistle that Leo sent unto the Synod. The judges, and Senators said: Intrent. Let them come in. So were they restored, and held their former rooms. And thereupon were made divers cries in signification of joy. Thus it is evident that Iwenalis', and Thalassius were not condemned by the Civil Magistrate, as M. jewel saith.  
But M. jewel allegeth Pope Leos Epistle to Anatholius the B. of Constantinople speaking of these Bishops, to prove, I cannot tell what. 
Defence pag. 683.  For thereof it can not be gathered, that they were condemned by the civil Magistrate. These be the words of Leo. De nominibus Dioscori, etc. Touching the names of Dioscorus, Iwenalis', and Eustathius, 
Leo epist. 40. ad Anatholium.  not to be rehearsed at the holy Altar, it becometh you to keep this much. By these words, and the other that follow immediately, Leo required Anatholi to see, that the names of those Bishops, that had consented to Dioscorus, unto the unjust condemnation of blessed B. Flavianus, should not (as the manner than was) be rehearsed at th'altar in the time of the Mass among other Catholic Bishops, whereby they were prayed for, specially in that Church of Constantinople where Flavianus had been bishop, 
Ibidem.  that so injury should not be done (saith he) unto the blessed memory of Flavianus, and that by so doing, he should not turn away the minds of the Christian people from his own grace and favour. For how could the people gladly hear their names rehearsed, in that Church, 
Iuuenali● not condemned in the Council of Chalcedon by Witness of Leo Leo ad Iwenalem epist. 72.  by whom the most worthy Bishop of the same Church, was most unjustly condemned, and deposed?  
As for Iwenalis' the Bishop of jerusalem, Leo himself in his Epistle unto him, is a manifest witness, that he was not condemned, but restored again unto his Bishoprik. For thus he writeth unto him among other things. Gavisus quidem sum, quòd tibi ad Episcopatus tui sedem redire licuisset. I rejoiced that it was made lawful for thee, to return home again unto thy Bishopric. Again he saith unto him eftsoons there. In tempore indulgentia resipiscentiam magis, quàm pertinaciam de legisti. In the time when pardon might be obtained, thou hast chosen amendment, rather than stubborness.  
Thus I have sufficiently proved, that the six Bishops (M. jewel not having seen the Original, but trusting to an others note, as it seemeth, nameth but only three) were not condemned of the civil Magistrate, by sentence of his own mouth, but that Dioscorus, and not one else was condemned and deposed, not by lay Magistrates, who gave place to the Bishops in that case, as I have before declared: but by sentence of the Pope's Legates, and by the Council itself.  
Now because M. jewel taketh me up very roundly in his pretenced Defence, as if he had gotten a great conquest against me, whereas after a huge number of shameless Untruths, he chargeth me with many Untruths: I will here by way of a brief dialogue answer him, reporting his words none otherwise, than he himself hath uttered them speaking unto me in his book.   
jewel. Defence. Pag. 685. 
Now, shortly to consider the whole substance of your tale first, ye say, these three Bishops, Dioscorus, Iwenalis', and Thalassius, were never condemned in the Council of Chalcedon: 
M. jewels objection of Untruths answered.  This ye see is one untruth.  
Harding.  
In deed I see it, and grant it to be an Untruth: But of your part M. jewel, not of mine. For as now ye see it by me sufficiently proved, only Dioscorus the B. of Alexandria was condemned, and that by the Council, not by the Civil Magistrate, as you untruly affirm. Iwenalis', Thalassius, and the other three, in consideration of their submission, and agreeing in belief unto the Council, were pardoned, admitted into the Council, and restored unto their former rooms, and dignities.   
jewel. 
Secondly, ye say the Civil Magistrate, never condemned them. This is an other untruth.  
Harding.  
True it is, it is an other Untruth. But it is yours, not mine. For in deed (as I have before proved) the Civil Magistrate did not condemn them, but the Council of Bishops condemned Dioscorus only. This being true, it followeth that your contrary saying is an Untruth.   
jewel. 
Thirdly, ye say, junenalis, and Thalassius were rebuked for fitting as judges in Council, without the Pope's authority. These are two other untruths.  
Harding.  
Ye are rise of your Untruths. Of two, I return one back unto you again. For the report you make of my words, is untrue. Look better in my Confutation, There ye shall find me to speak otherwise, not determinately, as you report, but coniecturally thus. 
Confutat. fol. 316. a  They might well have rebuke for misusing themselves in the second Council at Ephesus, where they sat like judges without authority of the See of Rome. All this considered, with that I have declared before touching this whole matter, l●● the indifferent reader judge, yea one of your own sect being learned, if he will take the pains to view, and confer all that I have here written with the place in your pretenced Defence, whether I had not just cause to say, as I said in my Confutation, what is Impudency, what is licenceous lying, what is false dealing, if this be not? If I seem over long Reader in this point, the blame ought to be M. jewels, whose manifold Untruths, and shameless shifts used in his Defence to colour this matter, have driven me to use more prolixity, than otherwise I would have done.  
After this follow in M. jewels View of his Untruths, six more Untruths, which although he hath advisedly chosen, both out of my rejoinder, and out of my Confutation, as the easiest for him to make his answer unto, and to defend: yet by aught he is able to say, he hath not so justified the least, but that he may yet stand charged. The three untruths of the Apology next following be of no great weight I confess. And therefore I will not spend time about them. Yet great malice may lie hid under small trifles. For the trial of them, I refer the Reader to both our books. 
The. 11. The. 12. The. 13. Untruth. rejoined. fol. 251. b. The Apology. part. 2 c. 13. d. 1. Apology part. 2. c 1 Diuis. 1.  What I said of these words, post finem orationum, true it is, and untrue it is that M. jewel saith.  
Likewise Origen hath, Ille Cibus, that meat, not ille Panis, as M. jewel untruly alleged. As for the place of S. Augustine, which M. jewel noteth in his. 13. Untruth, whether the word be Oportet, or Potest, it is doubtful. Books of divers editions have diversly. The point which by that place he would prove, containeth heresy. So that though it were not an Untruth in word, yet is it a great Untruth in sense and meaning.   
M. jew. The Apology, part. 5. cap. 3. Diuis. 11. 
The old Council of Carthage commanded nothing to be read in the Congregation, but the Canonical Scriptures. 
The. 14. Untruth.   
This old Council is newly falsified, say I, by nipping of words from the sentence, that be of great importance, and quite contrary to that M. jewel intendeth. For the whole Decree hath these words: 
Concil. Cartag. 3. Cap. 47.  Placuit ut praeter Scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur, sub nomine divinarum scripturarum. It hath been thought good, that nothing be read in the Church under the name of the holy Scriptures, beside the Canonical Scriptures. It followeth in the same Decree, Let it be lawful also for the Martyrdoms of Martyrs to be read, when their yearly Feasts are kept. This Untruth M. jewel by no shift is able to excuse. What he bringeth in his Reply out of the Abbridgement of the Council of Hippo made in the third Council of Carthage, is to no purpose. For though the Abbridgement say, that (praeter Scripturas alia non legantur) other things be not read in the Church beside the Scriptures, yet how that is to be understanded, it is supplied by the Decree of the third Council of Carthage, by those words, sub nomine divinarum scripturarum. So that M. jewel may look to find no better relief in the Council of Hippo abridged, than he found in that Council of Carthage. See my Confutation of the Apology. Fol. 243. a.  
The. 15. Untruth 
The 15. Untruth.  of the Apology, which M. jewel goeth about to make good, standeth altogether upon a point of the Canon law, in what case the Pope committeth Simony. I alleged summa Angelica. He in his Repli● saith, I understand not my Summa. Because the discussion hereof nequireth a large process, and is not very necessary in itself, nor pertaineth specially to our profession: I leave it to M. jewels great lawyer to treat of it to the most advantage, if he have so much leisure as to think hereof, being himself much encumbered poor man with matters of the law about his two wives, not being yet determined, which of them he may keep still, which he may turn away. Ye should do well to amend that disorder M. jewel.  
Touching the. 16. Untruth, 
The. 16. Untruth.  I need to say little. It pleased M jewel of his own humility to acknowledge an error, which I laid not unto his charge. Certainly whiles he goeth about to try himself a true man, he ladeth himself with a more huge burden of Untruths, and maketh all men, that will lose their time in reading his books, witnesses, how, when falsehood is attempted to be defended, lying and falsehood is farther multiplied.  
By experience of M. jewels writings this much I find, 
What it is to confute. M. jewels writings.  that to confute him, is no more but to say, where he saith aught of his own, that either all is false, or light scoffing stuff, or otherwise vain: where he bringeth the sayings of other men, wherewith in manner only his books be farced, that either much is true, but impertinent, nor by the Catholics denied: the rest false, as alleged out of Heretics, or at lest in some part adversaries unto the unity of the Church, as Bale, Illyricus, jacobus Andreae, Sleidan, Cassander, Lorichius, and such others: or by M. jewels common sleights falsified, and corrupted, and wrested to an undue sense, or otherwise not very material, unprofitable, and not worth the answering. This shall he find to be most true, who soever will examine the things he setteth forth, as I have. If he mingled some true discourses, with his other untrue extravagantes, as other Heretics commonly have done: our labour of answering should be less. Now his untruths and impudent Lies be so many, that to confute all, it were labour both infinite to the writer, and unprofitable to the reader.  
Towards the end of the View of his Untruths, at last in a great bravery he concludeth with the words of S. Paul, tanquàm seductores, & ecce veraces. 
2. Cor. 6.  We are (saith he) called Deceivers, and yet we say the truth. But how truly this boast is made, the Defence of these few his Untruths by me now answered, doth sufficiently witness.  
How be it here at length the man remembering himself better, 
In the Defence. B. iij. a. b.  beginneth to take some conscience of the matter, and protesteth, that he will not so warrant every parcel of any his writing, as though there were nothing therein contained, that might safely be justified in all respects.  
What is that then, wherein he acknowledgeth himself to have done untruly? Let us see, how much, and how great it is, for by that we shall take a View of his sincerity, and of his humility. O, saith he, 
The errors that M. jewel may be induced to acknowledge in himself.  If I have at any time (mark this, if I have, Reader, for neither this much will he confess simply) mistaken Author for Author, or name for name, or Chapter for Chapter, or book for book, or any one Father, or Doctor for an other: such errors were never hitherto accounted damnable. Yea the best learned have oftentimes fallen into them. Dost thou not see reader what great errors, and oversights this man, with his (If) confesseth to be in his writing? As though we found that only fault in him (which may happen to any writer by oversight, be he never so diligent) and not other great Untruths, corruptions, falsifyings, lies, and slanders, that by no colour can be excused? What many of them be, hereafter thou shalt see in this process.  

August. in Psal. 33. Concione. 1. The great faults. that M. jewel findeth in my books.  Now to requite me, he layeth certain great crimes to my charge: As that in alleging this saying of S. Augustine, Christus ferebatur in manibus suis, I left out (as he saith) this word, quodammodo. That in an allegation I name joshua for Osee. that there is found in the margin of my book, where Socrates is alleged, lib. 8. (which fault was the printers) whereas Socrates never wrote but 7. books. Item that in the margin the printer hath put Luc. 2. for Luc. 22. and in the text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: with which oversights I may reasonably, and truly charge the Printers Compositours, and discharge myself, for at all times I attend not upon the print myself: and though I had, yet such small faults might well have escaped me, though I had as many eyes, as the poets feign of Argus. So of mine own accord I confess (whereat M. jewel maketh no little ado, as though it were a heinous offence) that, where I speak of Henry the fourth Emperor, and his son Henry the fifth, the compositour by oversight and negligence hath set for Henry the son against Henry the fourth, Henry the second against Henry the fourth. For in that place, 
See the Defence pag. 418. See the Confutat. fol. 187. b. M. jewel in the View of Untruths. B. 3. b  whereas M. jewel demandeth this question, Who put in arms the Son against the Emperor his Father Henry the fourh? I answer in my Confutation with these words, It was not the Pope, that armed Henry the son, against Henry the fourth. For it had been absurd in reason, and nature, to make Henry the second son to Henry the fourth. There needed not so great a Tragedy to be made for reproof hereof.  
Touching the pretenced leaving out of the word Quodammodo, out of S. Augustine's saying, 
judge reader of M. jewels truth by the truth in this point.  thus he aggravateth the matter.  
That in alleging of Liberatus I left out this word quodammodo, it was only an error. For why I should of purpose do it, there was no cause: specially that word bearing in that place 
* Ye as si● in that place the word beareth great weight, and could not be left out, but with foul corruption.  no greater weight. But M. Harding alleging these words of S. Augustine, Christus quodammodo ferebatur in manibus suis, not of error, but, as it may be thought, of set purpose, left out, Quodammodo, as knowing, that in that one word rested the meaning of the whole.   

How justly M. jewel excuseth himself, and accuseth me, for leaving out this word, Quodammodo.  
To this I answer. 
M. jewel in the Reply. pag. 287.  That you for your part have falsified Liberatus Master jewel, you can not choose but Confess. That ye did it by only error, and oversight, and not of set purpose, he that knoweth you as we know, that be now acquainted with your humour, can never believe it. And whereas ye say, 
Liberatus cap. 13.  that the word, quodammodo beareth small weight in that place of Liberatus, the Circumstance of the place, and the story of the time must needs convince you. 
See the Return. Fol. 155. a. & in sequent.  Which thing hath been already told you largely, plainly, and truly, by M. Stapleton in his Return of Untruths, which you dissemble, as if you went invisible, and were not espied for an Author of such fowl Untruths. Ye shall never be able to scour such spots out of your cote.  

M. jewel most impudently belieth both S. Augustine, and me touching this word, Quodammodo.  Well, yet ye thought to excuse this your falsehood, by objecting the like unto me. But Sir, what if whiles ye go about to excuse yourself, you show yourself worthy to be accused, both of me, and of S. Augustine too? If S. Augustine's words be as I alleged them, than who hath belied me? who hath belied S. Augustine? Go to S. Augustine good reader, and thou shalt find the words truly by me alleged, and quodammodo not by any falsehood left out at all, for in that place from whence I took his testimony, the word is not: nor in any part of that Sermon, which I quoted. See the first Contion upon the. 33. 
August. in Psal. 33. Concione. 1. sub finem.  psalm. 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 david secundùm literam non invenimus, in Christo autem invenimus. 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, etc. And he was carried in his hands? This brethren how it might be done in man, who can understand? For who is borne in his own hands? With the hands of others a man may be borne, with his own hands no man is borne. 
Christ at his supper was carried and borne in his own hands.  How it may be understanded in David himself according to the letter we find it not, but in Christ we find it. For Christ was carried in his own hands, at what time commending his own body itself (unto his disciples) he said, This is my body. For he bore that body in his own hands, etc.  
This testimony M. jewel doth directly overthrow your doctrine of the Sacramentaries, 
A clear testimony for the Real presence.  and teacheth us Christ's body to be really, and in deed present in the most blessed Sacrament. For if that substance, which is in the Sacrament after consecration, were but a sign, a token, or a figure of Christ's body, as they of your sect, and you do teach: what cause is there, why S. Augustine should make so great, so strange, and so wonderful a thing of it? For if it were but the figure of Christ's body that he held in his hand, when he said, this is my body: what wonder was it? David of whom there he speaketh, could have done that, yea what is that man, that can not bear the figure of his body in his hands? But S. Augustine saith, that Christ did bear his own body in his hands, when at the Supper he commended it unto his disciples, saying, this is my body. Which thing neither David, nor any man could ever do. And here consider Reader, how S. Augustine speaketh, as if it were of purpose, to take away all occasion of cavil from such heretics, as should deny the real presence, which M. jewel doth. The body, that Christ commended and gave unto his disciples, was (saith S. Augustin) ipsum corpus suum, his own body itself: with which vehemency of express speech he excludeth all such Tropes, Figures, Significations, Remembrances, and Energies, as do derogate from the real presence. And that body (illud corpus, saith he) Christ did bear in his hands. Which was miraculous, and above the power of David, or any other man.  
Thus we see clearly, that, where S. Augustine speaketh of the truth, and real presence of Christ's body, borne of Christ in his own hands, he speaketh plainly, and precisely without this word, Quodammodo. But in an other Sermon, where he speaketh not specially of his body being verily borne in his hands, but how, and after what manner it was borne in his hands: there to signify the secretness of the Divine Mystery, he useth this word, Quodammodo. 
August. in Psalm. 33. Concio. 2.  For having demanded this question, Quomodo ferebatur (Christus) in manibus suis, How was Christ borne in his own hands? 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 gave unto his disciples) his own body itself, and his own blood, he took into his hands, that, which the Faithful do know, and he himself did bear himself after a certain manner, when he said, this is my body. In which saying the word, quodammodo, asmuch to say, after a certain manner, doth not withdraw our mind from belief of the true presence of the body borne in Christ's hands, but from conceiving a carnal, common, and gross manner of bearing, such as we see, when we behold nurses bearing their children. Now, as it is evident by the order of the words in my Answer Answer to your Challenge, 
fol. 108. b.  I alleged not this place of S. Augustine, out of the second Sermon, but that other former place, out of the first Sermon upon the .33. Psalm.  
Thus are you clearly confuted, and eftsoons charged with a double Untruth, for leaving out the word Quodammodo, out of Liberatus, wherein the chief weight of the matter there spoken of lieth, and for charging me with your own peculiar fault of corrupting S. Augustine's saying by taking away the word, quodammodo, where that holy Doctor hath it not.  
So then by this View of your Untruths, we have a perfit View, that Untruths can not be defended, but with a multiplying of new Untruths. Wherefore the fewer such Defences ye writ, with the fewer Untruths shall ye peister the world.     

The second Book containeth a Detection of certain Lies, cavils, slanders, and of such other untrue matter, uttered by M. jewel in the first part of the Defence.  

The first Chapter.  
IT is not reason gentle Reader, thou shouldest require at my hands a full answer to every part and parcel of the huge book, that M. jewel hath set out in Defence (as he pretendeth) of th'Apology. The labour should be wearisome, the time long, the charges great: that neither I perhaps should have ability to print it, nor thou list to buy it. And when all were done, though many good things should be uttered, yet the more part would not be worth the reading. For whereas he heapeth together somuch (all in manner out of other writers) which is either utterly impertinent, and such, as being in itself true, neither relieveth his cause, nor weakeneth ours, or is wrested to a meaning quite contrary to that the authors had whence it is taken, or all together falsified by one corruption or other: and what he bringeth of his own (which in respect of the rest is very little) is either false in sense, or light in the scornful manner of utterance, or a mere wrangling, or briefly otherwise vain and frivolous: all this being so, as by this Detection it shall sufficiently appear: if a just, and particular answer were made unto it, which of necessity must amount to a far greater quantity, than the Defence itself is of: any man of judgement can soon conceive, how unfruitefully good hours should be bestowed in reading it over. Wherefore if I so apply my labour, as the things of least weight being passed over, the chief points, or the greatest part of the chief points of M. jewels Defence be refuted, and the necessary truth clearly confirmed, and that with convenient speed: I trust I shall seem to have done that, which in this case, and in this state of time, at my hands was to be looked for. Leaving then many other unnecessary things objected by M. jewel against the Catholic Church, let us hear the worst he hath not been a shamed to say, and first in the first part.  
M. jewel in the first part of his Defence pagina. 7. 
The Manicheis forbade lawful marriage, and allowed fornication, 
In quaest. in No. Tes. q. 72.  as M. hardings Catholics do now. So saith S. Augustine of them, Nuptiarum aditus intercludunt, & promiscuè convenire hortantur.  
Harding.  
You slander us M. jewel most unjustly, and impudently. The Catholics never forbade lawful marriage. 
Fornication in a Clerk never allowed, but always punished, though diversly, according to diversity of times.  And it is known to all the world, that Fornication was never allowed in the Catholic Church at any time, or age. For this, your weak proofs are out of Panormitane, and other canonists. Panormitane speaking of his time, saith, that fornication in the Clergy was not punished then, so grievously, as in old time. This proveth not that it was then allowed. Though a Clerk be not punished for fornication with Deposition, which is a perpetual removing from the ministery of the Altar: yet he might be punished, and was to be punished otherwise, as with Suspension, or Deprivation, and with other me●nes at the discretion of the Ordinary. Now the truth is Panormitane teacheth not, that a Clerk is not to be punished for Fornication at all: but that he is not to be punished with Deposition indistinctè, indistinctly, as the austerity of the Primitive Church required, when Clerks were generally deposed for every mortal sin without distinction. How, and in what sort, a Clerk is now to be punished for fornication, 
In Cap. At si clerici. Extrà de judic.  Panormitane showeth at large, where he speaketh thereof purposely, as I have before declared, in my Answer to the View of Untruths, in the. 9 Untruth. fol. 69. a.  

August. in Quaest. in Nowm Testam. quast. 72.  Again the Manicheis by your pretenced proof out of S. Augustine, Nuptiarum aditus intercludunt, & promiscuè convenire hortabantur, excluded all men from marriage generally, and exhorted their followers to use carnal dealing together one with an other in common, without distinction of all degrees of persons. For so signifieth the Latin word, promiscuè. But who seeth not this exceedingly to pass simple Fornication? And to exhort men and weemen to such abominable Bawdry, who seeth it not to pass without all comparison, the not most extrem● pounishing of Bawdry? Behold reader, how immoderately M. jewel slandereth us.   
jewel. In the same page a few lines after. 
M. Harding saith: The scriptures were falsified, and full of errors.  
Harding.  

The 2. Chapt.  What so ever the Manicheis have said, with whom you compare us, we might well say, the Scriptures have been corrupted by your false Translations into vulgar tongues: but that the Scripture itself were full of errors, neither I, not any Catholic man ever said it.  
These words M. jewel hath caused to be printed in that letter, 
False and slanderous report.  in which my words of the Confutation be set out. He noteth in the margin thus, M. Harding. fol. 220. b. Look gentle Reader in the said leaf of my Confutation (for thereof he meaneth) and certainly thou shalt find no such words at al. If I have either there, or else where uttered these words, let me never have credit in thy judgement. In deed, whereas in that place the Author of the Apology burdeneth the Catholics with burning the holy Scriptures, and for the same compareth them with wicked king Aza, with Antiochus, with Maximinus, and with Herode: moved with just zeal, among other things, thus thereto I say.  
Why say you of us in general, that is to say, of the Catholic Church, that we despise, hate, cast away, and burn the holy scriptures? Had we not loved and kept the scriptures, how could you and your fellows have come by them? Had ye not them of us? From the Apostles time to this day we have kept them unspotted and undefiled, and ye within these fifty years have by your vulgar translations corrupted them, that lamentable it is to consider. And when we burned the same corrupt translations, or any part thereof, or any of your heretical treatises, we burned not the Scriptures, no more than one doth the Apple tree, that burneth the Caterpillars. The Scriptures we honour, and keep most reverently, and diligently.  
Therefore your comparing of us with the wicked kings Aza, Antiochus, Maximinus, and Herode, is false and slanderous.  
Read the rest that followeth there good Reader, and if thou wilt judge, as thou findest, and say, as thou judgest, and write that thou mayst truly say: M. jewel shallbe said to be a false slanderer, and registered in the book of lying slanderers.   
jewel. Pag. 10. 
As for john wickliff, john Hus, Waldo, and the rest, they were godly men, their greatest heresy was this, that they complained of the dissolute, and vicious lives of the Clergy, of worshipping of Images, of feigned miracles, of the tyrannical pride of the Pope, of Monks, Friars, Pardons, Pilgrimages, and Purgatory, and other like deceiving, and mocking of the People: and that they wished a reformation of the Church.  
Harding. That wickliff maintained sundry heinous Heresies.  

The. 3. Chapt.  Beside these heresies which you account for none M. jewel, they had sundry other far greater. As for example: Among the Articles of wickliff condemned in the Council of Constance, 
Art. 4.  this was one: That if a Bishop, or a Priest be in deadly sin, he doth not order, consecrate, 
Lib. 1. contra Petilianun. ca 1. Art. 6. Art. 10.  nor baptize. This was the plain heresy of the Donatists, as it appeareth by S. Augustine. Item, that God ought to obey the Devil. Item, that it is against the Scripture, that Ecclesiastical Ministers should have any temporal possessions. If this be no greater heresy than the rest M. jewel, then allow it, as you allow the rest. But the gain is to sweet: you can not brook it.  
Item, that no man is a temporal Lord, 
Art. 15.  no man is a Prelate, no man is a Bishop, whiles he is in mortal sin. If ye make this no Heresy, than ye deny the Queen to be Queen of England, when so ever she falleth into Mortal sin. And whereas by your doctrine, ye make every sin mortal, utterly rejecting the distinction of venial sins, the Queen, as no man else, living not without sin: What mean you by this doctrine, to allow her in this case for no Queen of England? She is much beholden unto you.  
Item by wickliff the common people may at their arbitrament correct their Lords, when they do amiss. 
Art. 17.  If you, and your fellows will allow this for a true Doctrine, and preach it in your pulpits lustily, ye shall like the people ioilily, and well: and thereof doubtless will follow such order, and obedience, as becometh your Gospel, and as Satan the Author of it, shallbe pleased withal. Such the like, and worse, were the Heresies of Huss, and Waldo. These Articles, and many other were recorded both in the general Council of Constance, 
Concil. Constant. Sess. 8. pag. 96.  and in your fellow Fox in his book of the devils Martyrs.  
But touching john Hus, sith ye make him so godly a man, and so void of all Errors, and Heresies, how will you defend him for that so commonly he said Mass, whereat ye enueigh and rail so much? 
Mass said by Hus.  Look in the Teutonical history of the Council of Constance, written by one Huldrick Reichental Citizen of Constance, and ye shall find by him reported, who lived at that very time, and marked well, what happened 〈◊〉 those days, that john Hus oftentimes said Mass in his hosts house during the time of his abode in Constance, and that the people came much unto it. Itaque Dominica Oculi quae tertia est in Quadragesima, 
In histor. Teutonica de Concil. Costantien.  ubi celebrasset Missam mane, etc. When he had said Mass (saith he) in the Sunday named Oculi, which is the third Sunday in Lent. And this did Hus, not only before he had read the Books of Wiklef, by which he was carried away into an other Gospel, but also at the end of his life, even a little before for his detestable heresies he was burnt, as it is at large reported by the said Reichental and witnessed by joannes Cochlaeus lib. 2. De Historia Hussitarum.  

The 4. chapped.  Pag. 11. In the matter of planting the faith among the Britain's, and the English, M. jewel telleth us again a long tale, which he told us before in his Reply, the untruths whereof are already largely, and specially, confuted in the Return of unthruthes upon his Reply, 
M jewel dissembleth all answer made to his untruths.  Art. 3. pag. 124. & sequent. Wherein he dissembleth utterly all answer made thereunto, though it be well known, that he hath seen the said Return, and that he had one with the first presented unto him at Oxford, at what time the Queens Ma.tie was there in progress. In that page he belieth extremely Theodoritus, 
S. Augustine the Apostle of the English nation slandered by M. jewel under the name of Golfridus Monemuthensis.  Nicephorus, and Galfridus of Mounmouth, slandering immoderately under Golfridus name, our blessed Apostle S Augustine. See the Return pag. 30.  
In the page following he belieth Beda twice: first applying that to the English men, which he spoke of the Britain's, namely of 7. Bishops, and one archbishop, etc. For what soever he telleth us of the Queen, King Ethelbertes wife, who being a French woman lived in the exercise of her Religion, that she was Christened in among the Christian people of France: certain it is, that our English Nation (of whom in my Answer to his Challenge, I spoke, and not of the Britain's) were not Christians, before S. Augustine came, sent by S. Gregory from Rome.  
Secondly he belieth Beda, in saying as out of his ecclesiastical story, that the Christians of our Country utterly refused to receive this new Apostle with his religion. For Bede speaketh only of the Britain or welsh Bishops, but nothing so much as M. jewel fableth.  
They refused to obey him as their archbishop, they refused not his religion. They were also in many points Schismatics, as Bede in the same place recordeth, whom M. jewel here so commendeth. See Bede either in Latin, or in English lib. 2. cap. 2. The matter is of right good importance, and worthy to be tried.  
Pag. 12. 
The 5. Chapt.  The judgement of Constantine the great in a cause Ecclesiastical between Cacilianus, and Donatus à Casis nigris he reneweth again, 
M. jewel in the Defence repeateth again the old stuff of his Reply in many points, as if the same were not answered.  utterly dissembling the Answer made thereunto in the Return. Art. 4. pag. 105. & sequent.  
Pag. 14. He bringeth in again the common objections against the Real Presence, out of Tertullian, and S. Augustine dissembling utterly, that those objections are answered, and fully soluted by M. D. Saunder in his 7. book of the supper of our Lord, partly also by me in my Answer. And so doth he in this pretenced Defence repeat his old stuff, which he laid forth in his Reply before, as if the same had not been already answered, and confuted.   
jewel. Pag. 16. 
We never armed the people, nor taught them to rebel for Religion against the Prince. If any thing hath at any time happened otherwise, it was either some wilful rage, or some Fatal fury. It was not our Counsel, it was not, our Doctrine.  
Harding. That the Professors of this new Gospel have stirred the people to Rebellions.  

A notorious Untruth in sight of all men.  This is a famous and an evident untruth controlled by the bloody practices, yea and by printed writings of your own Brethren the calvinists. It is notoriously known and manifest, that of late in Valencenes two Ministers of your religion were at great variance in the town about this point, 
Variance of opinion between two Ministers of Valencenes, whiles it was besieged.  at what time the gates were shut, and king philip's army lay in siege before the walls. The one preached and taught, that they did well, and lawfully, to rebel for Religion against their Prince. The other thought it could not be defended for lawful by God's word. And therefore these two being afterward taken, the town being conquered, the one was hanged, and broken, the other but headed. And here M. Fox might have stuff to increase his martyrologue. 
Christopher Goodman.  M. Christopher Goodman in his book, How to obey, or disobey, Pag. 204. commendeth, as lawful, the Rebellion of Wyatt, and calleth them plainly Traitors, which took no part with Wyat.  

john knox of Scotland.  What john Knox that Fierbrande of Scotland hath written, and done, to whose ears by public fame is it not come?  
In Tournay likewise not long ago, 
The Ministers of Tournay. Poltrot persuaded by Beza to kill the Duke of Guise. See the Confession of Poltrote. Iten Claudius de Saints in Responsione ad Apologiam Beza. Luther. Tomo. 6. Germanico. fo. 602  the Ministers did not only counsel the City to rebel, but also took the whole Government, and administration of Civil matters into their own hands.  
That Theodore Beza counseled, and persuaded Poltrot that wretched Caitiff, to murder the noble Duke of Guise, his Prince's Captain General, not only Poltrot confessed it, but Beza himself craketh, and rejoiceth thereof, and defendeth the fact, partly in a little book made for that very purpose, partly in his Preface upon isaiah.  
Luther expressly in a book De seculari potestate, which he made in the year of our Lord. 1523. and is extant in his works, laboureth to prove by Scripture, that among Christians there ought to be no superior power, or Magistrate. And in an other book made a little before his death Anno. 1545. entitled thus: Ad Electorem Saxoniae, & Lantgravium Hessiae D. Martin. Lutherus de Captivo Brunsuicensi, provoketh subjects to fight against their Prince for Religion, and saith of subjects, they do tempt God, which use not their weapons, when they may.  
See the Apology of Staphylus. Melanchton, in libello ad Bohemos & Silesios', stirred the Bohemians to rebellion. 
Melanchthon.  He also in the year. 1548. wrote openly against the Emperor Charles the fifth, in the time of the rebellion of Saxony, and Hesse, as witnesseth Illyricus in Informatione sua de quibusdam Articul. part. 3. fol. 129. 137. & sequent.   
jewel. 
The Nobles and Commons there (that is in Scotland) neither drew the sword, nor attempted force against the Prince.  
Harding.  
What is a lie, if this be none? I pray you good Sir, are you only a stranger in these matters? When in the days of the late King there the Queen's husband, the said Queen and her husband were for a time daily in the field, and in arms against some of their Nobles, was there none then in Scotland, that attempted force against her? Was all that army assembled, and in field, to fight with the air, or to keep crows from the corn? When the Lord Hambleton, 
Hambleton, and Lord james of Scotland.  and the L. james with others fled, some into England, some into France, was there none of her Nobles, or Commons, that had attempted force against her? When (during the queens absence in France) they overthrew Churches, and Monasteries, attempted not they force against the prince, whose plain commandment was to the contrary?  

The queens Secretary slain without force by M. jew.  When her Secretary was by force taken from her, and outrageously murdered with in her hearing, when she with her husband by night was feign to flee unto the Castle of Dumbar, when at an other time she was driven to retire to Edinburg in great haste, not without danger passing through waters without any stay, where she lost Artery one of her most trusty servants, 
Artery drowned  was there in all these matters no force attempted against the Queen, neither by her Nobles, nor by the Commons? What hath happened sithence, I need not to speak. Time shall try, how untrue it is that you say. Think you that such gross and palpable lies may ever be defended? Then tell us, 
Wiate.  that Wyate rebelled not against Queen Marie, as your brother Christopher Goodman saith in deed: that the Gues here in the Low Country, 
The Gue● of the Low Country no Rebels by M jewel neither the huguenots of France.  namely they of the town of Valencenes, and they of Tournay, and others have not rebelled against king Philip, nor the huguenots under the Prince of Conde in France, against their liege Sovereign the French King. Yea and then tell us, the Snow is black, and the Crow is white. But I pray you M. jewel, if they attempted not force against their Prince, what did they? You say.   
jewel. 
They sought only the continuance of God's undoubted Truth.  
Harding.  
Put the case they did so: And let open Heresy stand ones for God's truth. Was that a lawful, and commendable mean to seek it by? Behold, though before you denied, they attempted any thing against the Prince, yet now you defend their disobedience, saying:   
jewel. 
The Subject is bound to obey his Prince: 
Rebellion against Princes defended by M. jewel. Act. 5. Psal. 118.  Howbeit not in all things without exception, but so far as God's glory is not touched. These Nobles had learned of S. Peter, It is better to obey God, than man: And of the prophet David, Better it is to trust to God, then to trust in Princes.  
Harding. S. Peter by this saying teacheth us not to rebel against the Prince for maintenance of Religion.  
Had these Nobles, as you say, learned this lesson? 
The .6. Chapt.  And doth this lesson either of S. Peter, or of the Prophet David, teach the Subject to resist, and take Arms against his Prince, in case the Prince doth command any thing against God's Truth? I had thought M. jewel, that the doctrine, which teacheth us to obey God more than men, were fulfilled rather by suffering the penalty of man's law, or will, being contrary to God's Law, and will, then by resisting man put in authority by God: as S. Peter, who wrote the foresaid words, suffered scourging, 
Act. 5.  contumelies, and imprisonment, rather than he would obey the Magistrate commanding him not to preach, nor teach in the name of jesus. If the prince command Heresy, or Idolatry, the way to obey both God, and the Prince, is, to keep thee from yielding to Heresy, or committing of Idolatry, and for God's sake to sustain the punishment, what soever the Prince putteth upon the breakers of his commandment. For it is two things, and much different, to obey the Prince in an unlawful request, and to take Arms against the Prince.  

Round capped Ministers  Both we (God be praised) for the Catholic faith, and your Round capped Ministers for their Caps and Hats, refuse to obey the queens majesties commandment, 
The Prince not to be obeyed by M. jewels Divinity, when God's cause is touched.  touching matters of conscience, because we know right well, and they pretend to think also, that by such commandment of the Prince, God's glory is touched. In which case you say M. jewel, the Prince is not to be obeyed. Yet (God be praised) neither we, nor they do take Arms, or attempt any force against our Prince, as these Nobles of Scotland have done. We have not so learned S. Peter's lesson. We have not so learned to obey God more than man. But we do rightly judge and protest, such demeanour to be an open disobedience, both to God, and to man. And yet say you M. jewel, and that in your book dedicated for a singular present unto the queens most excellent Majesty, that these Nobles of Scotland had learned S. Peter's lesson? Tell us in good sooth, if the Catholic Nobility, and Commons of England (who take your heresies to be against God's truth, as they are in deed) should deal with the queens Majesty for matters of Religion (which God forbidden) as the Nobles of Scotland have dealt with their liege Sovereign: would you defend their so doing, by S. Peter, and the prophet David, and say, that God is more to be obeyed, than man? I perceive you are so self-willed, and so addicted to your faction, that if you were a Papist, you would do no less, and be as ready to help such a matter forward in England, as Beza your good brother in France, as the Gues here in the low Countries, and as Knox in Scotland have been.  
But we openly protest before God, and the world, that we condemn, and defy all such attempts. I mean, that any Subject, or Subjects what so ever, of their own private authority, should take Arms against their Prince for matters of Religion. This we do teach to be plain disobedience both to God, and to the Prince. This have your Nobles of Scotland done more than once. And therefore you have done untruly, and lewdly, I will not say traitorously to the prejudice of the queens Majesties own safety, in defending them, and in calling their outrageous attempts, such obedience, as S. Peter taught, which was such Treason, and Rebellion, as S. Paul condemneth, 
Rom. 13.  saying, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. etc.  
The Doctors, whom you allege, make clearly against those Nobles, 
Leo de passione Domini. Serm. 10.  whose rebellion you defend. Leo saith, To give unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's, is not to rebel against Caesar, but to help Caesar. But your Nobles rebelled against their Prince: Ergo, they gave not that to Caesar, which was Caesar's. Again the Christians, of whom S. Ambrose speaketh, 
Ambrose. lib. 5. Epist. 33.  said to the Emperor, Rogamus august, non pugnamus: we beseech thee Noble Emperor, we fight not. But your Nobles fought against their Prince, they humbly besought not their Prince.  
And yet (o extreme impudency) these places you allege to show the obedience of those Nobles. After this, as though all the ears of England were stopped, and their wits bewitched, you conclude in this wise.   
jewel. pag. 17. 
To conclude, the Queen of Scotland is still in quiet possession of her estate.  
Harding.  
And what will you stick to say, or write M. jewel, which do say, writ, and set out in print, such a palpable, and manifest falsehood? Such (I say) as even the very Tankerdbearers of London, and all others of the basest sort beside, can witness against you? What? was not the Queen of Scotland of late imprisoned in her own realm? And had she not been in prison, long before your book came forth? And is a Prince cast in prison by his own Subjects, still in quiet possession of his estate?  
What? will you make us believe, that the Reverend Fathers, the old and only true Bishops of our country, are now still in quiet possession of their bishoprics, whom all England knoweth to have sustained imprisonment these eight years and more, for their constant profession (Gods holy name be blessed) of God's Truth? Go M. jewel, and tell this tale in the new found Islands of India. For not only all England, but all France, Spain, Germany, Italy, yea as it may be thought, a good part of Turkey itself, can control you, of this most infamous lie, that the Queen of Scotland is still in quiet possession of her estate. God keep you, and your brethren in such a quiet possession, if ye will teach the truth no better, then in this Prince's days ye have taught. Yet you add farther, and say of the Queen of Scotland.   
jewel. Ibidem. 
And she is obeyed of her subjects, as far as is convenient for godly people to obey their Prince.  
Harding.  
Lo, a Queen being the right prince of a realm, violently, and besides all order of law by her subjects thrust out of her royal estate, is yet obeyed of her subjects, so far as is convenient for godly people to obey their Prince. Then by your doctrine M. jewel, it is convenient for godly people, violently to bereave their prince of princely estate, if they like not his Religion: and yet in so doing they obey. Let us suppose half a realm to be Catholics, whom ye call Papists, half Protestants: Shall the Papists depose their Protestant Prince, shall the Protestant Subjects depose their Papist Prince? If ye teach not this, what is that ye teach?  
Are not you now one of them, that teach Subjects to take Arms against their Prince? Thus much and more (which I omit) have you said of the Queen of Scotland: and yet how promised you, that you would say nothing? Truly it had been better for you, and more for your honesty, to have said nothing in deed, and to have dissembled the whole matter (as you have done many other special matters, and such as be of greatest importance in my Confutation) then thus to have bewrayed your traitorous judgement and mind, touching obedience to princes: and that in a book dedicated, and offered to be read even of the queens Majesty herself.  

Confut. 15. a.  Among other things thus I say in my Confutation of the Apology. It standeth not with God's promises made to the Church touching his being with the Church all days to the worlds end, and, the holy Ghosts remaining with it, 
Math. 28. johan. 14.  the spirit of Truth for ever, that he should suffer his Church to continue in Darkness, and lack of Truth these thousand years past, and now at the later days to reveal the truth of his Gospel by Apostates, Vowebreakers, church-robbers, and such others most unlike to the Apostles. Hereunto thus answereth M. jewel.   
jewel. pag. 32. 
You say, it standeth not with God's promise, to forsake his Church a thousand years. It is much for you M. Harding, openly to break God's commandments, to defile his holy Sanctuary, to turn light into Darkness, and Darkness into light, and yet nevertheless to bind him too his promise.  
Harding. God's promise being infallible, the Church never erreth.  
Se● good Reader, 
The. 7. Chapt.  how absurdly and wretchedly M. jewel answereth, to this most evident and invincible argument taken out of holy scripture. I reason thus: God promiseth, he will never, 
Math. 28.  no not one day forsake his Church. Ergo, if he forsook it a thousand years (as these men tell us) he broke his promise. M. jewel answereth by a lewd kind of Sophistry, called Petitio principij, 
Petitio Principij.  that is, the bringing forth for proof the thing itself, which he ought to prove, and which chiefly lieth in question, and which will never be granted, because it can never be proved. That thing I say he bringeth forth for a proof, and proceedeth thereupon, as upon a matter undoubted, and granted. You M. Harding (saith he) have broken Gods commandments, you have defiled his holy Sanctuary, etc. Ergo, you ought not to bind God to his promise. This Antecedent, or former proposition is the thing, which he should specially have proved and then in God's name he might thereof have concluded what he could. Now to bring it for proof, itself in respect of true doctrine being most in question, and utterly denied by us, it is a lewd kind of reasoning.  
Again behold (good Reader) how he overturneth the Argument taken out of God's word. I reason thus. God hath promised, his Church should never err. Ergo it hath not erred these thousand years past. he answereth. The Church by our default hath erred. For we (saith he) have turned light into Darkness, etc. Ergo, God was not bound to his promise. What mean you M. jewel? As though God promising that his Church should not err, provided not also such means, whereby to preserve it from error? As though Gods promise depended of us, and of our well doing? As though any power of man, or the world, were able to frustrate God's promise? As though, if any such power should have come (as you imagine the Pope's power to have darkened Christ's Gospel) Christ could not, or would not have foreseen it? or, foreseeing it, would yet notwithstanding promise, that All days he would be with his Church, 
Math. 28. isaiah. 59 john. 14.  and again that the spirit of Truth should assist it for ever?  
Think you M. jewel that Christ our Saviour foresaw not the Ruin, or Darkness of his Church, of which so blasphemously you affirm? Or think you, that foreseeing such an universal Darkness to come, and that for the space of so many hundred years together, he would nevertheless have said, 
The Church's error of a thousand years, and the foreknowledge of Christ can not stand together, unless we make Christ false of his promise.  as he said, and have so assuredly promised unto his Apostles, and in them unto their Successors, the perpetual assistance of the holy Ghost, the spirit of truth with his Church? How could such foreknowledge of Christ, and such a promise stand together? Choose M. jewel which you wil The one of these you must of necessity grant: that either Christ foresaw not the great Darkness to come, which you say, you do see, and so you see more than Christ, God, and man ever saw, or foresaw: or that Christ promised one thing, and intended to perform an other thing. He promised All days, and, for ever, but intended to perform only five hundred years at the beginning, and after the leap of a thousand years, to grant certain years more, God knoweth how many. O heinous blasphemy, whereby Christ the Son of God, the wisdom of his Father, is proved either to have been ignorant of that which Protestants know, or else to have been false of his promise.  
But what need many words? M. jewel himself immediately after his former words, to his own condemnation saith: All men be liars, but God only is true, 
Psal. 50. 2. Tim. 2.  and prevaileth, when he is judged. God knoweth his own, Christ will be evermore with his Church, 
That the light of truth hath not been put out in the Church.  yea although the whole Church of Rome conspire against him. All this is true, and the same doth evidently condemn you, and your Religion. All men be liars, Protestants for example, which say, that these thousand years the Church hath been corrupted, and light hath been turned into Darkness. God only is true. Christ's word is true, the Light of faith hath not been turned into Darkness these thousand years, nor any one year at all, unless Darkness, and the Spirit of truth may dwell together.  
God knoweth his own. The Church is his, therefore he knoweth his Church. And because it is built upon a hill, it is ever seen, and is never unknown. 
Math. 5. Math. vlt.  Christ will be evermore with his Church. But with your Congregation, or synagogue (how shall I call it?) he hath not been these many hundred years, (for you say in your Apology) The Pope hath blinded the whole world many hundred years, and in this your Defence you say again, that when Doctor Luther began to Publish the Gospel of Christ, there was a general quietness, such as is in the night, when folk be a sleep. etc.  
Ergo your company is not the Church. 
Let us see what you can answer to this argument, M. jew.  Mark the Argument I require you, and avoid it, if you be able.  
To repeat it once again, thus we say. Christ promiseth evermore to be with his Church: but Christ hath not been ever more with you, and your fellows: Ergo, you, and your fellows are not the Church. The mayor is true, not only because it is Christ's promise, but also by your own Confession. The minor you confess also in your Apology: it resteth ye discharge yourself of the Conclusion. Touching the minor, the Pope, you say, blinded the whole world many hundred years. Then in those so many hundred years no man saw the light. where then were they of your sect, of whom you say, they see such a light, as under the Pope, the world saw not? Of this it followeth, that the time than was, in which Christ was not with you. And so every way, if Christ's word be true, yours must be false.  

M. jewel objecteth against the Church, as the old heretics the Donatists did.  But mark well gentle Reader that which I will now declare unto thee. M. jewels objection against the Church, is the very old objection of the Donatists. For as M. jewel saith here, that it were to much for us having broken God's commandment, etc. yet nevertheless to bind Christ to his promise, which was, that his Church should continue for ever, and have the Spirit of Truth always remaining in it: So the Donatists said, ideo ex partibus terrarum, 
August. lib. 1. ca 2 contra Epistol. Parmen.  in quibus iam impletum erat, perijsse Abraha semen, quod est Christus, & evacuatas promissiones Dei, quia ipsi non sunt admissi ad eorum communionem, apud quos hoc iam retinebat orbis impletum. That therefore the seed of Abraham, that is Christ, had perished from out of other parts of the world, where it had been already fulfilled, and therefore the promises of God (touching the continuance of Christ with his Church to the worlds end) were made void, because they (the Donatists) were not admitted to the Communion of those Christians (in France, Italy, Spain, and other Christian Countries) among whom the world kept this promise of Christ already fulfilled. They said, the promise of Christ's continuance was broken, because all the other parts of the world beside, and out of Africa, communicated with Cecilianus, and his successors, (whom they accused for 
* Traditores.  Deliverers up of the Scriptures in time of persecution, and therefore accounted them for no part of Christ's Church) and refused to communicate with them, even as M. jewel saith here, that for our evil doings Christ was not bound to his promise.  
This objection of the Donatists seemed to a learned man of their own sect, Ticonius 
Ticonius.  by name, unreasonable, and insufficient. And therefore he wrote a book of that matter: to wit, that the promises of God in the Scriptures, for the continuance of his Church universally spread through the world, could not possibly be broken, through any wickedness of man, or men what soever. This to be so, S. Augustine witnesseth, saying, 
August. li. 1. contra epist. parmen. ca 1.  Ticonius (homo quidem & acri ingenio praeditus, & uberi eloquio, sed tamen Donatista) omnibus sanctarum paginarum vocibus circumtusus evigilavit, & vidit Ecclesiam Dei toto orb diffusam, sicut de illo tanto antè per corda & ora sanctorum praevisum, atque praedictum est. Quo percepto suscepit adversus ipsos suos demonstrare & asserere, nullius hominis quamuis sceleratum & immane peccatum praescribere promissis Dei, nec id agere quorumlibet intra Ecclesiam constitutorun quamlibet impietatem, ut fides Dei de Ecclesias●tura, & diffundenda usque ad terminos orbis terra, quae in promissis patrum retenta, & nunc exhibita est, evacuaretur. Ticonius (a man endued with a sharp wit, and with tongue at will, but yet a Donatist) knocked up on every side with all the sayings of the Bible, waked out of sleep, and saw the Church of God spread over all the world, as thereof so long time before by the hearts, and by the mouths of Saints it was foreseen, and foretold. Which thing having perceived, he took in hand against them of his own fide evidently to show, and affirm, that no man's sin, being never so wicked and passing great, doth prescribe against the promises of God, and that no manner impiety of any what soever that be placed in the Church, doth bring this to pass, that the promise of God should be made void touching the Church to come, and to be spread abroad unto the borders of the round world, which promise was continued in the promises made to the Fathers (of the old testament) and is now come to performance. Thus then wrote Ticonius the Donatiste, being forced thereto by the very clear evidence of holy Scripture.  
Parmenianus an other Donatist, foreseeing (as S. Augustin writeth) that if the persuasion of Ticonius took place, than he, and his fellows, which did not communicate with the whole corpse of Christendom, should be no part of all the Catholic Church, 
Dioscorde between the Gospelers, as in old time among the Donatists.  so universally dispersed, and so being out of the Church should stand for Heretics: wrote first an epistle against this Ticonius, and when that would not suffice, procured him to be openly condemned in a Council of their own sect: Even as at this day the Lutherans writ against the Sacramentaries, as Westphalus against Caluine, Brentius against Bullinger, Illyricus against Beza, Peter Martyr against Brentius, Heshusius, against Boquine, condemning one the other, all being protestants, or rather (as they willbe named) Gospelers. Against the foresaid Epistle of Parmenianus, written (as I said) against Ticonius, S. Augustin wrote three books, learnedly defending the Scriptures alleged by Ticonius, to prove, that no impiety of men what soever, and how great soever it were, can possibly be able to drive Christ to breach of his promise, concerning the perpetuity of his Church in many Nations, and the assistance of the holy Ghost therein.  
You therefore M. jewel, that think it much for us, to claim by the promise of Christ, because by our wretchedness, he should no more be bound to his promise, 
The Donatists Heresy renewed by M. jewel.  do plainly renew the wicked and detestable opinion of the Donatist Parmenian, whom S. Augustine, so largely confuteth. I remit the learned to the said work of S. Augustine, specially to the second book. The unlearned I remit to a late written Treatise entitled, The Fortress, 
The Fortress.  annexed to the history of Venerable Bede translated into English, where he shall find such scriptures, as prove an universal, and known continuance of Christ's Church, largely laid forth and prosecuted out of the Psalms, the Prophets, and the new testament.  
To be short therefore: 
An Argument proving this new Congregation not to be the true Church of Christ.  I frame you once again this argument. The true Church of Christ, is such a multitude, as hath had evermore in all ages and times Christ present, and the Spirit of truth remaining with it. Your Congregation is such, as was not extant in the earth many hundred years together before Luther was borne, and therefore can not be said to have had that presence of Christ: Ergo, your Congregation is not the true Church of Christ.  
The Mayor is evident by Christ's own promise, and by your own Confession. The Minor you confess also both in your Apology, and in this pretenced Defence, as I said before. The Conclusion therefore remaineth undoubted. To this one argument M. jewel you shall never be able to answer truly and directly.  
You add yet farther. Christ will be evermore with his Church, yea though the whole Church of Rome conspire against him. It is true M. jewel. And therefore this being a matter impossible, that the whole Church of Rome should be able to deface Christ's Gospel, or to defeat Christ of his promise: it must needs follow, that, where you say, the Pope hath blinded the whole world, you have said most untruly, and have avouched that thing, which by your own confession in this place, was not possible to be done.  
Again seeing that, though the whole Church of Rome conspired against Christ, yet Christ will be evermore with his Church, and these many hundred years Christ hath had no other Church than the Church of Rome (for the Pope you say hath blinded the whole world, and D. Luther began to publish the Gospel, a general darkness going before): it must needs follow, that the same Church of Rome was the true Church of Christ, that the said Church never conspired against Christ, that the Pope never blinded, nor was ever able to blind the whole world: briefly, that the same which you call blindness, was good sight, and that which you call darkness, was clear light.  
Verily either so must it be, or Christ's promise must fail. Of the which promise of Christ, and of a number of other sayings in the Psalms, in the Prophets, and in the Gospel affirming, and confirming the same, it hath been largely and sufficiently treated in the foresaid Treatise entitled, The Fortress of our first Faith, annexed to the History of venerable Bede, of late translated into English. If you M. jewel, or any of your fellows will avoid this argument, that proveth a known continuance of Christ's Church, answer to the first part of that book. If you can not avoid that one Argument, your new doctrine is plainly proved to be false, and heretical, and the Faith of our Forefathers is plainly proved, to be the Faith of the true, and only Catholic Church of Christ in earth.  
You pretend as if ye had advantage, for that I spoke but of a thousand years. For thus you infer.   
jewel ibidem. Pag. 32. 
But why do you so much abate your reckoning? Why make you not up your full account of fifteen hundred, three score and six years, as ye were want to do? Ye have here liberally, and of yourself quite stricken of five hundred three score and six years.  
Harding. That we have not stricken of the first five hundred years, as M. jewel cavilleth.  
You say untruly M. jewel. 
The. 8. Chapt.  I have not stricken of the first five hundred years, etc. But I, and others do (God be praised) defend and maintain the Catholic Faith no less by the Doctors, and witnesses of the first five hundred years, then by the Doctors, and Witnesses of these last thousand years. Yea Sir, it is well known to them that have perused both our labours, that you allege more writers of these later ages by ten to one, then either we do of the same, or yourself do of the first five hundred years. It is well known, our writings are confirmed with the authority of the Fathers of the first five hundred years. We allege very seldom the writers of these later ages, condescending herein to your infirmities, which through weakness of Faith, do reject these later Fathers, as too young, and require to be persuaded only by the Doctors, and Councils of the first six hundred years. And herein we do willingly omit the great advantage, which we might have, if we should press you with the Writers of these later ages. This is well known M. jewel to all that know any thing in matters of these common controversies. We have (Gods holy name be blessed) largely, and abundantly proved the Real Presence, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Pope's Primacy, the use of Images, the Confession of sins to the Priest, the Invocation of saints, the Praying for the dead, the Church service in the two learned tongues, Greek and Latin, and such other matters by you now brought into Controversy: we have sufficiently proved them (I say) by the Doctors, and Counsels of the first six hundred years, wittingly and willingly (a very few places excepted) abstaining from the Writers of these last thousand years, not because we refuse them, or contemn them, but because ye refuse them, that we might seem to use the better means to persuade you, whose coversion we seek and labour for. You say therefore untruly that I have liberally, of myself quite stricken of five hundred years, etc.  
The cause why I named but these last thousand years, yourself I am sure are not ignorant of. But so it liked you to dally, and to answer a most earnest, and important question with trifling toys, cavils, and wranglinges. It was your exception M. jewel, and prescription of the first six hundred years: It was your lewd contempt of these later ages: It was your blasphemous assertion condemning the Church of Christ so many hundred years of Idolatry, superstition, and palpable darkness, which made me to challenge you with Christ's promise for the Continuance of his Church these last thousand years. If you deny this to be your opinion of the last thousand years, beside your prescription insinuating no less of the nine hundred, beside your former words of Luther's first publishing of the Gospel, (for so you term your wicked Heresies) your own words in this place do signify no less. For thus you say even in this page.   
jewel. 
Verily in the judgement of the Godly, five hundred of those first years are more worth, than the whole thousand years that followed afterward.  
Harding.  
This comparison is odious, 
The commendation of the first five hundred years in comparison of the later ages  and little becometh a Christian man. If you speak of learning, and virtue, though the comparison be odious, yet is it more tolerable. For learning, and virtue may seem to have excelled more in those former ages, then in these later. specially virtue and holiness of life, when as the blood, that Chri●● shed for redemption of the world, seemed to menn●● hearts yet fresh and warm, as in a place S. Augustine writeth. And therefore those times brought forth more Martyrs. As touching learning, it must also be confessed, that more Doctors in both tongues then excelled.  

The north parts of the world converted in these later ages.  This without prejudice to the learned Bishops, and Godly people of Christendom in so long a time afterward, might perhaps to the commendation of Antiquity be granted. Howbeit, it is not unknown to the learned, that in these later thousand years, the north parts of the world (being many, large, and savage Countries) have been brought to the faith of Christ, many Bishops, and Monks of excellent learning, and of great perfection of life have flourished, many Martyrs also have suffered: as all histories, and Chronographies do witness.  

Touching faith and doctrine of belief the first five hundred years no more worth, than the thousand years that followed  But in respect of faith, and the necessary doctrine of our salvation, it is a manifest blasphemy, to say, that the first five hundred years are more worth, than the thousand that followed. For this assertion importeth, that Christ assisted his Church the first five hundred years absolutely, and perfitly, so that then the Pastors and Doctors of the Churches erred not in faith and doctrine, but in the later thousand years the Church was not so assisted of Christ, and of the holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth, but rather in such wise neglected and forsaken, as Idolatry, superstition, yea palpable darkness overcame, and prevailed. And thus you M. jewel, who say before, Christ willbe with his Church evermore, say now otherwise, that these thousand years are little worth which is as much to say, as that Christ's special providence hath failed his Church after the first five hundred years. And so shall his promise of his everlasting assistance, so oftentimes avouched in the holy Scriptures, be found to fail. But, All men be liars, and God is true. The promise of Christ the son of God is infallible. The Church therefore in no age or time wanted the assistance of Christ, nor of the holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth.  
The Church of Rome (of which you speak so villainously) neither hath prevailed, 
The Church of Rome the only and true Church of Christ.  neither could possibly prevail against Christ. It hath prevailed against all Heresies. and therefore no other Church in the world appearing all these thousand years, than the Church of Rome (by which word I comprehend all nations agreeing with the faith of that Church) that only was the true Church of Christ, and is to this day, and according unto Christ's promise, shall endure to the end of the world. For as we shall not have any other Christ, so neither shall we have any other Faith, nor any other Church.   
jewel. pag. 36. 
That the Princes, and Free Cities of Germany ever persecuted us, it is utterly untrue, and like the rest of your tales. None of them all, no not one would ever suffer the same Doctrine of ours to be condemned.  
Harding. That the Sacramentaries have been persecuted by the Princes of Germany, and by their Doctors, and by the free Cities,  

The. 9 Chapt.  This is so gross, and so palpable a lie, that no man b●● you M. jewel would ever, I think, have had the heart to affirm it so constantly, and that in print. First Carolostadius 
Carolostadius.  the first professor in Saxony of your sacramentary heresy, was banished out of all Saxony by the procurement of Luther in the year. 1525. as witnesseth your own friend john Sleidan. 
Sleidan. Lib. 5. Histor.   
Again the younger Princes of Saxony, and the Counteis of Mansfeld in the year 1559. published each of them a Writ, wherein they reckon up, and condemn, the one nine, 
Lib. contra 9 Sectas. Lib. contra 11. Sectas. Lavatherus in histor. contra Sacrament.  the other eleven Sects, of the which your Sect of the Sacramentaries by name is one. This is yet extant to be seen in print, and can not be denied. Lavatherus a sacramentary himself reporteth it.  
Thirdly in the year. 1561. though in the meeting at Numburg, by the entreaty of certain Princes the zwinglians were not condemned generally in all Germany, as the Princes of the Confession of Ausburg would openly and solemnly have done: yet in the same year afterward in a Diet holden at Luneburg, 
Lavatherus ibidem & Surius. Franciscus Philippus in histor.  Albert of Hardenburg a great Zwinglian was openly condemned for an heretic. Last of all in the same year. 1561. the French calvinists were commanded, and forced by the Magistrates of Frankford, either to practise no more their manner and order of religion there, or to depart the City. Yet you say you were never persecuted either of the Princes, or of the free Cities in Germany. What shall I here speak of your brethren at Andwerpe, whom the Martinistes (for so they call the Lutherans) joining with the Catholics, and putting themselves in arms, drove away, and compelled to flee the City? If ye believe not me, believe their flight, believe your fellow minister Hermannus the Predicant (that of late was in Norwiche, and now as I hear say, is driven from thence I know not whither) what favour he and his fellows found at the hands of the Martinistes.   
jewel. Pag. 37. 
In deed certain towns (of Germany) subject to Bishops, in outward usages of their Churches remain still, as they were before. Yet nevertheless where the Churches are popish, the people of all sorts are Protestants.  
Harding.  
This is a sensible lie, and a mere slander. 
Great parts of Germany yet remaining whole, and Catholic.  The people of all sorts in Germany, where the Churches remain Catholic, do in such numbers resort unto the service, haunt the Sermons, and frequent the Sacraments (as all that have been at Worms, at Spires, at Augusta, at Ingolstadt, at Vratislavia, and such other Cities, can bear witness) that a man to say, as you say, must needs prove himself guilty, either of purposed lying, as speaking against a known truth: or of a malicious judgement, as to judge of men's hearts contrary to their whole outward life, and behaviour. For by this you condemn of detestable Hypocrisy, and dissimulation, not only the people of all sorts in the forenamed Cities, and divers such others, where Catholics live mingled with Protestants: but also you condemn the whole Countries of Austria, of Bavaria, the great Diocese of Saltzburg, of Passaw, Mentz, Treveres, Coulen, and other Territories, where the whole face and show of Religion, is only Cathholike. It is a small token of grace, yea of civil honesty, for the setting forth of your conceived opinion so far and so notoriously to slander whole Nation and Countries.   
jewel. Pag. 37. Linea vlt. 
As for the West Spanish Indies, the people there lived not only without all manner knowledge of God, but also wild, and naked, without any Civil government. Being in this miserable state, and naturally by the very sense, and judgement of Common reason abhorring, and loathing their own blindness, what marvel is it, if they were easy to be lead into any religion?  
Harding. M. jewel attributeth the glorious conversion of the Indians not to the power of the Gospel, but to the leading of natural reason.  

The 10. Chapt.  What M. jewel, do you envy at the glory of God? Doth it grieve you, to see great Countries converted to the faith of Christ by them that be not of your Faith? And will ye needs, to deface the power of the Gospel, attribute the miraculous conversion of that rude people unto natural reason? Had your heathenish heart herein rather acknowledge a leading of nature, than the power of our Saviour? What could Porphyry, julian, or Celsus say more? 
S. Thomas preached in India.  S. Thomas the Apostle converted a great part of the Indies, as both ancient Stories do report, and certain evident monuments found in those Countries by the jesuits, and other religious men, do witness. Now might not an other jewish jewel abase and bring in contempt, all the Apostolic travails of that blessed Apostle in converting those rude, and barbarous Nations, as well, and as rightly, as this our jewel abuseth and brings in contempt the Apostolic travails of these blessed jesuits? 
Nicephor. lib. 11. cap. 48. The Christian faith bringeth savage and barbarus people to humanity, and civility. Theodoritus de Curatione Graecarum affectionum lib. 7. sub finem.   
It is noted of Nicephorus for a singular effect, and commendation of the Gospel of Christ, that where it was first planted, it brought the savage, rude, and cruel people, to a civility, humanity, and sobriety of life. And the ruder, and farther from all humanity the people was, the more was Christ glorified in their Conversion.  
In like manner Theodorite noteth, that whereas at Heliopolis in egypt, at Laodicea in Syria, at Carthage in Africa, and in Greece itself, the Gentiles offered up men in sacrifice to Idols, and lived otherwise most abominably, and barbarously: yet through the Gospel (saith he) these horrible vices were utterly abandoned: and addeth, Sacrae verò Euangeliorum leges nationes melius, civitatésque moderantur: The holy laws of the Gospel are they, whereby nations, and Cities are best ruled. All which he telleth, and reporteth for the commendation, and honour of the Christian faith, as being such a heavenly Religion, that hath brought most barbarous, and savage Nations to a more civil order of life, to modesty, moderation, and humanity. Contrariwise M. jewel, to withdraw the due praise from those holy religious persons, by whose travail God hath so wonderfully wrought, draweth also the glory from Christ, and giveth that to natural reason, which other Christian writers do attribute most rightly to the power of the Gospel. What is malice, if this be not? 
M. jew. followeth the Pharisees.  So the blasphemous pharisees maligning the miraculous operations of our Saviour here on earth, said, in the power of Beelzebub he casteth out devils. 
Matt. 12.  So the Infidels called S. Peter Maleficum, a sorcerer, and an enchanter, 〈◊〉 one that by witchcraft had brought men to Christ's. 
August. de Civit. Dei lib. 18. ca 53. & ca 54.  So commonly they ascribed Miracles done by Martyrs, to witchcraft, and Sorcery.   
jewel. Pag. 41. 
If Pope Pius were so good a man, and so fit and worthy a pastor for the Church of God, why then did his Cardinals of late lab●●● so earnestly by treason, and Conspiracy to depose him, being, as you say, so good a man? Or if it were not so, why then did he himself complain thereof so bitterly in an Oration pronounced openly in Rome in the Consistory? 
Oratio Pij Papa.   
Harding. M. jewel proppeth up his weak cause with a forged write.  

The. 11. Chapt.  Nay why do you M. jewel, to slander the blessed memory of so virtuous a man, give credit to such a pelting Pamphlet, as you allege us in the margin, for authorizing this infamous and most false reproach?  
Where was that Oration printed, 
A forged Oration set out in print, as being made and pronounced by Pius the fourth the late virtuous Pope.  and who wrote it? by whom was it set forth? It beareth a date of the year, but neither of place where, nor of Author by whom it was set forth. If you sought for the truth sincerely and uprightly, as you will seem to the unlearned to do, and not rather to deface the Church of Rome by what means soever: you would never utter a matter so heinous, upon the report only of such an unlawful, and slanderous write, published by such Makebates, and seditious Protestants, which for want of true and just matter, being grieved at the very heart, that any Pope should be virtuous, do forge in corners, and invent such infamous libels. This is the practice of your good brethren, signifying thereby, of what spirit they are. If any truth had been in the matter, at the lest the printer should not have been a feared to put unto it his name, and dwelling place. But so it is, he that loveth to do evil, fleeth light. And contrariwise, Truth seeketh not corners: 
Tertullian. In Apologetico.  but as Tertullian saith, Nihil veretur, nisi abscondi. It feareth nothing, but lest she be hid.   
jewel. Pag. 41. 
Your Fathers in the Council of Basil, 
Concil. Basil. Concil. Trident.  and your friends in the last Council of Trident, I will not say had disputations, but certainly yielded, and gave place unto the Bohemians, and unto such others, as you call heretics.  
Harding. The Council of Basile, and that of Trent never yielded to Heretics.  
This lie is so clear and evident, 
The 12. Chapt. Contradictions.  that our Confutation is needless. Your own very words do convince you herein, where you say hereafter, that the Council of Trident hath yielded in no manner thing in the world.  
Again in the next leaf, Pag. 43. you would feign prove unto us out of john Sleidan, Mathias Flacius Illyricus, one john Fabritius Montanus (a forged name) and Petrus Paulus Vergerius, all professed Protestants, as yourself are (and therefore likely I trow to report uprightly, and without all partiality) that in the Council of trident no Audience could be given at all to any of your Sect, exciple it were to recant their heresies. If this were true (as it is most false, and so pla●●ely proved by the Safeconductes of that Council published in print) than how likely I pray you is it, 
Absurdity.  that they should yield unto them, to whom they would not give so much as the hearing?  

Prove this M. jewel, or in your next book say, pène thou madest a lie.  Last of all, the very utterance of this matter, breatheth out an untruth. For neither is it told, wherein those Counsels should yield, neither where that yielding should be found. No Action, no Session, no Canon is noted, when, where, and how this great matter should come to pass. Verily a matter so great, that in case it were true, all these great controversies should soon be at a point, specially you now being worthily taken for a man of small credit, would have been clearly and evidently set forth. For if either two such Counsels should yield to your Doctrine (which we are sure hath not, ne could not be done) or you should yield to them: we would never change word with you more about your Doctrine, neither would we ever be so mad, as to call those men Heretics (as it pleaseth you to say we do) to whom those two Counsels, yea or any one general Council should think good to yield. We submit ourselves to General Counsels humbly, as it becometh us. You, because through heretical pride you will not yield to the General Councils, think good to make men believe, that the General Counsels have yielded to you. Pride, and humility maketh a clear difference between the city of God, and the city of the Devil.   
jewel. Pag. 43. 
Where you say, that Bishops only have Sentence definitive in the Council, ye seem willingly and without cause to report untruth. 
When he written that, he was neither Pius secundus, nor Pope but a private man. Aeneas Silvius de gestis Concilij Constant. lib. 1. False translation. Apparet, in this place signifieth not, it is plain, but, it appeareth. johan. Gerson. Quae veritates credendae Corol. 4. The 13. Chapt.  For Pius Secundus * being himself a Pope, would have told you the contrary. These be his words. Apparet alios quam Episcopos, in Concilijs habuisse vocem decidentem. * It is plain, that certain others beside Bishops had voice definitive in the Councils, Likewise john Gerson. Etiam ad laicos hoc potest extendi, & plus aliquando, quàm ad multos Clericorum. This (privilege of giving sentence in Council) may be extended even unto the lay sort, yea and that oftentimes better then unto many priests.  
Harding. That in Councils Bishops only have sentence definitive, the objections of Pius 2. and Gerson answered.  
Neither willingly, nor without cause, nor untruth. Not willingly: For I came to speak of this point, by occasion of your Apology complaining that you had no audience in the General Council at Trent. Not without cause: For that being true (as I shall anon prove it to be true) that only Bishops have Sentence definitive in the Council, ye being no Bishops at all, for giving Sentemce definitive, there is no place for you: which grieveth you full sore. For feign would ye once sit in General Council, as the Masters, and Superintendentes of all Christendom. Not Untruth: For it is evident by the ancient practice of the primitive Church, that in all Councils, 
Only Bishops at Counsels subscribe definitively.  only Bishops have subscribed definitively. The tenor of all General Councils yet extant, is a clear witness hereof to all that can, or will peruse them. And though a Negative be hard to prove, yet this Negative, that none but Bishops should subscribe in Councils, is plainly proved in the Ancient great General Council of Ch●●●don. Where it is openly ●●ouch●d, first of the Bishop●● themselves, 
Act. 1. Pag. 745.  thus ● Synodus Episcoporum est, non Clerical A Synod, or Council is of Bishops, not of the (in●●riour) Clergy; or of Priests, as always you turn the word. Then of one Martinus Presbyter, a Priest, thus, Non est meum subscribere, 
bid. Pag. 775.  Episcoporum tantùm est. It is not my part to subscribe, It belongeth only to Bishops.  
But M. jewel will prove the contrary, and that others beside Bishops had sentence definitive. But by whom? Forsooth by Aeneas Silvius, and john Gerson, both very late writers, and not yet of two hundred years ancienty. Such new little worth stuff, he, that requireth us to prove all things by the writers of the first. 600. years, bringeth against the Ancient practice of the primitive Church. And yet he belieth his Authors most shamelessly. 
See Reader, how many untrue parts M●l. playeth in one poor little sentence.  For first, he saith, that Pius Secundus being himself a Pope, telleth us the contrary: which is utterly false, For when he wrote that book, he was Aeneas Silvius Piccolomineus, not Pius Secundus. He was then ● private man, not a Pope. And being Pope, he recanted that h● had done in the pretenced Council of Basile, and that he had written thereof, and certain other errors, which before he had published, 
Bulla recantationis Pij Papa 2. Tom. 4. Concil. pag. 503.  and written to the derogation of the See Apostolic, and of the Clergy. Neither was this told by Aeneas Silvius, as a thing of his own judgement, and of his own utterance, but as a thing in that Synod said by Cardinalis Arelatensis, whose private opinion that was, and the same uttered he with that liberty, which is granted to all men admitted to Counsels, in which they are permitted freely to speak what they think. And therefore in debating of d●ubteful matters, they speak things contrary one against an other. And this saying of the Cardinal of Arles was in that Council controlled and gainsaid by other men of great learning and judgement, as by Panormitanus, Ludovicus, and others there mentioned. So that it is no better authority, than a thing that is spoken in heat of disputation against the truth for the better discussion of the truth.  
In alleging then your Doctor, you have committed five untruths. First, he never wrote any such book, as you name, to wit, De Gestis Concilij Constantiensis: but de Gestis Concilij Basiliensis. Secondly, when he wrote it, 
Vide Aene. Syl. de Gestis Concil. Basil. li. 1. pa. 27  he was not Pius Secundus Pope, as you say he was, but Aeneas Silvius Piccolomineus, a private man. Thirdly, it is not the saying of Aeneas himself, but of the Cardinal of Arles. Fourthly, you have added of your own to his sentence these words, in Concilijs, which are not in your Author. Neither spoke he that of other Councils, then of the Apostles Council mentioned in the Acts. Fifthly, you corrupt your Doctor by false translation. For Apparet doth not always signify, it is plain, as you have translated it, but it seemeth, or appeareth. And many things appear, that be not plain, nor true, as this itself is one. Of a thing that is plain, to say, it appeareth, were prejudicial to the truth. Whether these untrue parts have proceeded of Rhetorical policy, called otherwise lying for advantage, to make the most of your Author you could, or of mere ignorance, for that you never saw the place yourself, but trusted other men's untrue eyes therein, or else of a certain disposition proper to your humour that nothing can pass your fingers without some false sleight or other: I leave it to be considered of others.   

Ge●son impudently be lied, and falsified by M. jewel.  
As for john Gerson, you deal as falsely with him, as with Aeneas Silvius, and to speak plainly, though as you would have it s●me, uncourteously, you utterly bely him. In the place by you allege, Gerson speaking of verities, that are so of necessity to be believed, 
Gerson Quae veritates credendae. Cor●llario. 4  that otherwise a man can not be saved, showeth, that one man is bound under pain of heresy to hold some points with certain and express faith, and thereof in no wise to doubt, whereof an other man for a time without blame may be in doubt. This doth he there declare by a threefold example. As, a divine (saith he) or a professor of divinity exercised in the holy scriptures, is bound expressly to hold, and not to doubt at all of many things, of which a simple, and an unlearned man being required might with reason stand in doubt, so it be without pertinacy: as that (for these be his examples) Thobie had a dog, or, that Aaron had a beard: or that the Ark of the Testament had a covering of Goats hear. Further there he proceedeth, and showeth the same by the example of a canonist exercised in the determinations of holy Church, and an other man having thereof no skill nor knowledge, likewise of a man skilled in Logic, Philosophy, and other humane science, and an other man utterly ignorant and unlearned.  

The whole and true sentence of Gerson which M. jew. falsifieth.  To come unto the words, which you have foully falsified, thus he concludeth. Denique sequitur ex his omnibus, quòd judicium, & conclusiones fidei, licet auctoritatinè spect●nt ad Praelatos, & Doctores: spectare tamen potest ad alios quàm Theologos deliberatio, sicut & cognitio super ijs quae fidem respiciunt, ita etiam ut ad laicos hoc posset extendi, & plus aliquando, quàm ad multos clericorum. Finally of all these foresaid things it followeth, that although the judgement, and Conclusions of faith belong unto the Prelates, and Doctors by way of authority, yet deliberation (or consultation) may belong unto others beside the Divines, as also examination and trial of those things that concern the faith, yea and that so, as this thing might be extended unto lay men, and more unto them sometimes, then to many of the Clerks.  
Now Reader if thou mark well, and consider, 
Gerson speaketh not at all of giving sentence definitive in Council.  thou mayst see, how M. jewel deceiveth thee. Gerson in this place speaketh not at all of the authority of giving sentence Definitive in general Counsels, whereof our controversy is. Behold therefore with what conscience this man handleth these matters. First he falsifieth Gerson, making him to speak expressly of Sentence Definitive to be given in a Council. This privilege of giving Sentence in Council, saith he, etc. Then he uttereth Gersons words otherwise then Gerson doth.  
Again Gerson there speaketh of three things: Of judgement to be given, and Conclusions to be made of the Faith by way of Authority in general: Of Deliberation and Cognition, touching matters pertaining to the Faith. The first, he saith, belongeth unto the Prelates, and Doctors, or Professors of Divinity only: the second, and the third, not only unto the Divines, but also unto others, and (saith he) sometime, that is, in some cases, it may be extended unto lay persons. And this we hold well withal. For even at this present we wish, that the discrete and wise men of the laity would better deliberate of points of the Catholic faith, then hitherto some have done, and that they would examine, and try your allegations, and ours together by conference of the Books, whence they be taken out, that they may be able to judge, whether part useth more truth, and upright dealing. If they would thus do (as perhaps some few of a great number do) they should soon see just cause to condemn you, and utterly to give you over.   
jewel. Pag. 48. 

The. 14. Chapt.  Verily M. Harding, we never said Luther and Zuinglius were the first publisshers of the Gospel.  
Harding. Proved by their own words, that Luther was the first publissher of the Gospel.  
A great Untruth. 
M jew. denieth here, t●at he saith otherwheres.  In this your Defence, touching Luther you say no less Pag. 17. thus: Doctor Luther began to publish the Gospel of Christ. If he that beginneth to publish, be the first publisher, than you said that Luther was the first publisher. If there be any difference between these two terms, then have you well defended yourself. If there be none (as all that understand English, may easily see there is none) than you have proved yourself guilty of a great untruth.  

In the Apology pretended to be translated by the Lady A. B  But I must rather put you in remembrance of your own words uttered in the Apology. Who called the first seditious, and heretical preaching of Martin Luther, and Hulderike Zuinglius, Herbam evangelii, the first spring of the Gospel, or the very first appearing of the Gospel, as your Lady Interpreter termeth it? Again, who saith, that forty years agone, and upward (that is at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuinglius) the truth was unknown, and unhard of, and that they first came to the knowledge, and preaching of the Gospel? Be not these the words of your own Apology? Be they not set forth in divers books of divers prints? And will ye now tell the world, and bear us also in hand, who be well acquainted with your false dealings, that ye never said so? What can any man understand by the first spring, or first appearing of the Gospel, but the beginning of the Gospel? If the Gospel began with Luther and Zuinglius, how was it before? If before their time the Gospel was unknown, and unheard of (for so the Apology saith) then where was there any truth at all? If it were not known, nor heard of at all, where was it in all the earth? Or imagine ye that it may lie hid in some secret place, without, and beside the heart, mind, and spirit of man? And if (as you say) Luther and Zuinglius came first to the preaching of the Gospel, how were they not the first preachers of the Gospel? If they were the first preachers, how were they not also the first publishers of the Gospel? Thus you say, and unsay. Yea, and Nay is one with you. And a God's name all must be defended, be it yea, be it nay, be it true, be it false. But thus it is clear, that your word is not the Gospel. And God be praised, that we have driven you to eat your own word.   
jewel. Pag. 48. 
Of Abailard, and Almarike, and certain other your strange names (he meaneth apostolics, Peterbrusians, Waldenses, Albigenses, and image-breakers) we have no skill. They are none of ours.  
Harding. That these Heretics be of M. jewels side.  

The 15. Chapt.  I am glad M. jewel, to hear you so absolutely to renounce these wicked heretics, at lest in words. Would God ye would as freely forsake their Heresies in your doings. 
Alphonsus de Castro lib 9 Bernard. Lutzeburg. Almarik the heretic.  First as touching Petrus Abailardus, he denied the free will of man. Do not your great masters wickliff, Luther, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, and Caluine the same? If these be yours, how is not Abailard also yours.  
Almarik the Frenchman taught of Images, of Altars, of Invocation of saints, and of Transubstantiation, as you do, condemning the Church of idolatry in all these points, as you do. Of this Almarik then have you no skill? Is he not thus far yours? What, are you become an other man, 
Bernardus Serm. 66. supper Cantica. Waldenses. AEneas Slyvius Bohem. Histor. cap. 35.  than men take you to be? The apostolics denied Purgatory, as you do. The Waldenses in many points agree jump with you, or rather you with them. They renounced the Pope's Primacy, they condemned Purgatory, they called Images, by the name of Idols, they contemned holy Water, and such other good and wholesome ceremonies, they reproved the Religion of the Begging friars, with such like, all as ye do: I marvel therefore why they are none of yours.  
Verily Aeneas Silvius saith, that john Huss 
john Hu●  (whom in the next line you allow for yours) embraced the wicked sect of the Waldenses. And why then are not the one yours, as well as the other? As for image-breakers, 
Image-breakers.  if they be not yours, whose are they? They were no Papists (your self will confess I trow) that have overthrown Images in England, and in Scotland, in France, and now of late here in sundry places of the low Country. They be yours, they be yours M. jewel, and such others a great many more: with whom in a rueful procession ye are like to join, singing Vae with them, if ye repent not, and sing an other song.   
jewel. Pag. 48. 
Of john Huss, Jerome of prague, and Berengarius, and other like virtuous learned men, we have no cause to be ashamed.  
Harding.  
The more verily is your shame, if any spark of shame be left in you. Albeit no great wonder. For it must needs be true, that the wise man saith: 
prover. 18.  Impius cum in profundum venerit, contemnit. When the wicked man is come unto the bottom (of wickedness) than he passeth of nothing. Neither the Whoare at length taketh shame of any her filthiness what soever. And therefore it is said of such pastshame wretches, 
jerem. 3.  Frons mulieris meretricis facta est tibi. Thou hast gotten thee a whoares forehead.  
Though I have small hope of any good to be done with you, yet for the sake of others, thus I may say unto you. You denied a little before the Waldenses to be yours. But the Hussites followed altogether the Waldenses, as witnesseth Aeneas Silvius: Therefore the Hussites also aught to be none of yours. Yet you are not (you say) ashamed of john Hus. I marvel now the less, if you be not ashamed of your so many, so notorious, and shameless Untruths, uttered before in your Reply, and confuted by divers, but now repeated and renewed again, the Confutation thereof utterly dissembled. 
The most shameful heresies of Hus, of whom M. jewel professeth himself not to be ashamed Alphonsus de Castro adversus haereses lib. 6. Concil. Constant. post 45. Sess.   
But if you mean good faith, and that you are not in deed ashamed of john Hus, neither of Jerome of prague, then tell us I pray you, how like you these heresies of theirs? First, of john Hus, who with the old Donatists affirmed, that in the Church are only good men? Are you not ashamed of that heresy so clearly, and so fully confuted by S Augustine? Again, of that other, to punish one that is excommunicate with the secular sword, is a pharisaical tyranny.  
Allow you also that dissolute Heresy? And if you be not ashamed to profess this Doctrine, why are ye not then ashamed to do that, which is repugnant to the Doctrine ye profess? For how say you? Do ye not excommunicate such as will not condescend unto your pestiferous opinions, and refuse to come to your heretical Service? And then further, if they stand constantly in the mainetenance of the truth, as it becometh men that have the fear of God before their eyes, not yielding to your great, but vain threats: do ye not cause their persons to be apprehended by the secular officer, and to be cast in prison, and then in your wicked, and bloody preachings cry ye not out unto the prince to draw her sword? Are ye not (I say) ashamed thus to fight with yourselves, teaching one thing, and doing the clean contrary?  

Alphonsus lib. 12. Concil. Constantien.  thirdly, have ye no shame of that other heresy, that who soever is in deadly sin, is neither king, nor civil Magistrate, nor Bishop? How like you of this brutish heresy? Have you no cause to be ashamed of john Hus? I let pass other his infamous heresies. 
joan. Cochlaeus. Hus said Mass a little before he was burnt. Suprà. ca 3. fol. 83. Hierom of prague.   
But if you be not ashamed of any of his heresies, how say you to that he said Mass, as it is proved before, and that but a few days before he was burnt? Be ye neither ashamed of that? What is that ye willbe ashamed of in an heretic then, being neither ashamed of his heresies, nor of that he judgeth well of the Mass?  
But now touching Jerome of prague, have you no cause M. jewel to be ashamed of him? Verily it appeareth by the Council of Constance, 
Concil. Constant. Sessio 21. Sessi. 19  he held and professed all and singular the heresies of wickliff, and john Hus. He recanted once openly, and abjured them all, as Cranmer did in Oxford, but after revolting again to his former vomit, he was burned for an Heretic, 
Hierom of prague, recanted, and returned to his vomit.  as Cranmer was. If you think it no shame to be an heretic as Jerome was, yet I trow ye think it a shame to recant, as he did. How be it I may doubt thereof, for yourself have trodden that trace, and perhaps may once more be brought to tread it again, and like it is, that you will not be ashamed of it, and to revolt, once back again: so little shame is in you. Go your way then M. jewel, It booteth not us to go about to make you blush. For I perceive, there is nothing, whereof lightly you willbe ashamed: such a shameless grace you have.  
As for Berengarius, 
Berengarius.  of whom likewise you say, you have no cause to be ashamed; I marvel the less, considering the natural property of heretics, which is to increase their errors daily, and to proceed from ill to worse. Luther the first broacher of your religion was ashamed of Berengarius, and would never condescend to Carolostadius, though five years continually he travailed with him to bring him to be of Berengarius opinion. Flacius Illyricus with his fellows of Magdeburg, all the Protestants of Wittenberg, of Lipsia, of the upper Saxonies, Nicolaus Gallus, George Maior, Westphalus, Brentius, and divers others, whom yourself account for Gospelers, for the true, godly, and right believers, are all to this day ashamed of Berengarius, and be at defiance with you, and them of his opinion, and do in their writings, and preachings plainly condemn your sacramentary Heresy, of which Berengarius was the first publisher.  

Tom. 2. fo. 260.  Luther condemneth the heresy of Berengarius revived by Zuinglius in these words. I must needs eschew, and avoid them, as men condemned by their own judgement. Neither may I join with them in any means, by letters, 
In parva Confess. de Caena Domini. In publica Confess. pura doctrina. Lib. contra 11. sectas. & lib. cont. 9 sectas. In the book in tituled Recta fides de Caena Domin.  nor by writings, nor by word, nor by deed, as the Lord hath commanded, whether he be Zuenckfeldius, or Zuinglius, or what soever he be called. And in an other place he condemneth by name Zuinglius, Carolostadius, and Oecolampadius, with all their divers, and dissonant sacramentary heresies.  
Nicolaus Amsdorffius a famous Superindent in Germany saith thus plainly. thirdly we condemn the Sacramentaries, Zuinglius, and his fellows.  
The public write of the princes of Mansfeld, and of the younger princes of Saxony, doth reckon up in the roll of condemned Heretics, the Sacramentaries by name.  
joachimus Westphalus saith: No false doctrine is so far spread, none with such labour, and hypocrisy is defended, ●o●e hath more beguiled the world, than this false doctrine of the blessed Sacrament meaning Calvin's own doctrine learned first of Berengarius, of whom you have no cause, you say, to be ashamed.  
If Heretics of your own school can not make you ashamed of Berengarius, and his doctrine, what say you to the great General Council holden at S. john Laterane in Rome under Innocentius the third, 
Council of Laterane.  thereof called Concilium Lateranense? That Council was an universal assembly out of all parts of Christendom, 
Platina in Innocentio tertio. The great Assembly of Laterane Council.  as well out of the Greek Church, as out of the Latin. The patriarchs of Constantinople, and Jerusalem, were there present.  
archbishops were there threescore and ten, bishops four hundred and twelve, Abbates, and Priores more than eight hundred. There were at that Council the Ambassadors of both Emperors, both of the West Church, and of the East, also of the kings of Jerusalem, of France, of Spain, of England, and of Cyprus. In this Council, so general and universal, the Heresy of Berengarius was condemned, 
Concil. Lateran. Cap. 1.  and the doctrine of Transubstantiation by occasion of his heresy exactly and fully discussed, was by general consent of all plainly and clearly confirmed. If the Sentence, Consent, and Accord of the whole universal Church can move you M. jewel, then have you good cause to be ashamed of Berengarius, whose heresy, was in so full, ample and General a Council condemned, as none in this world was ever greater.  
If all this move you not, yet let Berengarius himself, 
De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Ego Berengarius.  whom you esteem so much, move you to be ashamed of his doctrine, of the which he himself was so much ashamed at length, and not only in judgement openly recanted, but also 〈◊〉 the hour of his Death full bitterly and heartily repent himself thereof, as by sides other● Guilelmus Malmesburiensis recordeth, saying thus.  

Guilelmus Malmesburiensis de gastis Anglorum. lib. 3.  Ipse Berengarius die Epiphaniorum moriens, g●●i●●● producto, recordatus quot miseros quondam adolescent, primo err●ris ●al●t● secta infecerit: body (inquit) in die Apparitionis suae apparabit mihi Dominus meus jesus Christus, vel propter poenitentiam, ut spero ad gloriam, vel propter alios, ut time●, ad poenam. Nos sanè credimus; post benedictionem Ecclesiasticam, illa Mysteria esse verum corpus, & sanguinem salvatoris, adducti & veteris Ecclesiae authoritate, & maltis no●iter ostensis miraculis.  
Bereng●rius himself, as he lay dying, upon the epiphany day (which we call Twelfth day) and with heavy be wailing called unto remembrance, how many miserable persons he had infected with his heresy in youth at the first heat● of the sacramentary Error, spoke these words: 
He alluded to the word epiphany which signifieth appearing, or revealing.  This day my Lord jesus Christ, being the day of his appearance, shall appear unto me, either to glory, as I trust, because it repenteth me of my heresy, or to punishment, as I fear me, for the sake of others (whom I have seduced). What so ever it shall please God to do with me, Truly I believe, that after Consecration used in the Church, those Mysteries are the true Body, and Blood of our Saviour, being persuaded both by the authority of the ancient Church, and by many Miracles showed of late years. Thus ye may see, how so ever ye be not ashamed of Berengarius, that yet Berengarius is ashamed of you.   
jewel. Pag. 48. 
But as for your doctrine, because it is only of yourselves, therefore it falleth daily, and is now forsaken the world through.  
Harding. Our doctrine is the doctrine of the Fathers; not of ourselves, neither is the same forsaken.  
The Catholic doctrine, 
The .16. Chapt.  
The Fathers of the first. 600. years rejected. In institut. Cap. 18. de coena Domi. jacobus Acontius. Stratagem. Satan. lib. 6.  which you call ours, hath been by your own Confession well-near a thousand years old. I call your Confession, your solemn prescription of the first .600. years. For prescribing the one, ye renounce the other. It can not therefore seem to be of us, that live now, which by your own Confession hath been so ancient. Howbeit it is evident, the first 600. years stand as fully for us, as do the later. Therefore john Caluine accuseth the first. 600. years of judaisme, and of jewish superstition, namely in the matter of the blessed Sacrifice. Therefore jacobus Acontius one of your own side, in his book dedicated to the queens Majesty plainly misliketh, and reproveth such, as offer to be tried by the ancient Fathers, calling it perniciosissimam, omninoque fugiendam consuetudinem, a most pernicious custom, and altogether to be avoided.  
Therefore M. Nowell (as this Acontius) calleth it a 
* Valde amplum spatium. Nowell in the preface of his first book.  large scope, to try matters by the Fathers. And he that hath uttered so much blasphemy against the Cross of Christ, for his part also protesteth plainly, 
In the book against the Cross.  that he will not be tried by the Fathers. And why all this M. jewel? Marry th●y know ●ight well, that by the Fathers you are condemned, and that our doctrine by them is clearly established. W● therefore have learned of our Ancestors all that we teach. We have invented nothing of ourselves. Your beginning is known, and is yet in man's memory. When Papistry (as you call it) began, you can never 〈◊〉 for your life, 
The Gospeller I shall never be hamble to show, when Papistry began.  otherwise then with the beginning of Christ's gospel. Show once M. jewel, when, in what age, in what place, Country, City, or Church, of whom, under what Pope, Emperor, or Prince, Papistry began: and then say hardly it is our Doctrine, and only of ourselves.  
Except you show this, your lie will seem palpable. If ye have aught to show, for the worship of your cause, bring it forth, be it but one sentence, or one half sentence.  

The Catholic doctrine untruly reported by M. jewel to be forsaken all the world through.  In like manner, a sensible, and a palpable lie it is, that you add, that our doctrine is forsaken the world through. No M. jewel, not so. God's holy name be blessed, it is not yet forsaken all England through. We know it right well, we praise God for it, and rejoice therein. You know it also, and it grieveth you at the harteful deeply, and specially that divers have returned from your lying Religion to the truth of the Catholic Faith, even in these last years, when ye seemed to have most prospered in the sight of the world. Such is the nature of truth, the more it is pressed down, the more it riseth up, 
A lie impudently avouched by M. jewel.  and showeth itself.  
Had our doctrine been forsaken the world through, your Gues I trow in these low Countries, and your huguenots in France had prospered better.  
But what will not you stick to avouch, which so boldly, yea so impudently do avouch such a known Untruth? Untruth? Nay so sensible, and so palpable a Lie. The Catholic doctrine, not only continueth in Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and Germany, in whole Countries, and Territories, but even where your brothers are thickest, there lack not Catholics right many, and perfit among them. Yea the Catholic doctrine is preached, and published among heathens, and Infidels to the great glory of God, and to the great despite of the devil, and his ministers, as it well appeareth by yourself M. jewel, and by your words which before I have touched.  
If our doctrine be forsaken the world through, where are we M. jewel, against whom you writ so busily? Are we out of the world? Where was the late general Council, with so many Bishops, learned Doctors, and Princes Ambassadors there present, all condemning your heinous heresies? Were they all out of the world, or have they all now changed their mind, and yielded unto you? Maximilian the noble Emperor, King Philip of Spain with all his so sundry, and so large Dominions, besides the kingdom of Naples, and Sicilia, the Dukedoms of Milan, Burgundy, Brabant, Holland, Zealand, Friesland, Gelderland, the Counties of Tyrol, Flaunders, Henault, and Artois, Charles king of France, the kings of Portugal, and of Polonia, The states and Princes of Italy, with also many Dukedoms, Free Cities, States of Christendom beside, all yet remaining Catholic, are they all out of the world? I can not tell, whether I may call this lie, more impudent, or more foolish.   
jewel. Pag. 50. 
Neither there any sufficient cause to the contrary, but that Ber●●garius, john wickliff, john Hus, D. Luther, Zuinglius, O●colampadius, and others, either for learning, or for truth, or for i●●●●ment in the Scriptures or for Antiquity, may well and safely b● compared with Lanfrancus, Guimundus, Abbas Cluniacensis, Tho●●● Waldensis, john Fisher, and others.  
Harding. What difference there is between these holy Fathers and those pestilent Heretics.  

The. 17. Chapt.  No, no Sir, the odds is exceeding great. Berengarius, wickliff, Hus, Luther, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, non comunicabant oimbus gentibus, & illis Ecclesiis Apostolico labore fundatis, 
Aug. count Lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 16.  did not communicate with all nations, and those Churches, which were founded by the Apostles labour. Nay by the full and entire consent of all nations Christened, assembled in general Councils, they were all condemned. Berengarius in the great general Council of Lateran. Anno. 1205. wickliff, and Hus in the general Council of Constance, Anno. 1413. Luther, and the rest, among whom you may take yourself for one, in the late General Council of Trent. Contrariwise the other Fathers communicated with the whole corpse of Christendom then living. They were bishops, and Doctors of that age, lineally succeeding in the Catholic doctrine, even from the Apostles, and the Apostolic men.  
Again these said Fathers are accounted and placed in honourable rooms, as Lumina Ecclesiae, lights of the Church in all Chronographies, yea made and written by the Protestants themselves, namely by Henricus Pantaleon of Basil, and others of your sect. Berengarius, on the other side with all the rest, are noted in the Chronographies drawn out by Protestants themselves in the rue and line of condemned heretics.  
Thirdly what comparison is there between lewd lecherous Luther, and that holy Bishop, 
B. Fisher.  and blessed Martyr of God Doctor Fisher late Bishop of Rochester? The very writings of both extant, do declare the diversity of their spirits. Luther taketh his pleasure in ribaldry, belketh out filthiness, breatheth rancour, raileth, and reveleth against the honourable states of the world beyond all measure, even against th●t Prince himself that afterward prepared the way for your heresies to proceed lustily, King He●●ie the eight. The writings of D. Fisher are well known to be modest, pithy, and learned, and at this present highly esteemed in all Christendom. So are the writings of Lanfrancus, Guimundus, and Cluniacensis. Of the others we have but names only left, except Luther with the two others, whose writings yet no doubt if ever God's truth prevail, will also at length come to nought, and have the like fortune, as the books of all other heretics have had.   
jewel. Pag. 50. 
The Councils ye mean, are very new, and therefore bear the less Authority, for that they be so many ways contrary to the old. Certainly there is none of your errors so gross, and palpable, but by some of your late Councils it hath been confirmed.  
Harding. The causes examined, for which M. jewel alloweth not the Councils of these last. 500 years.  

The. 18. Chapt. Guli. Malmesburien. lib. 3. de gestis Anglorum. Guimundus & Al. gerus lib. 1 de Sacramentis. Platina in Innocentio. 3. Tyrius lib. 21. cap. 26 Guido Carmelita de haeresibus. Platina. Palmerius Nauclerus.  Three causes then there are (if I understand you well) why you and your fellows so saucily do condemn the General Councils holden in Christendom within these last five hundred years, as the Councils holden at Towers in France, at S. john Lateran in Rome, that under Nicolaus 2. to the number of. 114. Bishops, this under Innocentius 3. whereunto patriarchs, archbishops, Bishops, and abbots out of all parts of Christendom resorted, to the number of a thousand two hundred fourscore and five Fathers, in all which the doctrine of Berengarius was condemned.  
Also the other General Council holden at S. john Lateran at an other time to the number of 300. Bishops, both of the East, and the West Church, where the Waldenses your brethren were condemned, the Council of Constance where the doctrine of wickliff, and Hus was condemned, to the number of. 270. Bishops, last of all the General Council of Trent, to the number of 198. Bishops, where sundry of your present heresies were after mature discussion with full consent accursed, and condemned: All these and divers other Councils for three causes you contemn, and despise. First, for that they are very new: Secondly, for that they are contrary to the old: Thirdly, because all our errors have been confirmed in them.  
Your first cause implieth a great folly, I will not say also a blasphemy. A great folly it is for you, and your fellows to contemn the General Councils of late years, for that they be new, as you say, yourselves and your doctrine being yet so new, and of so little age. Verily no age, or time of Christ's Church to any Christian man ought to seem new in respect of doctrine and faith. If he believe the holy Scriptures describing the Church unto us, he can not without folly in that respect call it new. The time may be new, or late, because it cometh, and passeth. The Faith, and Doctrine remaineth one, and the same not changed with the course of times. Now as the word of God, and our Faith dureth for ever, so Christ's Church being one and the same, as it hath in all ages continued, so shall it continue to the worlds end. This before hath been proved, and by yourself confessed. The Councils therefore, I mean the doctrine of Faith, opened, discussed, and agreed upon in Councils by the bishops, whom the holy Ghost hath ordained to rule the Church, 
Act. 20. Ephes. 4.  and by the Pastors and Doctors, whom God placeth to the edifying of the Church, that we be not carried away by every wind of doctrine, is not new. The discussion, and plain opening of it may be new. The doctrine is old, as truth itself is old. 
Answer to the objection of the later councils being contrary to the old.   
Your second cause, why these later Councils do bear with you the less Authority, is, for that, as you say, they be so many ways contrary to the old. It had been good reason, that, if these later Councils be so many ways contrary to the old, you had showed presently at the lest one of those so many ways. Shall it be sufficient for you, to give out such a Reproach i● a matter of so great Importance without any prouse at all? It had been plain dealing, at the jest, to have named some one Council, and to have touched some one point, wherein that Council should be found contrary to the old. This therefore I let pass for a Notorious, and a reproachful Untruth, boldly avouched, but no way proved.  
Only I advertise the Reader, that it is not possible any general Council should be contrary to an other, in matter of faith, 
One Church, one faith.  and necessary doctrine. As the Church in Faith is but one, so the Faith discussed, determined, and agreed upon in Councils (truly representing the whole body of the Church) is but one. As the Church can not be contrary to itself in Faith, so general Councils assembled in the holy Ghost can not be contrary to themselves. Mark well good Sir what I say, 
One general Council can not in a matter of faith be contrary to an other Council. Math. 18.  In doctrine and matter of Faith, no lawful General Council, truly and rightly, that is, in unity and Charity, assembled, hath, or can at any time determine contrary to an other likequalified. For so the one should err in Faith, whereby Christ's promise should seem to fail, who said: wheresoever two or three are assembled together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. In my name, faith S. Cyprian, that is, in unity, and in the body.  
That later Councils have determined some matters, not before in other Councils determined, it is evident, and not denied. Heresies have caused many matters to be more opened, than they were before, as S. Augustine noteth. But new articles of the faith be not decreed in councils. That also in matter of manners, and of external order or government, some Councils have done contratrarie to other according to the state of times, and diversity of circumstances, it is not denied. Yea that it be so done, sometime the state, and present case of the Church of necessity requireth it. 
Aug. epist. 5. ad Marcellinum.  For which S. Augustin saith notably. Non itaque verum est quod dicitur, semel rectè factum nullatenus esse mutandun. Mutata quip temporis causa, quod rectè antè factum suerat, ita mutari vera ratio plerumque flagitat, ut cum ipsi dicant rectè non fieri si mutetur, contrà veritas clamet, rectè non fieri, nisi mutetur: quia utrumque tunc erit rectum, si erit pro temporum varietate diversum. It is not therefore true which men say, look what thing is once well done, it ought in no case to be changed. For the state of the time being altered, that thing, which was well done before, good reason oftentimes requireth so to be changed, that whereas they say, it is not well done, if it be changed, the truth on the other side crieth out, It is not weldone, if it be not changed: because both shall then be right and well, if it shallbe divers, according to the variety of the time. But that in matter of faith or doctrine, 
Answer to that M I●wel objecteth against the later Counsels, for that by the same all our doctrines, which they impugn, 〈◊〉 confirmed.  as is afore said any General Council lawfully assembled was ever contrary to the other, it is a mere untruth, and a false slander, that can never be proved.  
Where you say for a third cause, or reason, why these later Counsels are of less authority, for that there is none of our errors so gross, and palpable, but by some of them it hath been confirmed, to that we answer: Quod das accip●mus. we admit gladly, that in these late Counsels all such matters as we defend (which it pleaseth yau to term gross and palpable errors) have been confirmed. We are then discharged, and the whole Church of late years is charged. But Sir being confirmed by General Councils, why call you them Errors gross, and Palpable? Say you not also herein, that the whole Church erred at that time grossly and palpably? Let us take one Council, and one Age for example, to avoid confusion of general discoursing, and to bring this matter to some clear issue.  

The Lateran Council under Innocentius. 3.  In the year of our Lord. 1215. above three hundred years past, in the General Council holden at S. john Laterane in Rome, with full consent of a thousand, two hundred, fourscore and five Fathers assembled there, out of all parts of Christendom, as well out of the East Church, as out of the West, the Ambassadors, and Orators, as well of both Emperors being present, as also of divers other Kings, Princes, and States, it was by mature discussion found, 
Transubstantiation.  and agreed upon, and decreed so to be believed, that in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, due consecration being made, the substance of bread is changed into the substance of the body of Christ, and the substance of wine into the substance of his blood, the word Transubstantiation (whereby much that belongeth to that mystery is by a commodious brevity expressed) was allowed, the opinion of Berengarius was condemned. This declaration, and determination you take to be a gross and a palpable error. For you are not ashamed you say of Berengarius doctrine.  
But Sir if this were a gross, and a palpable Error, how say you then, did all those patriarchs, archbishops, Bishops, Abbates, Doctors, and learned Priests grossly and palpably err? Did the Emperors both of the Grecians, and of the Latins, the Kings of France, Spain, England, Jerusalem, Cyprus, whose Ambassadors and Orators were there, representing the persons of their Princes, and people to them subject, did all these also err, with all their people, and subjects grossly, and palpably? This question than I demand of you M. jewel. At these days and in that age, where was the Church of Christ? By you all erred, grossly, and palpably. Berengarius himself, whose doctrine was there condemned, had both recanted his Heresy, that you hold now, and was long before that time dead and buried. There was not a man living at that day, who was known in the unity of the Church to maintain that doctrine, which that Council condemned, and which you now do maintain.  
Only Almaricus 
Almaricus.  is noted of the Chronographers to have lived about the time of that Council, and to have holden the heresy of Berengarius. 
Pantaleon. Bernard. Lutzenburg. Gaguinus. Lib. 6. Pag. 48.  But M. jewel hath plainly renounced this Almaricus. He said before, of Abailard, and Almarike, and certain other, we have no skill. They are none of ours. Then as I said, there was not so much as one man known at that time, in the unity of the Church, and allowed by your judgement, to have holden the opinion by that General Council condemned. This being so, either that Council held the unity of Christ's Church, or else at that time Christ had no Church at al. But Christ's Church endureth for ever, 
Pag. 32.  you have your self before confessed it: therefore we must believe, that the said Council held the unity of Christ's Church, and the doctrine by the Fathers of the same approved, is the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church, and your sacramentary opinion to the contrary at this day, is a condemned heresy.  
In like sort by Induction we might discourse of the other General Councils. But this one for example may suffice, to prove, that the same points of doctrine, which you call gross and palpable Errors, 
M. jewel acknowledgeth all the parts of doctrine where in he varieth from us, to be approved by the Church in General Councils  fully discussed, and confirmed in Councils, are no Errors at all, but Catholic verities and truths, tried, and confirmed by the highest, and most infallible Authority, that is in earth. And we have all good cause to rejoice M. jewel, that by the force of truth ye are driven so freely, and so plainly to grant unto us the confirmation, and Approbation of Councils, for all such points of doctrine, as we defend against you, termed by you, modestly, I trow, and without heat, or choler, Gross and palpable Errors. He must needs be a great favourer of your sect, that upon the warrant of your mouth only, will hold the general determinations of Councils for gross and palpable Errors. And very gross must he be, that seeth not the proud Luciferly spirit breathing forth of you, in such a malapert and saucy controllement of them, whom God ordained in their time to govern his Church. No, no M. jewel your mouth is no just measure, your pen is no right square, your verdict is very insufficient for a due resolution thereof to be taken in matters of such importance.  
Yet have you forsooth an example for your so doing, and that of no less man, than S. Augustine himself. For thus you infer to justify your former asseverations.   
jewel. Ibidem. 

August. Contra Maximin lib. 3. c. 14.  Therefore we may justly say to you, as S. Augustine sometime said to Maximinus the Arian heretic. Neither may I lay to thee the Council of Nice, nor mayest thou lay to me the Council of Ariminum, either of us thinking thereby to find prejudice against the other. But let us lay matter to matter, cause to cause, and reason to reason, by the Authority of the Scriptures.  
Harding. How little this place of S. Augustine serveth M. jewels purpose, and how falsely by him it is alleged.  
How your therefore followeth M. jewel, I see not, 
The .19. Chapt.  except you will reason thus: The later Councils have confirmed gross and palpable errors: Therefore you will not, that we should lay them against you, no more then S. Augustine would lay the Nicene Council against Maximinus the Arian. See you not how untowardly, this your therefore followeth? For admit that we granted you that the late Councils were erroneous (which we will not, ne may not in any wise grant you) yet you will not I trow say, that the Nicene Council also was erroneous. If the Nicene Council were not erroneous, but a most authentic, and Catholic Council, what deduction can you make from the one to the other? If S. Augustine had refused the Nicene Council, as you refuse the late Councils, that is, if he had condemned the Nicene Council of gross and palpable errors, as you do condemn the later Councils: then had the example of S. Augustine served your turn, this being presupposed, that these later Councils were such, as you slander them to be. Now S. Augustine doth not so put of the Nicene Council, either as an erroneous Council, or as an Authority insufficient, whereby to control the Heretic: but partly, because the Heretic quarreled about the name of an other Council at Ariminum, which was no lawful Council in deed, but a schismatical, and heretical conventicle (and yet were there at it 800. Bishops, but for want of Damasus the Pope's confirmation, 
Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 23. Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 21.  as Sozomenus, and Theodoritus do write, it was accounted for none) partly also because he saw himself sufficiently instructed otherwise with holy scriptures to confute the Arian. For these two causes to cut of occasion of longer brabbling, and to draw the sooner to an issue (for it was in an open disputation before a multitude, not in private writings carried to and fro) S Augustine was content to lay aside the advantage that he had of the Nicene Council, upon condition the Arian would brabble no more of the Council of Ariminum. This did S. Augustine of Christian policy, and by occasion then ministered, and not as giving example to others to shake of all Authority of Councils, as you do M. jewel of a great many.  
Again, you require us to press you no more with the late general Councils of Laterane, of Constance, of Florence, of Trent, and such other, as the Arian required, not to be pressed with the Nicene: but you have not so much as the name of one Council of your part, for the which we might by way of composition yield our Councils, that you also might yield yours, as the Arians had the names of that of Ariminum, and certain other Councils holden by the Arians. Your heresies (God be praised) have not yet prospered so much, that ye might have hundreds of Bishops to assemble, and determine on your side, as the Arians had. Therefore again your case is very unlike, and your example of S. Augustine and the Arian, very uneven. When you have Councils on your fitly, that shall make for the proof of your Doctrine and for condemnation of our Doctrine, then may this place of S. Augustine seem to serve your purpose.  
Last of all your accustomed legerdemain in citing this place, openeth your falsehood. For in the sentence immediately going before the words by you alleged, S. Augustine professeth plainly the authority of the Nicene Council to have been sufficient for convincing of the Arian heretic. Thus he saith. Hoc est illud Homusion, 
Lib. 3. ca 14. contra Maximinum Arianum  quoth in Concilio Niceno adversus haereticos Arianos à Catholicis patribus veritatis authoritate, & authoritatis veritate firmatum est. This is that Doctrine concerning Homusion, which in the Council of Nice was confirmed against the Arian heretics with the Authority of Truth, and with the Truth of Authority. 
S. Augugustine falsely alleged by M. jew. words of chief importance quite left out. Sed nunc.  Straight after it followeth, Sed nunc nec ega etc. But now at this present, neither will I lay against thee, etc. as before you alleged it.  
These words, Sed nunc. But now, which import the doing of S. Augustine to have been but for that present time, and occasion, and do show, that he meant not generally to renounce the Nicene Council, those words I say M. jewel, you quite left out, alleging S. Augustine's words in such sort, as if he had peremptorily, and precisely protested, that the Arian had been no more bound to the Authority of the Nicene Council, than he himself was bound to the Council of Ariminum. Whereas both before he plainly protested, that the Catholic Fathers of the Nicene Council had determined against the Arian heretics, veritatis authoritate, & authoritatis veritate, By authority of Truth, and by truth of Authority, and also in this later saying restrained himself only to the time present, for cause befor● mentioned.  
O how would that blessed Father be aggrieved, if now he were a live, and saw his sayings so perversely wrested to a sense by him never meant, nor intended, and that drawn to mainetenance of heresy, wherein he relented, for better means to be had towards the Confutation of heresy?   

In what credit, and estimation S. Augustine had General Councils.  

The 20. Chapt.  Howbeit this blessed Father touching the credit and authority of lawful Councils, not only in this present place (as it now appeareth) but also in others of his works hath written so circumspectly, and warily: that except heretics were of very purpose, and mere wilfulness set to pervert the truth, they could never have picked out of his sayings, so much as any colour of advantage to the prejudice of Councils. Contrariwise to the advancement of their credit, and estimation, he writeth in sundry places. Verily to the Donatists being confuted, and convinced by a great Assembly of the Aphrican Bishops, 
August. epist. 152. Ad populum factionis Donatia●a.  he saith, Nulla excusatio iam remansit. Nimium dura, nimium diabolica sunt hominum corda, quae adhuc tantae manifestationi veritatis obsistunt. There remaineth now no excuse. The hearts of men are too too hard, and too too devilish, which do yet withstand the truth so clearly opened unto them. How much better may we say this unto you, and your companions M. jewel, whose heresies have been detected, and learnedly confuted in the late General Council of Trent, unto the which out of all Catholic Countries of Christendom, bishops, and the best learned men were assembled?  
Again disputing against the error of S. Cyprian touching the rebaptizing of such as heretics had baptised, in the end he concludeth with the Authority of a General Council, and protesteth, that he himself would not have been so bold, as in such sort to confute that holy Father's opinion, except he had had the General Council on his side. These are his words. 
August. de Baptismo contra Donatist. li. 2. cap. 4.  Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid auderemus asserere, nisi universae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati: cui & ipse sine dubio cederet, si iam illo tempore quaestionis huius veritas eliquata, & declarata per plenarium Concilium solidaretur. Neither should we be so bold, as to affirm so much, but that we are assuredly upholden with the authority of the most uniform consent of the universal Church. To the which (S. Cyprian) himself would undoubtedly have yielded, if at that time, the truth of this question being bolted out and made clear, had been by a full (general) Council established.  
In like manner he urgeth the Pelagians, saying. 
August. Contra julianum li 3. cap. 1.  Vestra verò apud competens judicium communium episcoporum causa modò finita est. Nec amplius vobiscum agendum est, quantum ad ius examinis pertinet, nisi ut prolatam de hac re sententiam cum pace sequamini. Quòd si nolueritis, a turbulenta, vel seditiosa inquietudine cohibeamini. Your matter is now ended, by sufficient judgement of Bishops from all parts. Neither ought we now to have further dealing with you, as touching right of examination to be made, but now it behoveth that y● follow peaceably the verdict, which hath 〈◊〉 pronounced of this matter. And if ye will not, yet that ye be restrained from all troublesome, and seditious disorder.  

August. Epist. 118. ad januarium.  Last of all speaking of General Councils, he saith, Quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas, their Authority in the Church is most wholesome.  
And because M. jewel findeth himself aggrieved wit● the later Councils, and is offended with the newness of them, and claimeth by former Counsels, and pretendeth to follow the Apostles own Traditions: let us see, what S. Augustine (of whom he would so feign borrow help, if it would be) will say for him. Whereas the Donatists for their rebaptizing of such as the Catholics had baptised, alleged th' Apostles Tradition, and neglected a late General Council assembled against their opinion, holding upon a more ancient Tradition, even such as came from the Apostles: to them in this case S. Augustine saith thus. Nec quisquam dicat, 
August. li. 4. cap. 7. de Baptis. contra Donatistas'.  quod accepimus ab Apostolis, hoc sequimur. Quatò robustivo nunc dicimus, Quod ecclesiae consuetudo semper tenuit, quod haec disputatio dissuadere non potuit, et quod plenarium Concilium confirmavit, hoc sequimur? Neither let any man say (as the Donatists said, and as Protestants now say) we follow that, which we have received of the Apostles. How much more stronger is that we say now, we follow that which the Custom of the Church hath evermore holden, which all this reasoning to and fro, hath not been able to pluck out of men's hearts, and last of all, which a full General Council hath confirmed? So highly esteemed S. Augustine those things, 
August. li. 2. de Baptism. cap. 9  which M. jewel of all other maketh lest account of.  
And again he saith, Concilia posteriora prioribus apud posterns praep●nuntur. 
Later Counsels preferred before the former, for what cause.  The posterity preferreth the Later Councils before the Former. Not as though the later should be contrary to the former, but because in the later Counsels the Church is always better instructed, through the contradictions of heretics, by occasion whereof matters are more exactly searched, discussed, and more clearly opened. Like as the flint stones being knokte hard together fire flieth out, and corn the more ye fift it, the purer it is tried: so truth by our adversaries Contradictions is beaten out, and doubtful points by long discussion, and search are made plain and clear.  
Therefore again he saith, 
Ibidem li 2. cap. 3.  Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora posterioribus emendantur, cúm aliquo experimento rerum aperitur, quod clausum erat, & cognoscitur quod latebat.  
The very former general councils are oftentimes corrected by the later councils, when as by some trial of ma●●er that thing is opened, which before was close shut up and that is known, which before lay hid.  
Ye● and this is the chief and best fruit, 
The benefit and fruit of heresies. August. in Psal. 54. super versum, Divisi sunt prae ira, etc.  that heresies bring unto the Church, as the same S. Augustine otherwhere declareth, where he saith: The matter of the blessed Trinity was never well discussed, until the Arian● barked against it. The Sacrament of Penance was never thoroughly handled, until the novatians began to withstand it. Neither the cause of Baptism was well discussed, until the rebaptizing Donatists arose, and troubled the Church. Thus M. jewel, if you give ear unto S. Augustine, whose example you seem to claim by, you shall learn of him not to refuse, and renounce the authority of General Counsels, but to obey them, and to yield due reverence unto them, yea though they be later, and as you call them, new.   

Truth drove M. jewel to justify all our Doctrine, wherein he dissenteth from us.  

The 21. Chap.  This odds therefore remaineth between you and us, that our doctrine, yea every point thereof in cotroversie now, is (by your own confession) approved by the later General Councils: and so we defend no doctrine of our own, nor maintain any profane Novelties of our own devise, but we follow Saluberrimam authoritatem, the most wholesome and sound authority (as S. Augustine termeth it) of General Counsels: that is to say, we follow the voice of the whole body of Christ's Church (most truly represented in Councils) the voice of Christ's spouse, yea the voice of Christ himself, speaking to us by his Church, and so speaking, that he willeth him, which heareth not the Church, to be accounted for a Heathen, 
Matt. 18.  and a Publican. Contrariwise your Doctrine M. jewel, is not only not authorized in General Councils, but also is clearly condemned by the same, as for example (that one may serve in steed of many) the General Council of Laterane condemneth your sacramentary heresy.  
Yet we thank not you, but the truth, that you have this much confessed for us. And as S. Augustine said of the Donatists, so we say most truly of you:  illa omnia vel loquendo, vel legendo, pro causa nostra promerent, atque propalarent, 
Aug. contra Donatist. post collat. ca 34.  veritas eos torsit, non charitas invitavit. That the Donatists should utter and bring forth either by talk, or by allegation out of a book, all those things for behoof of our matter, the truth forced them, it was not any charity that invited them. The truth, I say M. jewel, not any love you bear to our cause, forced you to confess, that there is none of our errors (so you term sundry weighty points of the Catholic Faith) that by some of the late Councils, hath not been confirmed. We take that you give us right gladly, in as much, as it declareth you to be convinced by witness of your own mouth, For if the points of Faith and Religion, wherein ye descent from us, be approved and confirmed by authority of the Church in General Councils, who seeth not, what a good staff we have to lean unto? And who is that Christian man, which will not humbly believe the same?     

The third Book containeth a Detection of certain Lies, cavils, slanders, etc. uttered by M. jewel in the second part of his pretenced Defence.  

jewel. Pag. 88 
Where ye fantasy that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament hath in it, self neither. Form, nor Proportion, nor Limitation of place, nor Distinction of parts, S. Augustine telleth you, Spatia locorum tolle, etc. Take away from Body's Limitation of place, and the Bodies will be no where: 
Augu. ad Dardanum epist. 57  And because they be nowhere, they will be nothing. Take away from Bodies the qualities of Bodies, there will be no place for them to be in: and therefore the same Bodies must needs be no Bodies at al. Hereof we may conclude, that the Body of Christ, which you have imagined to be contiened grossly, and carnally in the Sacrament, for as much as by your own confession, it hath neither Quality, nor Quantity, nor Form, nor place, nor proportion of Body, therefore by S. Augustine's doctrine, it is no Body.  
Harding. Answer to the Objection made out of S. Augustine to Dardanus against the real presence of Christ's Body in the Blessed Sacrament.  

The. 1. Chapt.  THE great confidence you have in S. Augustine's two sayings in his 57 Epistle to Dardanus, may much better serve your turn to skirmish with Brentius a Master of yours, 
Brentius the author of the heresy of the Vbi. quetaries.  and a grand Captain among the Lutherans, who spareth not by public write to teach the world, that Christ's Humanity is every where as his Divinity is, then against the Catholic doctrine of Christ's Bodily presence in the Blessed Sacrament, wherein no such error is allowed, that Christ's humanity should be every where with his Godhead, but it is avouched, that Christ by his omnipotent power, doth make his Body present in as many places, as the Blessed Sacrament is duly, 
Natural qualities suspended from Bodies by Gods special power. Exod. 3. Daniel. 3. Exod. 14.  and rightly consecrated.  
You are not ignorant M. jewel, but that you know, that God by his special power hath suspended from divers sorts of Bodies, sundry natural Qualities, as he did suspend the action of burning from the Fire, as well in the Bush that Moses saw, as in the fiery Fournaice, where the three Children were saved: the fluxilitie of water both in the Red Sea being divided, and giving passage to the Children of Israel safely to go through, and in the River of jordane: 
joshua. 3. Matth. 4. Exod. 34. 3. Reg. 19  the very force of natural heat both in his own Body, and in Moses, and in Helias Bodies, when they fasted forty days, and forty nights: the poise, and the weight of his own body, when he walked upon the water: 
Matt. 14.  the grossness of his own Body in his Transfiguration. 
Matt. 17.   
If such qualities, which do naturally follow the state of all Bodies, may for a time be suspended, or taken away by God's Omnipotent power: 
The very point of the Answer.  why may not Extension of place, and Limitation, which are mere Accidental to all Bodies, be as well suspended? Bodies doubtless left to their own Common nature, have always the state, that S. Augustine speaketh of in his Epistle to Dardanus. But the precious Body of our Saviour made present in the Sacrament, not by common natural action appertaining to Bodies, but by the special working of God Omnipotent, far passing all natural power, is not bound to that state, or condition.  

Defence pag 88  And whereas M. jewel thinketh, I must take a day to answer a peevish question that he moveth, why Christ's Body in Form, may not as well be in many places, as the same in Substance: to this question I answer without such great delay as he appointeth, that there is no Contradiction implied, including any impossibility to God, if I should grant, that one Body, as well in Form, as in Substance, might be in divers places at once by God's incomprehensible power.  

The true meaning of S. Augustine's place to Dardanus.  But the Controversy at this time lieth not betwixt us for the right understanding of S. Augustine's place to Dardanus, what may be by God's omnipotent power: But in what state, and Condition the Body of Christ is now, being united with the Godhead, whether it be only by the force of that Conjunction every where, as the Godhead is. To this Question S. Augustine answereth, that it is not. For notwithstanding it be united with the Godhead, yet thereupon it followeth not, it should match the Godhead in being everywhere with the Godhead, which error your grand Captain Brentius is not afraid to defend. Against whom for the refutation of that point, 
Peter Martyr at variance with Brentius.  Peter Martyr of condemned memory, though a great God among you, hath written a Pamphlet. So hath Bullinger: and Brentius again, against Bullinger. Whereby the world may see, how your Captains, and your great Gods do disagree among themselves.  
The voice that is one in the origine, 
Example of the Voice.  pronounced by one man, if you will believe Priscian that ancient learned Grammarian, is a very Body: and yet the self same one voice, is driven into the ears of a thousand persons at once, as experience teacheth you by the common course of Nature. And yet you will needs appoint the Omnipotent power of God such limits, as please you. Whether the Voice be a Body, or a Quality, to our purpose it maketh no matter. If common Nature be able to drive one and the self same Quality into divers places at one time, I trust men will have grace to see, that Gods working, who is the Author of Nature, may as well use Bodies in the like case, and specially his own glorified Body, being united with the Godhead.  
Aristotle, who travailed all together in the search of Nature, in his disputation against them, that would needs establish Vacuum, 
Vacuum.  
Successive motion.  saw no other causes of Successive Motion, but only the Form of the Body moved, the resistance of the Body, through the which the Motion was made, and the strength, or power of the Mover, which being limited, might at length be wearied. These grounds being laid, he concludeth against the defenders of Vacuum, that if their opinion were true, it would follow, that one Body might be in divers places at once, for lack of resistance in the Body, through the which Motion is made.  
If Aristotle by natural reason saw none other causes of Successive Motion, but such as I have told, and for the lack of one of them, saw, that one Body might be in divers places at once: what would that great Philosopher have laid of the state of Glorious Bodies, if he had been endued with the knowledge of them, in whose motion he should have found the lack of all his causes, no hindrance nor let in the Form and Figure of the body glorified, to move as it will, no hindrance nor let in the Body through which the Motion must pass, as it appeareth in the quick passage of our saviours Body through the doors remaining shut, 
john. 20.  without let or hindrance, no weariness in the power of the glorified Body to move as long as it will? If all glorified Bodies by the lack of the impediments that make Successive Motions, can not be stayed by all wit that Aristotle had, but that they may be in divers places at once: what shall men think of the glorified Body of our Saviour, which is now knit in unity of person with the Godhead?  
Thus I must send M. jewel being destitute of faith to Aristotle, to learn wit of him. Besides this, sith both the ancient Fathers that wrote within the first six hundred years, and all Catholic Writers, that wrote sith that time, do plainly testify, that the Body of our Saviour is verily, and really present in the Sacrament of the Altar, as it is well proved by M. D. Saunder, and others, to whom I marvel M. jewel answereth not: every simple witted man must needs conceive, that all such Writers must also agnize the very real presence of our saviours precious Body in as many places, as the Sacrament is rightly consecrated. So that now I had more need to take a day to awake M. jewel out of his deep dreams of gross ignorance, and infidelity, then to consider better how to answer so Childish a question, wherein no Christian man seeth any difficulty. The Prophet telleth you the way to understand, what I say, and also that the way, that you take, shall never bring you to understand, what our Religion meaneth, where he saith: Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis: unless ye believe, 
isaiah. 7. in 70.  ye shall not understand. Let faith be in the foundation M. jewel, and thereupon may you build all that is good. You place in your foundation, your own blind reason, and make that the Controller of Faith, thereby deceiving yourself, and all that believe you.  
What a Business maketh M. jewel to prove, 
Form. Pag. 89.  that the term, Form, doth signify Substance? As though a term, that hath many significations, as the term, Form hath, ought always to be taken for that signification, which he will appoint, and not for that which aggregeth best with the right meaning of the Authors mind. No doubt Fulgentius never meant to take the term, Form, in such a signification, that should exclude Christ's bodily Presence from the blessed Sacrament: in the doing whereof he should have been contrary both to himself, 
Terms that have divers significations, are not to be taken at pleasure, but according to the Tradition.  and to the Faith of the Catholic Church, at that time universally confessed.  
Look in the Scriptures, there shall you find divers Terms, that have many significations. If Heretics might have the liberty that M. jewel claimeth, to appoint in every place, where any such Term is used, what signification the same must have: they might easily overthrow all the grounds of our Faith. The Article of the Resurrection of our fles●● were quite abolished, 
1. Cor. 15.  because it is written, Car● & sangui● regnum Dei non possidebunt, Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God. 
Rom. 8.  Again, Qui in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt: they who are in flesh, can not please God. In these places, and such others, if flesh and blood should be taken for the substance, and not for the vicious motions, and filthy acts, that rise out of the flesh, no man should be saved, no flesh should be partaker of eternal life, contrary to holy jobs Confession and belief, 
job. 19  who said, Et in carne mea, videbo Deum. And in mine own Flesh I shall see God: Where Flesh is taken for the Substance, and not for the corruption of the Flesh. 
Psal. 83.  Cor meum, & caro mea exultaverunt in Deum vivum, My heart, and my flesh rejoiced in the living God: Verbum Caro factum est, 
joan. 1.  the word was made flesh: Where Flesh is taken for the Substance. If then any Heretic would be so froward, as arrogantly to stand in Defence, that, as Flesh is taken in these later places for the substance, even so it must be taken in the former, as M. jewel playeth for the signification of this term, Form: Where were the Resurrection of our flesh to life eternal? Yea where were our Salvation? Where were our Faith? 
1. Cor. 15.  Inanis esset fides vestra, inanis praedicatio nostra: Your faith were void, our preaching also were void, saith S. Paul.  
Infinite such places might be brought of Terms, that have many significations, whose signification for every place, if M. jewel had full authority to appoint at his pleasure, to serve best his own turn: our Faith would soon be quite overthrown. For very shame let M. jewel from henceforth leave dallying in matters of Faith by Equivocation of Terms. The Counterfeit parsonage he beareth, should put him in mind of more sadness, honesty, and plainer dealing.  
Be it, that the Lady Interpreter, 
The Lady Interpreter. Pag. 89.  whom you do praise so much be of such learning, virtue, and gravity, yea able to overmatch yourself also, if you put not on your saddest countenance: yet shall you alway find her guilty of unwomanly Presumption, either in translating that, which she understood not, or, if she understood it, in that she stepped a wry for the nonce, using one signification of the word, when the author meaneth the other. In which case I might with more reason, and right reprehend her, not only of Presumption, but also of Malice, in that she would deceive the ignorant Reader, than you might reprehend the lack of manly Modesty in me, in warning the Reader to take heed. 
An impudent, and filthy corruption, and falsifying of the words of the Confutation. Will ye see, how this man dissembleth a fault?    
jewel. Pag. 89. 
I will not here tell you M. Harding, how lowdely you have demeaned yourself towards her, whom it liketh you so often, and so scornfully to call the Lady Interpreter. etc. I beseech you, call your words again to mind, if you can without blushing: So roughly to handle so soft a creature. This Phrase of speech your very friends have much misliked, and, as it is in deed, so in Plain words they call it Ruffianrie, a virtue, although match agreeable unto your profession, yet unmeet for a man either of learning, or of sober wisdom. But this fault, among many others, as I have said, I will dissemble.  
Harding. M. jewels impudency, and Ruffianly corruption detected.  

The .2. Chapt.  You will not here tell me you say, how lewdly I have demeaned myself towards my Lady A. B. what shall I call her? For the name of my Lady Interpreter, liketh you not. Yea God knoweth, such Charity is suddenly blown upon this man, that, if he knew any lewd fault in me, he would conceele it, and spare my honesty. I beseech God so to keep me by his grace from sin, and shame, as I were sure by him, both in books, and pulpites to be proclaimed lewd, and unhonest, if he knew any lewd, or unhonest act done by me. And whereas you pretend, you will not tell me: ye tell all, and more than al. But tell on in God's name M. jewel, and save your belly from bursting, say the worst ye can, if you can say any thing without a lie.  

Mark Reader how this Ruffianrie is proved.  As for this Ruffianrie, wherewith you charge me, il be he thought of, that il thinketh. In good sooth before you wrote these impure words, I did not so much as once think of the Filth, which your filthy pen, ruled by commandment of your filthy heart, hath here most filthily uttered. God be thanked, that your Searchers, and promoters, have not met with all the Books of my Confutation of your Apology.  
There the Reader shall find these very words, whereby your malice, 
Confutat. fol. 41, a.  and impudency may appear to all the world. Confutation. Whether I may charge her with so heinous a crime (of a falsified translation) or no, I doubt. Perhaps as she passeth the bounds of womanly state, in presuming to meddle so far in these perilous matters, allowed now by a few of the new English Church, and disallowed always by the whole ancient Church of Christendom (if the translation be hers, and not an others set forth in her name): so may I seem to forget courtesy, thus roughly to blame so soft a creature.  
What Ruffianrie M. jewel can you find in these words of mine? Why should any friend of mine mislike this Phrase of speech? Why may not I call them to mind, without any blushing at all? In deed as you have falsely reported them, altering one word for an other, whereas I wrote, I may seem to forget courtesy, thus roughly to blame so soft a creature, your false report being, so roughly to handle so soft a creature, in phantasiastical heads, and unclean imaginations, it might breed an opinion of some unchaste meaning. But if your evangelical sincerity could have suffered my words to stand, as they were by me written, if you had not changed the honest word, blame, which I used, 
The honest word, blame, by M. jewel charged into the filthy word, handle.  into the word of unhonest meaning, handle, which you would have men believe, that I used: how should there have risen of my words any opinion of ill meaning? Verily M. jewel, in your alteration of my words, and placing in the steed of the word (blame) the word (handle) that seemed to you to serve better for your filthy purpose to disgrace mine honesty if you could, there appeareth an evident argument, both of false, and also of malicious dealing.  
Your very friends must needs mislike with you, if they have any honesty, for this your unhonest handling. You are never able to avoid it, cast upon it what colours you can. What would you stick to speak of me, were I dead, that are not ashamed thus to bely me, being a live, and occupied in showing to the world, with what impudent lies ye blot your papers? Yet of all your foul shifts, this is one of the foulest, and such as in common persons, is called, you know what, I am a shamed to speak it, you are not a shamed to play the part.    


The Apology part. 2. Cap. 1. Division. 2. Pag. 90.  
We believe that the holy Ghost, who is the third person in the holy Trinity, is very God: not made, not created, not begotten, but proceeding from both the Father, and the Son, by a certain mean unknown unto man, and unspeakable. etc.   

Confutation.  

Confut. fol. 41. b  As we acknowledge this article to be true and Catholic, so we demand of these Defenders, how they can prove the same? Have they either express Scripture for it, or any of the first four general Councils, which be esteemed of most authority? We are sure they have not. Therefore we do them to understand, that if they hear us not, we advertise the Readers that fear God, and love his truth, that all truth necessarily to be believed is not expressed in the Scripture, and that other Councils be to be received besides the four first, which are allowed in England by Parliament, 
* Left out by M. jewel.  as that wherein this point touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost hath been defined. Concil. Lugdunen. & Concil. Florentin. sub Eugenio. 4. as also other definitions of the Church, when upon a new doubt rising, an old Truth is by later publications declared. etc. *   
jewel. Pag. 90. 
Consider M. Harding, notwithstanding ye evermore tell us of Fathers, Fathers, yet how contrary oftentimes, ye are in judgement to the same Fathers. You say, that the Godhead of the holy Ghost, can not be proved by express words of the Scriptures, and thereof ye say, ye are right sure.  
Harding. That M. jewel is not able to prove by Scripture certain truths, which with the Catholics he teacheth touching the holy Ghost.  
What folly is in frowardness, 
The. 3. Chapt.  it appeareth by M. jewels travail to prove the Godhead of the holy Ghost by Scriptures, which I never denied, nor ever gave him such issue to prove. But where he confesseth a Trinity, and that the holy Ghost is the third person in the holy Trinity, which holy Ghost also he confesseth to proceed from the Father, and the Son, though all these parts be true and Catholic: yet I say he is never able to prove any of these points by any express words of the Scriptures. 
Things believed, and yet not expressly written in Scripture   
Where can he find this word, Trinity, in this signification, in all Scripture? Where hath he this word, Person, in this signification in any place of the Scripture? Where hath he in any express words of the Scripture, that the holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, and the Son? Or where hath he in all the Scripture, that the holy Ghost is rather the third Person in Trinity, than the second?  
These are the points that M. jewel is charged to prove by express words of Scripture, and not that the Holy Ghost is God. 
The word Transubstantiation abhorred, because it is not found in scripture, expressly.  The word, Transubstantiation, they abhor, because it is no where found expressly in Scripture, and yet they acknowledge the word, Trinity, and the word, Person, both First, second, and third, though these words be no where found expressly in these significations in the whole body of the Scriptures. So can these crafty jugglers, and false perverters of God's truth do, when they be disposed, changing themselves into all manner colours like the beast Chameleon, except the colour of good meaning, and plain dealing, into which for any long time, they can not change themselves.   
jewel. Pag. 93. 
I trust, Gentle Reader, thou wilt not look I should answer all M. hardings ordinary idle talk. So should I lose good time without cause, and be over troublesome to thine ears. O, saith he, what a world is it to see these Defenders? They which have not kept the Unity of spirit, in the band of Charity, which S. Paul requireth, but have severed themselves from the body of the Church, tell us now forsooth, they believe, that there is one Church of God. O M. Harding, if we have herein said ill, then bear witness of the ill: If we have said well, wherefore make you this bitter outcries? etc.  
Harding. The Protestants claim by the great visible Church, and by the little invisible Church, as it serveth best their turn.  
O M. jewel, if your saying, and doctrine were one, 
The. 4. Chapt.  I would never reprehend you: but when you say one thing openly, an other thing privily, and have divers points of secret Doctrine contrary the one to the other, when ye are driven to the straights, as now claiming by an invisible Church no where appearing many hundred years together (which, to say the truth, is no Church at all) and now by your great visible Church, spread abroad in all kingdoms, when ye have made your pack: what is this in effect, but in words for the time to set forth your belief of one Church gloriously, and when time will not bear out this gay glorious Confession of yours, then, as your manner is, to run to Corners, to seek some comfort of an unknown Invisible Church, where both the Ministers, the preachers, the Sacraments, the people, and their whole life are all together invisible? In the saying whereof, what do ye else, but utterly deny that one Church, which ye ought to Confess?   
jewel. Pag. 93. 
We say, 
See Reader how well this ghear is proved. M. Harding. fol. 25. a.  that our Doctrine, and the Order of our Churches, is elder than yours by five hundred whole years, and more. If ye will not believe us, yet believe M. Harding: he will tell you even the same. Mark well his words: These they be: It standeth not with Christ's promises made to the Church, that he should suffer his Church to continue in darkness these thousand years past. And thus by secret confession, he leaveth us five hundred, three score and six whole years at the least: that is to say, the whole time of Christ, of his Apostles, and all the Godly learned Doctors, and Fathers of the primitive Church, etc.  
Harding. That by no such secret Confession I have granted them the first five hundred years, etc.  

The. 5. Chapt.  To bring M. jewel once to feel his palpable grossness in mistaking one thing for an other, thus I made my reason. Christ's promise is as well warranted to the church for the later thousand years, as for the first five hundred: But it saved the Church from error the first five hundred years, by your own Confession M. jewel: Ergo, it hath saved the Church from error the later thousand years. Where is the secret confession, that I gave you the first five hundred years of light, and left to myself the later thousand of Darkness? It lieth you upon to drive out that my secret Confession by some words of mine, (which you shall never be able to do) or else to revoke and agnize your wilful malice, or your gross ignorance.  
If ye had any place of Scripture, that said Christ's promises were no longer warranted to the Church, then for the space of the first five hundred years, you had some colour to triumph. But such places of Scripture have ye none, nay ye have the contrary, both for the presence of Christ's special assistance, 
Math. vlt. johan. 14. isaiah. 59  and of the holy Ghosts, unto the end of the world. What Scripture have ye then to warrant the first five hundred years, more than the later thousand? Here I call earnestly upon you to answer. Tell us, have ye any Scripture to warrant the one, more than the other? No doubtless, I am well assured thereof. And doth M. jewel now, that was wont to call so busily for Scripture, Scripture, make warrant of the one, more than of the other, without all Scripture?  
Yet once again I call upon you, to tell us, in what part of that sentence is my secret Confession contained, that all the first five hundred years are yours. Tell it to my shame, if you can, spare me not. If you can by hook, or crook, by wresting, wring, racking, or by any good drift of reason bolt out any such secret Confession of mine, 
A free and liberal offer made to M. jew.  mark well what I say M. jewel, when you have done it in deed, as I am well assured you shall never be able: I do promise faithfully to yield unto you in all the rest of your Articles, upon Condition, that if you do it not, you shall in like manner, yield to all the Articles of the Catholic Doctrine, wherein I have travailed against you. Lo here is a fair offer, who can deny it? Take it if you dare. If you refuse it, take the shame to yourself.  
touching Lirinensis (of whom in this place you speak beside all reason) who giveth three Notes, to know what Doctrine is Catholic: you make such a pretty Limitation of his saying, 
Pag. 94.  that his three Notes so limited, shall never stand us in any steed. Lirinensis purpose was, to show us certain assured notes, or marks, how to know, what doctrine is Catholic, and what is heretical, and erroneous, thereby to instruct us how to beware of false doctrine. 
What is Catholic by Lirinensis.  That is Catholic (saith he) that every where, ever more, and of all persons hath been believed, that is, whereas the Churches were not corrupted, saith your fond● limitation, and special Restraint. But the Churches (saith Lirinensis) that teach doctrine agreeable with these three notes of Universality, can not be corrupted in doctrine. For these are the very true notes whereby to know sound Catholic doctrine from corrupt, as he avoucheth: neither he only, but S. Augustine also. Whereupon it followeth, that M. jewels new found Limitation, and special Restraint, is a very vain toy of his own devise. Yea the Limitation, as it is uttered, utterly destroyeth Lirinensis general rule of his three Notes to know Catholic, and uncorrupt doctrine.  
If that, which hath been believed every where, evermore, of all persons, may be corrupt doctrine, then are both Lirinensis, and S. Augustine utterly deceived in giving us such deceitful Notes, 
Aug. li. de Genes. ad literam imperfect. cap. 1.  and M. jewels Limitation, and special restraint must take place. On the other side, if that doctrine, which hath been believed every where, evermore, and of all persons, can not be but true, Catholic, and uncorrupt doctrine: then may M. jewel put up his Limitation, and special restraint in his purse, which he expressed by these words, whereas the Churches were not corrupted. Verily the same is utterly unsavoury, and hath no ground of learning, nor of wit, nor of common reason.  
To live every where, evermore, among all sorts of men honestly, to hurt no man, to give all other men their own, are three special Notes taught by justinian, for men to know, who do live Civilly under the law. But M. jewel, if he play with justinian, as he hath with Lirinensis, and S. Augustine, will not leave the matter so rawly: he will rush in with a Limitation, and a special restraint, saying, it is to be understanded, whereas he that so liveth, committeth, or offendeth nothing against the law. If it would please him to take a day to consider the matter better, he might see that he, who keepeth himself within these Notes, or precepts appointed by justinian, doth no more offend against the Law of man in doing, than the Churches, that teach doctrine agreeable with Lirinensis, and S. Augustine's Notes, offend against the Law of God in believing: which doctrine of necessity must be uncorrupt, and the Churches likewise that so teach, must of necessity be in doctrine uncorrupt, if S. Augustine, and Lirinensis say true. But juggle on M. jewel, your false play shall do no great harm, as long as it cometh to light in this sort, always to your own shame.   
jewel. Pag. 94. 
The Catholic Church of God standeth not in multitude of persons, but in weight of Truth.  
Harding. That the Catholic Church standeth in a multitude of persons, which M. jewel denieth.  
If not in multitude of persons, 
The. 6. Chapt.  why then allege you this place of S. Augustine, 
Aug. li. de Genes. ad literam. imperfect. cap. 1.  to choke yourself with all? Saith he not, the Church is called Catholica, Catholic, quia universaliter perfecta est, & in nullo claudicat, & per totum orbem diffusa est, Because she is universally perfit, and halteth in nothing, and is (not now shut up in one only Country, as the Church of the jews, but) powered throughout the whole world? If the Church be powered throughout the whole world, then must it needs stand in multitude of persons, unless your wisdom can conceive a Church spread throughout the whole world, without a multitude of persons, that so it be imagined to be planted in stocks, stones, trees, grass, roots, fire, water, earth, air, and brute beasts. If not in multitude of persons, why is it said, & dominabitur à mari, ad mare, 
Psal. 71.  à flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrarum: he shall bear rule from sea to sea, and from the river to the uttermost coasts of the world? If not in multitude of persons, what meant God the Father to say, unto Christ his Son, 
Psal. 2.  as David prophesied, Ask of me, and I will give unto thee, the Nations, for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession? If not in multitude of persons, 
apology.  why triumph ye so in your Apology, because all the world doth now begin, as you say, to behold the light of your Gospel mightily spread abroad? If not in multitude of persons, why is it said to Abraham, 
Gen. 22.  in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes, in thy seed all nations shall be blessed? Why is it said to the Apostles, 
Math. vlt.  euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris & filii, & Spiritus sancti? Go ye, and teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Why said Christ to his Apostles, 
Act. 1.  Eritis mihi testes in Jerusalem, & in omni judaea, & Samaria, & usque ad ultimum terrae? Ye shall bear witness of me in Jerusalem, and in all jewrie, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the world.  
Know you not M. jewel, 
This opinion of M. jewel tendeth to the heresy of the Donatists.  that S. Augustine allegeth all these, and many more such places against the Donatists? And what mean you? After all these Heresies of our wretched time, shall we have also a Donatiste of you? men marvel much, why you are so contrary to yourself, and that you lack the discretion, to discern, what maketh with you, and what maketh against you. What discretion was that, to bring in S. Augustine's authority, that saith, the Church is called Catholic, because it is spread throughout the whole world, to prove that the Catholic Church standeth not in multitude of persons? Can the Church be spread abroad into every part of the world, without multitude of persons? 
Pag. 94.  Or will ye the two persons you talk of out of Fortalitium Fidei, 
M. jewel saith, the Catholic Church standeth in the weight of Truth, and as for persons, it may stand in two.  should bodily replenish every quarter of the world, and contrary to yourself grant, that one body may be in diverse places at one time? Or will you the Weight of Truth, wherein the Catholic Church standeth, as you say, to wander round about the world, tanquam accidens sine subiecto? Or mean you by your two persons out of Fortalitium alleged, to appoint the Church to be only (not as the Donatists did, in Aprica alone, excluding all the quarters of the world beside, which is more tolerable) but in some two persons, as for example, your self perhaps, and M. Grindal, or Friar Whitehed, or Friar Coverdal, or some one or other of the Puritans, and that all the rest of the Realm, are no members of your Catholic Church? Or mean you in the excluding of the multitude of persons, to leave yourself some refuge (if it happen your number to decay) to the invisible Church, as ye were wont to do, being driven into any narrow straits by drift of reason, where men shall have as much comfort of preaching, of the Sacraments, and of good examples, as the hungry man hath comfort in his great hunger, if it be his fortune to find a stone?  
Consider well of your folly M. jewel in the allegation of S. Augustine, and weigh with your judgement, how contrary he is to your doctrine. 
Aug. li. de Genes. ad literam. imperfect. cap. 1.  He saith, that the Catholic Church is universally perfected, and halteth in nothing. Meaning thereby, that the Church can not err, ne can not be deceived. This speaketh he expressly of the Church that is spread throughout the whole world, that is to say, of the visible Church. Your doctrine is, that the visible Church doth err, hath erred, and may err, as well in Doctrine, as in manners. Thus you see, your luck is very ill in the allegation of Fathers, in that you bear us in hand, they make with you, when they make fully against you.  

Ibidem.  The truth, say you, be it in many, or in few, is ever Catholic. And what if it were in none at all? Were it not also Catholic? If no, than the substance of truth, as it is truth, must needs depend upon some person: and to have the same called Catholic, Lirinensis, and S. Augustine telleth you, that it must be every where, evermore, and of all sorts of men be believed. If yea, then have ye once found out a Catholic truth, and a Catholic Church planted not only in a few personnes, but in no persons at al.  
The case that Fortalitium Fidei setteth out by way of supposition, which you allege (though untruly, as your custom is, for his words are not, duo homines, but, duo veri fideles) hath taken place in Adam, and Eve: Also in Noah and his small family. But take the world, as it is now, full of people, I ask you, whether it be agreeable with Scripture, to say, that the Catholic Church consisteth only, and alone in any two persons, as for example, in M. jewel (if you will) and Sir james Proctor your worthy Chancellor, or in any two others? But how say you? will not the Prophet David be found altogether contrary, and put you in mind of the verse, Postula à me, 
Psal. 2.  & dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, & possessionem tuam terminos terrae: Ask of me (saith the Prophet in the person of God the Father, speaking of the dilatation of Ch●istes Church) and I will give thee the Gentiles for thine inheritance, and thy possession, the uttermost Coasts of the world. Can you M. jewel make that narrow, and small (to serve your turn) which the whole Scripture openly avoucheth to be great, and large?  
Whereas you defend Luther's dog eloquence by the great zeal he had of God's glory, and of his holy Temple, 
Luther's eloquence defended by M. jewel. eadem Pag. 94. Matthaeus judex.  after that you have once read over Matthaeus judex a Lutheran, and seen how Luther raileth at Oecolampadius, and Zuinglius your grand Captains, yea the patriarchs of your progeny and considered, by what names he calleth them, saying, they are as evil, as the Devil himself: it is likely you will repent, that you ever became his advocate, who so roughly handleth them, that are the founders of your own synagogue.  
In the very next line before you allege my worde●, with the vehemency of which you do greatly dislike, yourself in the reprehension of my vehement speech, do fall into the self same Vehemency. Whose words are these M. jewel? 
M. jew. blameth my vehemency of speech, himself being also no less vehement. Pag. 94.  Behold your own words so many, so vain, so bitter, so fiery, so furious, all together in one place? Are not these your own words? Are not these as vehement, as you could devise? Will you find fault with me, for that you use yourself? If vehement speech be to be used, when the matter requireth, why blame you me? If not, why do you so often use it? Whether you and Luther do use it justly for the zeal of God's glory, ask that of them, that wrote the Confession of the Church of Zurich. Your own friends, the Ministers of that congregation, do set forth Luther for his outrageous, and filthy railing against them, in his colours, and speak of him, as of a very vile fellow, and pay him home again with as good, as he brought. Read the book, and ye shall find it to be true. Howbeit I could send you to many other books of your brethren fraught with much more vile stuff of railing, than that little book containeth, with all which you are better acquainted, than I am.    

The Confutation of the Apology. The second part, the 2. Chapter.  

Confut fo. 44. b  Again the name of Head is attributed to Christ a● other way, because Christ is head of the Church by his own power and authority. men be called heads, in as much as they be in steed of Christ, and under Christ, after which meaning S. Paul saith to the Corinthians, for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, 
2. Cor. 2.  for your sakes forgave I it, in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. And in an other place. 
2. Cor. 5.  We are Ambassadors in the steed of Christ, even as though God did exhort you through us. To conclude in few, 
〈◊〉 what sense Christ is named the Head of the Church, and in what sense the Pope is so named.  according to inward influence of grace into every faithful member, Christ only is the head of the Church: according to outward governing, the Pope under Christ, and in steed of Christ, is head of the same.  
jewel. Pag. 94. 
To the matter, ye say, that, touching the influence of grace, Christ only is the head of the Church: but touching direction and government, the Pope only as the head. All this is but your own tale, M. Harding: ye speak it only of yourself: other authority of Scripture, or Doctor you bring us none.  
Harding. Dog eloquence, proved no unwonted term, and how the Pope is Head of the Church.  
To the matter, ye say. And truly well said of you. 
The .7. Chapped  For hitherto you have not directed your talk to the matter, but to the person of your Adversary: with whom you show yourself grievously offended, for calling the Currish, and snarling utterance of Luther, Dog eloquence. And whereas you would feign draw the same to the prejudice of my modesty, I trust, you, that are so great a Rhetorician, and so well seen in poets Fables, will judge so much the better of me, for so much as Quintilian that modest, and grave Orator, and ovid also no Poet satirical, thought such phrase of speech not unmeet for the countenance of modesty, and humanity, that they bore in the world. For if you remember, Canina Eloquentia, 
Quintilian lib. 12. c. 9 ovid. in Ibin.  is Quintilians' word, call it dog eloquence, dogged eloquence, or dogs eloquence, or how soever otherwise it please you to term it. And Ovid saith, Latr●● 〈◊〉 in toro verba canina foro. If for the use of this ancient term I seem to pass the bounds of modesty, specially attributing it unto Luther, whose heretical, and Devilish utterance is commonly in deed far worse, than the barking of any Dog, or the hissing of any Serpent: what will you say of the Scolding of your hot brother M. Calfhil?  
But now that after much idle, and impertinent talk, you are come to the matter, what say you, that is worth the hearing? 
M. jewels foul falsifying of my words.  Thus you say. Ye say, that touching the influence of Grace, Christ only is the Head of the Church: (I grant, I say so in deed. Go ye forth, and make no lie) but touching direction, and government, the Pope only is the Head. Yea sir? Where say I so? You should have caused your printer to have falsified that sentence of mine, that at your own pleasure, the simplest of your own poor Favourers, who take all for the Gospel that you say, or write, might not in your own book espy your shameless lying. For even there, notwithstanding your common falsifyings other where's, and also there, they may find my saying otherwise reported.  
It is an evident argument, that mine own words were to true for you to confute, sith that you thought it necessary, lest you should seem overcome, to alter and change them for other words of your own, which being false, to the unlearned reader I might seem to speak fond, and besides all truth. For how is it likely I should say, that touching Direction, and government, the Pope only is the Head? Your fetch was, to bring your unlearned favourers, by whom you are magnified, to believe, that from the Direction, and government of the Church I excluded Christ, and the holy Ghost, the spirit of truth. Which God forbidden I should do.  
Now the true words of my Confutation in this place are these, 
Defence Pag. 92.  which the Reader may see also in the book of your Defence, although very much mangled, and falsified of set purpose, to th'intent the force of truth by me opened should not be seen, as by view of my book it may clearly appear. Where thus I say.  
For Head, and Spouse alone he is (of his kingdom) in one respect, not alone in an other respect. 
* Confut. fol. 44. a. left out by M. je.  For a clear declaration whereof it is to be understanded, that, being of a Head may be considered after two ways, 
The being of a Head considered two ways.  either according to the inward influence, so as the virtue and power of moving, and of sense, is derived from the head unto the other members: or according to outward government, right so as a man is directed in his outward acts according to the sight, and other senses, 
According to it ward influence of grace Christ only is Head of the Church. In respect of outward government the name of Head is attributed to others beside Christ.  which have their root in the head. Now the inward influence of grace is not of any other, but of Christ only. Because Christ's manhood only hath power to justify, for that the same only is joined personally to the Godhead. * According to this inward influence of Grace, Christ properly and only is Head of his mystical body the Church. But as touching the outward government, the being of a Head is common to Christ with others. For in this respect certain others may be called heads of the Church, as in Amos the prophet the great states be called the Heads of the people. So the Scripture speaketh of King Saul, When thou were a little one in thine own eyes, thou wast made Head among the tribes of Israel. So David saith of himself, he hath made me Head of Nations.  

Amos. 6. 1. Reg. 15. Psal. 17. Headship in respect of government divers in Christ and in men.  
* Left out by M. jewel.  In this sense the name of Head is attributed to princes and governors. And yet not altogether so as to Christ. First forasmuch as Christ is Head of all those that pertain to the Church, according to every place, every time, and every state. But men are called Heads in regard of certain special places, as Bishops be called heads of their Churches. Or in respect of a determinat time, as the Pope is Head of the whole Church during the time of that calling. And according to a determinate state, even so as men be in the state of this mortal life, for further stretcheth not this humanie Headship.  
Again the name of Head is attributed to Christ an other way, because Christ is Head of the Church by his own power and authority. * men be called heads, in as much as they be in steed of Christ, and under Christ, after which meaning S. Paul saith to the Corinthians, 
2. Cor. 2.  For if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it, in persona Christi, in the person of Christ: and in an other place, we are Ambassadors in the steed of Christ, 
2. Cor. 5.  even as though God did exhort you through us. To conclude in few, according to inward influence of grace into every faithful member, Christ only is Head of the Church, according to outward governing, the Pope under Christ, and in steed of Christ, is Head of the same.  
These be my words there M. jewel. To which because you had nothing to say, you answer by your accustomed art of mangling, hewing away what liked you not, by falsifying them, and by putting in your own self words in place of mine that teach the truth.  
And at length you fall to skoffing at my Logic, making fond and peevish Arguments of your own forging, bearing the simple reader in hand they are mine, which God knoweth, I never made, nor no wise man else. For they are such, as of all that peruse your writings, you may be known by them, as a Beggar is by his patched cloak, or rather as a Vise is known by his Babul.  
The greatest thing you say, is, that all is mine own tale, that I tell, and that I bring in no Scripture, nor Doctor. To this I answer. Were it true that you say, as my Book itself proveth it false, yet in this case my Yea hitherto is as good as your Nay, and better too, because it standeth with the uniform Doctrine of the Church. Be it, I allege no Authority of Scripture, or Doctor, to prove the Pope Head, because I am not yet come to the place, where I mind to prove it. Yet my case standeth as good as yours, that bring neither Scripture, nor Doctor to the contrary.  
If it had pleased you, ye might have found both Doctors, and Scriptures, more, 
The Rock of the Church.  than you would gladly hear of, in M. D. Sanders book entitled the Rock of the Church, written for that behalf, and in M. Sapletons' Return written against your so many gross Untruths and errors. 
The Return of Untruths.   
You crack much of your great skill in Logic, in comparison of other men's ignorance: search out I pray you, among your rules of Logic, whether Distinctio multiplicis in quaestione positi, the Distinction of a word, that hath divers significations, placed in a controversy, ought not to go before the disputation of the controversy. If it ought, then have I done rightly and orderly, in that I made a Distinction of the term Head, before I entered to prove the Pope to be Head, and you ignorantly, and disorderly, in calling upon me to do two things together, against all good order of nature, reason and learning, or to do the later, before I had ended the former.    

Testimonies avouching the Pope to be head of the Church.  

Peter the chief member of the Church. Gregor. li. 4. epis. 38.  Now because you be so hasty to have some Doctor to prove that the Pope is Head, somewhat to satisfy your hasty humour, the Authority of S. Gregory afterward alleged by yourself, may suffice any wise man, who calleth S. Peter the chief member of the Church, which (the Pope succeeding in that right of Peter) is all one with that we say, the Pope is Head in government under Christ. What difference I pray you can your wisdom put betwixt the chief member, and a Head under an other, or in the steed of an other?  

Chrysost. in Matth. homil. 55.  It is your hap alway to allege Doctors to your own Confusion.  
S. Chrysostom also witnesseth, that Peter was such a Head, saying of him: Ecclesia Pastor & Caput Piscator homo, The fisherman (by whom he meaneth Peter) is the shepherd, and head of the Church. Again he saith in an other place, Quod si quis percontaretur, 
Chrysost. in joan. Hom. 87.  quo modo jacobus Sedem Hierosolymis acceperit, responderem, hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse. In case any man would demand of me this question, how james came to have the See at jerusalem: I would answer him, that this (Peter) the Master of the whole world made him Bishop there. Lo, 
Peter Master of the whole world.  he calleth Peter the Master of the whole world, by which word, what else signifieth he, but that he was the Head touching spiritual government of the whole world?  
He saith furthermore, and that most plainly in an other place. jeremiam Genti uni pater, 
Chrysost. Hom. 55. in Matth.  hunc autem universo terrarum orbi praeposuit. God the Father made jeremy the Head and Governor over one nation only, (that was the nation of the jews) but as for this man, 
Peter made head of the whole world by Christ.  to wit, Peter, Christ made him Head and Governor over the whole world. Are you contented now? Verily I have followed your mind willingly. And if ye require more the like testimonies of me, I remit you to the Answer Answer. I made unto your Challenge, 
Art, 4. fol. 9 b. etc.  where you shall find that may satisfy any learned man touching this point. Neither are you able to avoid the plain force of those testimonies, for all the great a do you have made in your huge Reply.  
jewel. Pag. 94. 
Ye say, S. Paul saith, If I forgave any thing, for your sakes, 
2. Cor. 2.  I forgave it in the person of Christ: We are Ambassadors in the steed of Christ, 
2. Cor. 5.  even as though God did exhort you through us: Hereof ye conclude, Ergo, the Pope under Ch●●st● and in steed of Christ, is the head of the Church. If ye conclude not thus, ye wander idly, and speak in vain, and conclude nothing.  
Harding. To what sense these words of S. Paul were alleged, and that S. bernard maketh for us.  

The 8. Chapt.  That place of S. Paul was not alleged to prove, that the Pope is Head, but to prove, that men, which do bear the person of Christ in ruling the Church, may in one signification be called heads, because they are governors under Christ, and so much it proveth sufficiently. Leave Cavillations M. jewel, and keep you to the matter for very shame. If you mark no better, what your Adversary taketh in hand to prove against you, than you have done in this: you will be found as weak in Logic for all your glorious shows and cracks, as you are in Divinity.  
You can see nothing, you say, wherein the Pope resembleth S. Paul. And what then? Admit we this to be true (though in deed it be false) that he preacheth not, he exhorteth not, &c: will you remove rulers from their authority, if they satisfy not your mind in all points of duty? kings shall not then long keep their rooms, as men may see, what wholesome broils your good brethren have now stirred up in sundry realms. Your Gospel and Pistles (I might say your Pistolets) are to full of gun powder M. jewel. Christ's Ghospel breatheth not forth such outrageous and bloody blasts. Look well upon all the places and phrases, that you have hunted after, touching the Term Head, and if they be well examined, they shall be found to make rather with us, than aught at all against us.   
jewel. Pag. 96. 
S. bernard, without gloze saith plinely: 
Bernard. in Concil. Remensi.  Non sunt omnes amici Sponsi, qui hody sunt Sponsi Ecclesiae. They be not all the bridegrooms friends, that are this day the Spouses of the Church.  
Harding.  
Denieth S. bernard in that place, trow ye, that Bishops are the Spouses of the Church? Or doth he not rather grant it, in that he saith, Qui sunt hody Sponsi Ecclesiae, They, that are now a days the Spouses of the Church? Have not you the reason to mark what he granteth, and what he denieth? He denieth, that all they were the bridegrooms friends, that were at that time Spouses of the Church, Ergo, there were some, that were both the bridegrooms friends, and also Spouses of the Church.  
What ill luck have you, always to allege the Fathers to your own overthrow? As strange as you make, that any man should be called, the Light, the Life, the Saviour, and the God, yet certain of these have been attributed in Scripture (as loath as you be to hear of it) to men, that were heads under Christ. 
Matth. 5.  The Apostles pardy are called the light of the world. Moses is called by God, the God of Pharaoh. 
Exod. 7. Psal. 135.81. Gen. 41.  Rulers are called Gods. Confitemini Deo Deorum. Ego dixi Dij estis. joseph is called a Saviour of the world.    


The Apology part. 2. cap. 3. Divi. 1. pag. 96.  
Furthermore (we believe) that there be divers degrees of Ministers in the Church: whereof some be Deacons, some Priests, some Bishops, to whom is committed the office to instruct the people, and the w●●le charge, and setting forth of religion.   

Confutation.  
Here it had been your part to have declared your saith touching the holy Sacrament of Order, agreeable to the faith of the Catholic Church: that there be seven Orders in the Church, four lesser, and three greater: for so by good reason they are called, etc.   
jewel. Pag. 96. 
Gentle Reader, if I should leave these, and other like M. hardings words unanswred, thou mightest happily think he had said somewhat, etc.  
Harding.  
More than ever you shallbe able truly and learnedly to answer. As for sundry of lesser Orders I referred you to places in the old Fathers, where they are specially named.   
jewel. Pag. 96. 

Anacletus epist. 3.  His own Anacletus saith, Amplius, quàm isti duo Ordines Sacerdotum, (Episcopi & praesbyteri) nec nobis à Deo collati sunt, nec Apostoli docuerunt. More than these two Orders of Priests (Bishops and Elders) neither hath God appointed us, not have the Apostles taught us.  
Harding.  
why is Anacletus I pray you, rather mine, then yours? Why allege ye such Doctors, whose authority ye esteem not? If Anacletus, that was a holy Father and Martyr with in the first hundred years after Christ, be not to be credited, why do you allege him? Will your courage serve you, as well to defy the Fathers, that lived so night to Christ, as it doth to contemn all them, that wrote in the later nine hundred years? If he be worthy of any credit, why is he called mine own, more than your own? What insolency is this, to make account of no Father, of what antiquity so ever he be?  
If it had pleased you to have taken time sufficient, to consider the matter better, you might have found out, that the Apostles taught us the order of Deacons, as it is manifest in the Acts of the Apostles, 
Acto. 6. 1. Tim. 4. 2. Tim. 1.  and in S. Paul's Epistles to Timothee: whereby ye might have easily conceived, that the Ancient Father Anacletus in his third Epistle, comprehended not only under the term Sacerdos Priests, but also Deacons, and Subdeacons, as Bartholomaeus de Caranza now Bishop of Toledo in Spain plainly testifieth by his notes upon the same Epistle. Perhaps you take Anacletus to be mine rather than yours, because in the same third Epistle he saith, that the Church of Rome had the pre-eminence over all the Churches in the world, given, not by the Apostles, but by our Saviour Christ himself. This is it that disliked you in so ancient a Father, and constant Martyr of jesus Christ, and for this you account him mine, and not yours. He is in deed mine, and not yours, as all the other old Fathers are, when they come to trial. In the mean time remember, that I have alleged evident places of S. Chrysostom, of S. Gregory, and of Anacletus, for the Primacy of the Pope, and by God's grace I intend to allege more hereafter.   
jewel. Pag. 96. 
And yet of the same two several Orders, S. Jerome seemeth to make only one Order. For thus he writeth: Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam, ut Diaconos Praesbyteris, id est, Episcopi● anteferret: I hear say, there is a man broken out unto such wilful fury, that he placeth Deacons before Priests, that is to say, before Bishops. etc.  
Harding. That there is difference betwixt Bishops, and Priests, that terms of divers significations may not be used at pleasure. Item of holy Orders. etc.  

The .9. Chapt.  But what say you M. jewel? Is there no difference betwixt a Bishop, and a Priest? If there be, why bring you S. Jerome to prove them both one? If there be not, S. Augustine shall lay to your charge, that you are an Aerian, 
Aerians.  which sect of Heretics being otherwise Arians, had their first name of one Aerius, that was an Arian Priest, 
The heresies of Aerius.  who because he could not be ordered Bishop, began to teach certain new heresies: The first, that there was no difference betwixt a Bishop, and a Priest: the next, that no prayer, or Sacrifice ought to be made for the Dead: the third, that men ought not to keep the solemn, and the accustomed Fasts of the Church, lest they should be under the law. It shall be good for you, and for your better purgation, that you are not an Heretic of Aerius school, to consider of S. Hieromes places better, and se●ke why S. Jerome spoke those words, who in other places following hath left a plain difference, betwixt a Bishop, and a Priest.  
What discretion you have in the understanding of old Authors, as by you it appeareth where so ever you call for help at their hands: 
Hieron. in isaiah. cap. 19  even so it is seen most evidently in this place, where you allege S. Jerome, to prove, that there be but five Orders in the whole Church: two of which neither S. Jerome, nor any other old writer ever took to be Orders, as we speak properly of Order Ecclesiastical, as it is a Sacrament having his necessary ministers to do duties in the Church, in the time of public Service.  
So you deceive yourself always, because you are so ignorant, 
What inconvenience may follow, if in any question, it shallbe lawful for one to use the divers significations of terms at his pleasure Presbyter Diaconus. Diabolus.  (For I would be loath to say it were malice) that you see not how a term, that hath many significations, is used: whether it be used in his largest nature, or in some proper, and singular signification restrained. You may, if you list so to abuse terms, say, that all Elders are Priests, as some times you do, because this word, Presbyter, importeth the signification both of Priests, and of Elders: that every Magistrate secular is a Bishop, because he is an overseer, whom Episcopus signifieth: that every servant is a Deacon, because Diaconus signifieth a Minister: that every ill man that is a quarreler, is the very Devil himself, because Diabolus signifieth a quarreler. If you will not see, and take a day better to consider, when Authors do use terms in some large significations, and when they use them properly in significations restrained from the Generality: your folly will be such, ere it be long, that every man shall see it.  
In the allegation of S. Clement, I think verily you groped, and sensibly felt your own folly, where he saith, 
Clemens. Epist. 2. De Con. Distinct. 3. Tribus gradibus.  that the Sacraments of the Divine secrets are committed unto three Orders, unto the Priest, unto the Deacon, and unto the Minister. You saw plainly, that S. Clement named expressly three Orders distinct, and yet you say, that Deacons, and Ministers, as touching the name, are all one. This place of S. Clement joined with your own Confession, that Deacons, and Ministers, 
Minister.  touching the name are all one, will enforce you to confess, that terms are diversly restrained from their generality, without apposition, or addition at all: as the term Minister, which is general, must needs signify some distinct Order, divers from the Deacon. Among all the Authorities that you have brought, if you had alleged any, that by naming of any number of Orders, had therewith excluded all other, that had not been contained within the same: you had brought somewhat to help your cause.  

Pag. 97.  S. Jerome, S. Clement, S. Dionyse, as their matter and occasion served, spoke of certain holy Orders, that have pre-eminence in the Church, as the Bishop, the Priest, the Deacon, the Minister, or Subdeacon: but they never so spoke of these principal holy Orders, that either they expressly excluded, or meant any exclusion of the lower Orders. Wherefore all your talk, and store of Testimonies are to no purpose, as being utterly wide of the matter you should prove.  

Pag. 97.  It pleaseth here your ministerly gravity, and great wisdom, first, to scoff out all the lower, or inferior Orders, whose offices our Saviour Christ himself executed in his own person, and therefore to keep Order within the Church, whiles the sacrifice of the Mass was celebrated, or any other Sacrament ministered, the three lower Orders were decently placed, the door keepers, 
Inferior Orders.  the Exorcists (not conjurers M. jewel by your licence) which term now in English containeth an infaime, as the laws made against them do witness) the Acolutes, the Readers.  
As touching the pleasure you take in scoffing, 
Pag. 97. 98.  solacing yourself therewith in this place, we can not much wonder, that you mock, and jest at Petrus Lombardus, a man far passing you in virtue, and learning, seeing your scornful head could not refrain from scoffing at S. Clement, the holy Martyr of Christ, that lived in the Apostles time, and was appointed by S. Peter to be his successor in the See Apostolic, and spare not to scoff out the Order of Deacons, who took place in the very Apostles time. You would gladly to delight your followers for a time, make them believe, that the Deacons office was for no other purpose, but to hold a fan in their hands to keep of flies from the Communion Cup, and yet that scoffing head of yours doth know, that the Deacons had an office more proper unto their Order then that, and yet that office, as base as your merry head would it should appear, considering to whom that service was done, to wit, that nothing should chance undecently about the precious blood of Christ upon the Altar consecrated, was in dignity far passing the highest office, that is done in the presence of the honourablest wordly Prince that is.  
And will ye see the great wit of the man? After that he hath made merry with his good fellows, his Disciples, and scoffed at the office of the Deacons, at Patrus Lombardus, that holy and learned Bishop, at S. Clement, that blessed Martyr, at the origine and foundatio of all the lower Orders: as one that had quite forgotten what fond parts he had played, at length he cometh in confessing plainly, that sundry of the Offices of the lower and inferior Orders, in the Primitive Church were appointed to very good and sober purposes. And yet the man would have them all suppressed in the end, because Ostiarius now keepeth not the excommunicates out, the Acolute waiteth not on the Bishop, the Exorcists cast not out devils, the Reader openly pronounceth not the Scriptures, the Deacons provide not for the poor, yea because the Bishop preacheth not the Gospel: And yet this man, had he been in Italy, and seen what is there continually done, how the Exorcists do in deed cast forth devils in manner weekly, as divers of our own Contriemennes that have been present, can report: he would for very shame (if any were in him) have kept in that negative. Verily I fear me, he will one day proceed further, and utterly deny the Order of Bishops to be necessary, because he can frankly say, that the Bishops preach not his lustily Calvinian Gospel. Yet I trow he will be good master to the Superintendentes of England, that be of his own profession, of whom some preach not, and some have not the learning to preach, nor yet to tell a wise tale.    

The Apology. Cap. 3. Divis. 2. Pag. 98.  
Yet notwithstanding, we say, that there neither is, nor can be any one man, which may have the whole superiority in this Universal state: for that Christ is ever present to assist his Church, and needeth not any man, to supply his room, as his only heir to all his Substance: and that there can be no one mortal creature, which is able to comprehend, or conceive in his mind the universal Church, that is to wit, all the parts of the world: much less able rightly, and duly to put them in Order, and to Govern them.  
jewel. Pag. 98. 
M. hardings answer hereto is too long, and tedious.  
Harding.  
I dare well say, it is too tedious to you, and glad would you be to be rid of it, if you witted which way. Acknowledge the truth M. jewel, return from your error, leave of scoffing, suppress singularity, deli●e not in the vain praises, that your ignorant favourers give you, fear God, think, you can not continue in in this Bravery always: then shall you find liking in my answer, and think it nothing to tedious. Certain it is, the matter is not so slenderly to be answered.   
jewel. Pag. 98. 
Where we say, no one mortal man is able to wealde the burden of the whole Church of God, M. Harding answereth, where any thing is in deed, there whether it may be, or not, to discuss it is needless. Therefore whether any one man can be superior, and Chief over the whole Church, we leave to speak: that so it is, thus we prove. Every parish hath his several vicar or person, and every Dioces● his own Bissh●ppe, Ergo, what reason is it, there be one Chief Governor of the whole Christian people? etc. His first reason concludeth very weakly: Every Parish is Governed by one Vicar or person: and every Diocese is governed by one several Bishop: Ergo, there is one universal Governor over the whole Church of Christ. Here is neither order in reason, nor sequel in nature. Therefore of any man would deny the argument, M. Harding were ●●uer able to make it good.  
Harding. The justification of this Argument.  

The .10. Chapt.  yes forsooth, the Argument may be proved very well by this axioma, or dignity in nature, upon the which the Argument is grounded. That the whole aught to be governed by one general Head, whose several parts can not be governed, without several Heads. If your leisure serve you, you may now train the Argument, that I was never able to make good, as you say, for lack of order in reason, and sequel in nature (if ye altogether have not forgotten your Logic, whereof you set us forth so often cracks) into the very form of a good, and perfit Syllogism. If your courage then serve you to deny the Argument, you shall but disgrace yourself in denying the grounds of that art, wherein you have placed a great part of your glory: and put yourself to pain, to make us some new Logic of your own, that men may trust too. Search diligently the cause without scoffing, and wrangling, why the several parts of the universal Church, Parishes, Dioceses, provinces, are not able to be kept in any good order without several heads: the self cause shall inform you, that the universal Church may much less be kept in order without one general Head. Render what causes you can M. jewel, you shall never be able to avoid it before any learned company, but that the one shall follow of the self same causes, as well as the other.  
Whereas you run to disprove mine argument, by making the like of every kingdom ruled by one Prince, inferring, Ergo, there ought to be one universal Prince, to rule over the whole world: I see no such absurdity in the conclusion of this Argument (the several rights of Princes reserved untouched) but that if you should talk with Aristotle that great Philosopher, you should see good cause to grant it. If there were but one good Monarch in the whole world, would there not be fewer broilles, and wars in the world, than now we feel? Perhaps, when the matter is well weighed, it may seem, the world was never in better state, then when it was governed by one good Emperor. Let a just View be taken of Constantine's time the Great. Yet it must be confessed, there is great difference betwixt the Civil government of Princes (who may be permitted to rule their several Dominions without one general Head, because they have to do but with things of the world, as with earthly goods, lands, and such other things, which may receive divers kinds of rule, without danger of Souls) and the Ecclesiastical government, whose chief respect is to keep unity of Faith in the bond of peace, which may not receive any alteration, without great danger to our Salvation. Therefore there is greater cause to have one general Head, or Supreme governor (without whom this unity can not be kept any long time, 
Hiero. adversus iovinianum lib. 1.  as S. Jerome witnesseth) to rule the whole Church in matters of Salvation, then to have one Head to rule over the whole world in wordly matters.  
To your other scornful Argument of one general Shepherd to be had over all the flocks of 〈◊〉 throughout the whole world, I will frame answer, when you can prove, that God hath as great care to bring all the sheep in the world to the self same glory of life everlasting, as he hath to bring men: or that he hath appointed them any one general end, the which they can not attain without the having of one general shepherd to govern the whole kind. But S. Paul putteth all such fond reasons to silence by this question, where he asketh, 
1. Cor. 9  Nunquid de bobus cura est Deo? Hath God any such special care of kine and Oxen, as he hath of men? Put up such shepherds pipes for shame M. jewel, and leave to piper us up such trifles. If you mind thus to continue, every ignorant Reader at length shall espy, what little good stuff ye utter.  
I made not these reasons, for that men should take them for very precise Demonstrations, or for that every one of them alone had full force to conclude, as though the whole weight of the matter lay in any one of them: But for that natural reason should partly declare to the ignorant, who are not able to conceive deeper Arguments, that the Order, which our Saviour left in his Church, the same to be ruled by one general Head, doth so sensibly stick in every man's conceit, that understandeth the force of any good natural reason, that you, or any of your fellows with any heaps of impertinent sentences of all sorts of Writers (with which you furnish us out books of great bulk) shall never be able to prove the contrary. Disorder not 〈◊〉 reasons M. jewel, take them as myself have set 〈…〉 mark what force they are of, when they be linked in one. Then overthrow them if you can. I am assured you can not.  
The other three reasons, to the which you say, ye answered in your Reply, are so by M. Stapleton returned upon you again, and your whole answer reproved, that the world now seeth, what small worship ye have won thereby. I would advise you to begin again, and labour for a more sufficient answer, else you may be sure, that men well give you over for one that promiseth much, and performeth nothing.   
jewel. Pag. 100 
I grant, Dissension, and quarrels be the sooner ended, when all things be put over to one man, so that the same man may live for ever, and still continue in one mind, and never alter.  
Harding. M. jewel alloweth no one man to be ruler, except he may live for ever, and continue in one mind, which is fond.  
Live for ever? what a blind answer is this? 
The .11. Chapt.  I pray you Sir, did Moses, when he had the government of the people of Israel, make an end of no Dissensions, and quarrels among them? I ween you will say, yes. And yet he lived not among them for ever pardy. Did not joshua so? Did not Samuel? Did not David? Did not Solomon, and others? Yet I trow, you will not say, they lived for ever. Doth not every Prince daily within his own Realm so? Every Bishop within his own Diocese? the archbishop within his own Province? And yet ye know, they live not for ever. Heard ever any man a fonder answer made then this? The first four General Councils ended divers matters of contention, and yet they that were there, lived not for ever. For very shame call back this unsavoury answer again, or at least put it out of your book at your next Impression, if the first find good utterance, and lie not upon you hands.   
jewel. Ibidem. 
And still continue in one mind, and never alter.  
Harding.  
That is the very cause perhaps, why Archeheretiques can make an end of no Dissension, because their minds do daily, 
2. Tim. 3.  and hourly alter, as S. Paul saith of certain curious women, that were always learning, always talking and babbling of Scripture, and never drawing to any good end, never attaining to the knowledge of truth. 
Princes bound by M. jewel to continue still in one mind.  You have bound Kings and Princes very hard, to continue still in one mind, and never to alter: so that if one have cause to war against the other, after war once entered, they may never entreat of peace. They must continue still in one mind, and never alter. They must keep so precise, and so wholesome a diet, that they may live for ever. If they make any statute that is good and necessary to be kept for some one time, perhaps for the space of v. or vj. years afterward, when the Continuance of such statutes shall be found to breed great disorder, and inconvenience to the Realm: it shall not be lawful for them to repeal them, because M. jewel hath bound them to continue in the mind they were, and never to alter. For if they once alter, how so ever, and wherein so ever it be, dissensions and quarrels (saith he) can not by them be appeased and ended, and therefore good government shall fail.   
jewel. Pag. 100 
But oftentimes one Pope is found contrary to an other.  
Harding. Answer to the contrarities in certain Popes reprehended by M. jewel, and to the violating of Pope Formosus dead Carcase. etc.  
Not so oft as one king is found contrary to an other. 
The .12. Chapt.  Read the Stories, you shall find it true. But Lord what a do ye make here about the Contrarieties of certain Popes! and yet you shall never find one Pope contrary to an other in any article of our Faith, as heavy a Master as you are unto them. But why do you not call to mind, what variety of opinions ye have had among yourselves, sith ye brought your Gospel first into the Realm? Remember within so short a time, how many sorts of Communions have been seen, how many sects have risen among yourselves? How far the Puritans (who have well nigh tried out the Quintessence of your Gospel, 
Puritans  and perhaps at their next proceeding will utterly deny God) how far, I say, they are alienated, and divided from you, and that not only for Square caps, and side gowns, but also for other matters, that in their time shallbe revealed. I will say nothing here of the Arians, anabaptists, Libertines, and Atheists, who since the first planting of your Gospel, have crept into the realm, and now swarm in divers places there uncontrolled: who if they had the full liberty ye preached, when ye first laboured to supplant the Catholics, were well like shortly to set you also beside the stool.  
But they (for that their time is not yet come) must do as they may, and be passed over as not seen, that all the charitable blows of your fiery Gospel might light upon the Catholics heads.  
Your manner always is in the allegation of histories, as also of other things, to add somewhat of your own, as you do in telling us how Pope Steven unburied his predecessor Pope Formosus: 
●abellicus falsified by M. jewel. Sabellicus Ennead. 9 lib. 1.  where you report that he defaced, and mangled his naked carcase. The history maketh mention of no such mangling, and defacing of his Carcase: only it showeth, that the forefingers of his right hand, which had been anointed, and consecrated, were cut of, and that the Pontifical garments, wherein Popes were wont of an old custom to be buried, were taken of from his corpse. A man that had heard of defacing, and mangling a naked carcase, would have thought, that the carcase had been hewed in pieces, or otherwise spitefully mangled. Leave, leave that ill property for shame M. jewel. Add not, diminish not, tell stories as you find them, and so shall you give your Adversary less advantage against you.  
It is marvel it came not into your head, by diligent search to find out a dissension among the Popes, because some of them loved rather to eat fish then flesh, some used to rise sooner in the morning, some later: some were of stature higher, some lower. And lest your story should be unrequitted, it were well done of you to take some little pains, to search out, who of you was the first author of that famous lie against the Catholic Bishops, 
The false bruit of king Henry's body taken away.  that to bring them in displeasure with the queens Majesty which now is, reported, that they had taken away king Henry the eights body, which matter, after great bruit spread about the Realm, after that it came to be searched, was tried false, and forged, and the body was found safe, where it had been laid. But the body of king Henry the sixth that holy man, 
King Henry the sixth his body taken up, and consumed.  was not found in his place, but said to have been burnt, by certain (I will spare their worships) of Catholic religion I warrant you. There is a wived superintendant in England, that if he be asked, can tell tidings, how these things were conveyed. But all things ye do, are well done, and worthy of praise. Yet what an impudent lie was that devised against the Catholic Bishops? And what an heinous deed was it, to violate the Grave, to take up a good kings Body, and to burn it, or otherwise to consume it? Yet because they that are of your foot did it, it must be praised, though it be done against all good Order, Religion, and humanity.  
To be short, as you are not able to defend all things, as well done, that ye and your fellows have done: even so we have not taken in hand to defend the innocency of every Pope in all acts of his life, nor yet to take the Pope's will, and pleasure to be our stay in all doubtful cases, as you impute unto us.  
But the Popes advised, and mature determination following the advise of his learned Doctors, assembled together for discussion of weighty matters in general Councils (which is an other thing then the Pope's will and pleasure, which your scoffing head would have to be our stay) we take to be a sufficient resolution of all doubtful cases, that are necessary for us to know.   
jewel. Pag. 100 
How be it, this, I trow, is not the readiest way to procure peace, and to maintain unity in the Church.  
Harding. Unity is best maintained by the government of one general Head.  

The .13. Chapt.  If the having of one king, or Prince be the readiest way to procure peace, and maintain unity in worldly matters of a Realm, why should not the having of one general Head, be the readiest way to procure peace, and unity in the Church? If that be not the way, you leave us none at al. If every man take that Religion, that liketh best his own fantasy, as many do in divers parts of the world already: who shall call them back to the true Catholic Religion?   
jewel. 
And therefore Gregory saith of john the Bishop of Constantinople, that claimed to himself this universal power, etc.  
Harding.  
What need we bestow more words about this matter of john of Constantinople? 
john the ambitious Bishop of Constantinople claimed the title of universal Bishop.  M. Stapleton hath answered fully unto it. This john claimed to himself the title of universal Bishop, meaning thereby, that there was no Bishop in the world, but he: which title in deed S. Gregory in that sense could not brook, but took it to be arrogant, and proud. And we say, as we have always said, that no Pope ever claimed the title of universal Bishop, in that sense, that there ought none others to be Bishops but he. And yet S. Gregory claimed the right title of the Primacy appertaining to his See, in his answer made to Mauricius the Emperor, as Platina recordeth. And S. Chrysostom, 
Chrysos. in Matth. homil. 55. & in illa verba joh. 21. Sequere me. homil. 87. Aug. de vera religione cap. 45.  as we said before) doth not spare to tell all Christian men, that to Peter was committed the Charge and Cure of the whole world.   
jewel. 
For although all the world either would, or could give ear, and credit to one man, y●t were not that therefore always Christian unity. S. Augustine saith, Pride itself hath a certain desire of unity, and of universal power.  
Harding.  
What should move you to allege S. Augustine, De vera religione, against the unity of the whole Church, obeying their universal head? Did S. Augustine speak any thing of the Pope in that place? What so'euer affection there be of Pride, or Singularity in the ruler, it toucheth not others, but disgraceth his personal acts only, I mean in respect of his own person, not of others, who do but their duty in obeying what he teacheth, or biddeth, being their general governor, or head. And in that duty doing, what soever the ruler's affection is in governing, they keep Christian unity i● Faith, 
Matth. 23.  and Doctrine. Upon the chair of Moses, the Scribes and Pharisees have sit, all things what so ever they tell you, do ye, saith Christ. If Christ bade us to obey the Scribes, and the Pharisees; as long as they sat in Moses' chair, although their life agreed not with their doctrines what can the Pope's ill affection of pride hurt the unity of Christian men, who do their duty in obeying his lawful power?   
jewel. Pag. 100 
An other of M. hardings reasons is this: The Church labouring here in earth, must resemble the Church of the Saints triumphing in heaven. But in heaven God only is the governor over the whole: Therefore, in the Church beneath, the Pope likewise must needs be governor over the whole. Thus God must be rated to govern above, and the Pope beneath: and so as one some time said, Divisum imperium, cum jove Caesar habet.  
Harding.  
You falsify my words, and reason, my term is not Must, but, Meet. Show it not to be meet: Leave you skoffing, and come to the matter. Every good thing is the worse, that cometh into your hands.   
jewel. Pag. 100 
This is a valiant kind of argument. It holdeth from heaven to earth, from angels to men, from God to the Pope.  
Harding.  
Well skoffed M. jewel. It was not for nought, that the Prophet David in the description of a blessed man, saith among other things, 
Psal. 1.  that he sitteth not in the chair of Mockers, by which word Heretics are signified, which in deed are very scoffers, and mockers of all good things. And ween you good Sir▪ that an argument may not hold from heaven to earth? Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. Upon these words, if you list, 
Matth. 6.  may ye not frame an argument, that shall hold from heaven to earth? Now from Angels to men: Videte ne contemnatis unum ex his pusillis: dico enim vobis, 
Matth. 18.  quia Angeli eorum in coelis semper vident faciem patris mei, qui in coelu est. See ye despise not one of these little ones: For I say unto you, that their Angels in heaven do always see the face of my Father, which is in heaven. Out of this Scripture, if your good will, and cunning would serve you, ye may see an argument plainly made, from Angels to men. Likewise from God to the Pope. Petre amas me? Pasce oves meas. Peter lovest thou me? 
johan. 21.  Feed (or rule) my sheep. If your cunning can not compass such Arguments M. jewel, that are used in Scriptures, from heaven to earth, from Angels to men, from God to the Pope: yet it were good for you to leave skoffing at such arguments, as are used in the very Scriptures.   
jewel. Pag. 100 
But how knoweth M. Harding what Orders of Angels, and archangels there be in heaven? What they do? How they deal: etc.  
Harding. Of Angels, to what purpose Osee was alleged, of the Head invisible, and visible.  
Forsooth I may easily know that, 
The 14. Chapt.  which is evidently revealed in the Scripture: yea so evidently, that yo●● ignorance must seem to gross, to ask any such question. 
Of the Angels.  That there be orders of Angels, it appeareth bo●● in divers other places, and specially by the fourth Chapter of S. Matthew, where we find that the Angels wait on Christ. 
Matth 4.  Behold (saith the evangelist) the Angels came, and ministered unto him. You might have found mention of many thousands of Angels, in the 12. 
Hebre. 12.  Chapter to the Hebrews. There is mention also made of divers Orders of Angels in the epistle to the Colossians. 
Coloss. 1.  Sive throni, sine Dominationes, sive Principatus, sive Potestates, omnia per ipsum, & in ipso creata sunt. 
Ephes. 3. & 4. archangels. 1. Thess. 4.  The like is to be seen in the epistle to the Ephesians. Of archangels we read in the epistle to the Thessalonians, that our Lord shall come down in the voice, and in the commandment (or shout) of the Archangel, and in the trump of God. In S. Luke we read, that there is more joy in heaven before the Angels for one sinner doing penance, 
Luc. 15.  than there is for. 99 just men, that need no penance. In the epistle to the Hebrews we read, that all the Angels do honour Christ, 
Hebre. 1.  and that all Angels are spirits to do service, sent into service for them, that do receive the inheritance of salvation.  

Dionysius de Coelesti Hierarch. cap. 6. Tobia. 3.  S. Dionyse the Areopagite speaketh of nine Orders of Angels. The Scripture in sundry places telleth us, that the Angels do offer up the prayers of the faithful before God. This we know of Angels in heaven, that they obey one God: that they are spirits so confirmed in grace, that now they can not sin: that they are ready to do God's commandment at all times: that there are Orders among them, as there shallbe among them, which shallbe saved among us, some placed in greater glory, than some others, as S. Paul declareth by the diversity of Stars, 
1. Cor. 15.  that are not all of one brightness. We know, that they being Spirits confirmed in grace, having no motions at all to do any thing contrary to Gods will, need no Pope to correct, to punish, to excommunicate, to deprive, to depose them, and to assoil them. This much we know concerning the Angels, and this might you M. jewel also have known. And this confession, if occasion so required, would better have become you, than your scoffs, fit for a common Table jester, then for a man, who professeth to teach others the duty of life, and truth of belief.  
To S. Dionysius, 
M. jewel commonly argueth negatively from authorities  that wrote purposely of the government of the Church, and made no mention of one Pope, which you object: we say, that we hold him for unskilful in his Logic, who deduceth Arguments negatively from any Father's authority: as for example: That Father, or this Father spoke not of the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son: Ergo there is no such thing. Yet it had been more for your commendation, to have argued from Heaven to earth, from Angels to men, from God to the Pope, than so sottelike to reason against all good order of learning, from Authorities negatively. Howbeit in deed the manner of your reasoning is, not from God to the Pope, from Angels to men, from Heaven to earth▪ but from truth to error, from Religion to Hugonotrie, from Christianity to Paganism, from good to nought, from Christ to antichrist from God to Satan. which manner of arguments is not very wholesome.  

The Objection of the name of joshua mistaken for Osee.  You make much a do, for that I mistake the na●● of joshua, for Osee. To mistake one man's name for an other, as long as there is no prejudice thereby made to the necessary doctrine of our Faith, and the place truly alleged: although the name were mistaken, it is but humane error. In that I named joshua for Osee, I acknowledge mine error, and wish you would do● the like when you err, and then ye should call in again all that you have written hitherto, wherein you should do well in wise men's judgement, and most safely for the wealth of your own soul. But to train the people from truth to heresy, and stubbornly therein to continue, as you do M. jewel, and where no other shift will serve you, there to assay, whether you can scoff out the truth: this is not humane error, but a Devilish practice.  

Osee to what purpose alleged.  The place of Osee was alleged for no other purpose, but to show, that God doth us to understand, that his Church militant is then in most perfit state, and in best order, when all true believers, both converted jews, and Gentiles, do obey one Head. Now then, if in the Government of one Head consist the best Order, and state, that can be planted in the Church, though it be true, 
Christ one and only head Invisible.  that our Saviour Christ be that one Invisible Head, as I never denied, but that he is: yet that the Visible Church attain unto that perfit Order and state, which the Prophet Osee commendeth for the best, 
Head Visible  it behoveth, that it have one Visible general Head, that shall keep and maintain visible, and external Order among all the faithful. This is the force of my drift. Neither for all that did I deny, 
johan. 10.  but that Christ is that one Head, that Christ is that one shepherd that S. john spoke of, which I do openly confess in my Confutation of the Apology, in the self same place, where I allege the saying of the Prophet Osee, and the saying of Christ out of S. Ihon. So that you needed not to allege all that out of S. Jerome, Nicolaus Lyra, and S. Augustine, to prove that which I confessed before. 
M. jewels common manner in all his writings  But this is your manner always M. jewel, to show your copy in matters undoubted, and impertinent, and when ye come to join with your adversary in the very point, that lieth in controversy, then are you possessed with a dumb spirit, and for aught that is to the purpose, you can say nothing.  
The argument, which you allege out of Opus Tripartitum annexed to the Council of Constance, I marvel that you had the face to bring it forth. 
M. jew. allegeth objections made by Doctors against the truth, as if they were the Doctors own meaning.  What mean you M. jewel? Is it not there set for an objection against the truth? And even there in the next Chapter answered, and soiled? What learned man ever brought in his Defence the Objections set forth by a Doctor, to th'intent by the solution of them the truth may more clearly appear? By this you show yourself to be very shameless, and that you care not in what trips learned men take you, so that for the time it be not espied, and you to the unlearned people seem a joily fellow. I refer you for the Answer to that Objection to the chapter there following, where you shall find it fully answered.   
jewel. Pag. 102. 

Operis Tri part. li. 2. cap. 6. Concil. Tom 2  Like as the Emperor Caligula somitemes took of the hea● of 〈◊〉 great God Iuppit●r, and set on an other head of his own: even so by these interpretations, and Gloss, M. Harding smiteth of Christ (his great God, M. jewel should have said to make it answer to jupiter Caligulas' great God) the only Head of the Church, 
Suetonius Tranquil. in Caligula.  and setteth on the Pope.  
Harding. Answer to the former Comparison.  

The 15. Chapt.  What Sir, do you compare me with Caligula the Emperor, and Christ our Saviour God and Man, with jupiter the Idol? This comparison is not very handsome. But mark gentle Reader, how M. jewel speaketh more honestly of me, 
Christ by M. jew compared to jupiter.  than he was aware. Here are Caligula the Emperor, and I, compared together: jupiter, the Emperor Caligulaes' great God, and Christ my great God. In which comparison, as M. jewel hath overshot himself too foul, in comparing Christ with jupiter: even so have I some cause to yield him a few thin and slender thanks, for that he acknowledgeth Christ to be my great God, as he is in deed, though this confession seemeth to have leapt out of his pen unadvisedly.  
The difference that he would not see, standeth in this point, that juppiters' own head, and the head that Caligula took to set in place of it, could not agree together, without monstrous deformity, and inequality to juppiters' body. Christ the supreme Head of the whole Church, 
Christ the head invisible by influence of  and the Pope, who is but Christ's Vicar, his ministerial head, or underhead, do marvelously agree together: So that the one is the Invisible Head continually by influence of grace, the Pope the Visible Head, each Pope for his time, to keep Visible rule, and Order among the people, by visible mean, whereof as being men they have need.  
another difference he might have seen also, if it had pleased him: that jupiter the Idol had no people under him to be exercised in the absence of his own head, in the use and right faith of the holy Sacraments: Christ our Saviour is visibly absent for the exercise of Christian people's faith in him, and in the holy Sacraments. Whose visible absence, if it were not supplied by a visible general Head, under whom the people might be ruled, there would follow infinite disorder, and Babylonical Confusion.   
jewel. Pag. 102. 
Thus we are taught, that Christ is neither the head of his own body the Church, nor the shepherd of his own flock, but only the Pope.  
Harding.  
Among many other lies, which you have devised against us, to sport yourself withal, this is not only a flat lie, but also a skoffing, and a slanderous lie. We never taught so, we never wrote so. If ye prove it not, let the shame be yours.   
jewel. 
And yet Chrysostom saith, Qui non utitur Sacra Scriptura, sed ascendit aliunde, id est, non concessa via, hic non Pastor est, 
Chrysost. in johan. Homil. 58  sed fur. Whosoever useth not the holy Scripture, but cometh in an other way, that is not lawful (which is by false Gloss, and corruptions) he is not the shepherd of the flock, he is the thief.  
Harding. M. jewel in reasoning suppresseth that, wherein the proof resteth: so his arguments must be weak and vain.  

The .16. Chapt.  You lay forth many solemn majors divers times, as this out of S. Chrysostom, and thereupon without either laying forth of the Minor, or proof thereof (notwithstanding the whole matter on your behalf to be proved standeth in the Minor) you use to infer your silly Conclusions. As here you reason after this wise. Who so ever useth not the holy Scripture, but cometh in from an other where, that is to say, by a way not lawful (for so S. Chrysostom speaketh, and not as you have falsified him) he is not the shepherd of the flock: Ergo, the Pope is not the shepherd of the flock. How proveth M. jewel this argument with all the Logic he hath? Had it not been reason, 
Chrysost. in Math: hom. 55. & in illa verba. johan. 21. sequere me. Hom. 87. August. Contra Donatist. Lib. 6.1. Q. 3. vocantur Canes.  he had first proved, that the Pope useth not the holy Scripture, neither cometh in according to the Scripture, but that he cometh in by some other unlawful way, which ought to have been his Minor? This because he saw he was not able to prove, he thought it good policy to suppress it with silence.  
But let the question be asked of S. Chrysostom, who useth holy Scripture better, he that saith, that the charge of the whole world was committed to Peter (and consequently to his successors) as the same Chrysostom saith: or he, that denieth flatly, that any such thing may be concluded out of the Scripture.  
It is to true, that you bring in of S. Augustine, that the note, or mark of a Bishop many give unto Wolves, and be Wolves themselves. You had never the true Character of a Bishop, being never lawfully consecrated by three lawful Bishops, as the holy Canons require: and yet you bear yourself for a Bishop, and usurp Bishoply office: therefore you are one of the Wolves, that S. Augustine spoke of. Leave ravening, and deceiving of God's people, and become penitent, that you may be saved with the meek sheep of Christ's flock, and not be damned everlastingly with the ravening Wolves.   
jewel. Pag. 102. &. 103. 
M. Harding saith farther: For asmuch as Christ is ascended into Heaven, and is now no more conversant amongst us in visible Form, as he was before, it behoved some one man to be put in commission for bearing the charge, and taking care for the whole Church. Therefore he said unto Peter, Feed my flock: Confirm thy Brethren. First what ancient learned Father ever thus scanned the words of the pope's commission? Or why doth M. Harding avouch so great a matter of himself only, without farther Authoritite? etc.  
Harding. Feed my Sheep, are words of Peter's commission to govern the Church, and the same is proved by the Fathers.  
You tell my tale in such wise, 
The .17. Chapt.  as you may best make the matter seem weak, and slender. First I think good here to set before the reader (who is now made judge of this controversy) mine own words, as I uttered them myself. Then I shall the better frame my Answer to that you object. Thus I say.  
Where these Defenders, 
●onf●t. fol. 46. a.  as others the Adversaries of this unity say, that Christ is this one shepherd, this one Head who is so, 
Christ is the principal Head, and of himself: the Pope is the Ministerial Head, and under Christ, and for Christ Math. 28. 1. Pet. 2. A man is necessary to do Christ's steed of outward government in in the Church. The necessity and institution of the Head of the Church. Genes. 32. Num. 12.  we deny not, shepherd of his flock●, Head of his body, Bridegroom of his spouse, Prince of hi● kingdom, as it is before declared: yet say they therein nothing to the disprove of the catholic doctrine touching unity of the Head, which is in steed, and ministery of Christ. For whereas the Father hath given to Christ all power in heaven and earth, so as he only is the King, Head, ruler, judge of all, the Pastor and Bishop of our souls: and therefore they which we acknowledge to be Kings, heads, Rulers, judges, Pastors, and Bishops in earth, be his vicars, lieutenants, Vicegerentes, and Ministers: all this power, by what name so ever it be called, being such as is exercised and administered by his word: need it is, that for asmuch as Christ now dwelleth not with us in visible presence, his Church have one man to do his steed of outward ruling in earth, by his word to administer all that is behooful, and to perform the duty of the head in respect of the body.  
Now that Christ is not conversant with us visibly, as he was with his Disciples before his passion, and preacheth no more unto us with his own mouth sensibly: to attain the understanding of his will, we may not look to have God appear unto us, as he did unto the Fathers of the old Testament, to speak to us, as he did to Moses' face to face, mouth to mouth, as the Scripture saith, to send us his Angel, as he did to the Virgin Marie, to instruct us with visions from Heaven, 
Luc. 1. Act●. 10. 2. Cor. 12.  as he instructed Peter, to take us up into the third heaven, as he took Paul, there to hear the secrets of his will: but it behoveth us to be content for the working of that which remaineth to be done touching our Salvation, with such order, as hath pleased him. For it is manifest, that Christ perfiteth all the Sacraments of the Church. He it is, that baptizeth, he it is, that forgiveth sins, he is the true priest, that hath offered himself on the Cross, and by whose power his body is daily consecrated, and offered on the Altar. Yet because he would not remain in visible presence with all believers, he chose men to be his Ministers, by whom the foresaid things should be done, and ministered to them. By like reason, forasmuch as he would take from the Church his corporal and visible presence, it behoved some one man to be put in Commission for bearing the charge, and taking care of the Church in am, and steed of himself. For this purpose before his Ascension he said to Peter, whose love he had tried, and found to be most fervent above all others, feed my sheep, and before his Passion, Thou being again converted, strengthen thy brethren, 
johan. 2●. Luc. 22. Math. 16.  And to him specially he said by promise, To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, thereby to show, that the power of the keys should be derived to others by him for the better keeping of the unity of the Church.  
Now let it be judged, with what substantial learning you have confuted this doctrine. If it had not been sound, and such as clearly openeth, what we mean, 
The former words of my Confutation left out of M. Iewelle● Defence.  when we call the Pope the chief Pastor, and supreme Governor of Christ's Flock: doubtless you would not have left it out of your book. For you (making a show, as though you had printed my whole book again, and so confuted it) take only that pleaseth you, and leave out what seemeth to hard for you to answer, mangling, disordering, and confounding my whole treaty, to thin●●●● it may bear the less face of learning, and of good prouf● of the things I entreat of, which is a foul practice n●uer used by any learned man hitherto. And yet you would men to believe, you deal truly, and plainly in laying forth my Confutation. Yet here having nothing to say else, lest you should seem to give over, you demand of me, what ancient Father ever thus scanned the words of the Pope's Commission, or why I have avouched so great a matter of myself, without farther authority.  
Thus when I bring Fathers, you call for Scripture, when I allege Scripture, 
M. jewels way to continue wrangling. johan. 21  you ask what ancient Father ever understood it so, or why I dare so handle the Scripture: so ye will be sure not to lack matter of wrangling, what so ever I say. Yet thus I answer. It is no hard piece of work to prove by sufficient authority, that these words, Pasce oves meas, feed my sheep, spoken to Peter, and in him to his successors, 
In Math. Homil. 55 & in johan. Homil. 87. Grego. lib. 4. epi. 32. Pascere,  gave Peter and his successors, Authority general to govern the whole Church. S. Chysostome treating upon these words, saith, as it is before alleged, that the charge to rule the whole world was given to Peter, and consequently to his successors. S. Gregory saith the same, as is before rehearsed. Pascere, is not a word that signifieth to feed only, as you know, but also to rule and govern, and therefore Homer calleth King Agamemnon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Pastor, that is to say, the ruler of the people.  
And that it may appear, that I avouch not this matter, and apply the place of S. john's Gospel to it of myself only without farther Authority, as you say: it may please you to hear S. Ambrose teaching the same, and in manner with the same words, that I used, writing upon the .24. Chapter of S. Luke, thus he saith. 
Ambro in cap. 24. Lucae. johan. 21.   
Dominus interrogabat, non ut disceret, sed ut doceret, quem elevandus in coelum amoris sui nobis velut Vicarium relinquebat. Sic enim habes: Simon joannis diligis me? utique tu scis Domine, quia amo te. Dicit ei jesus, pasce agnos meos. Bene conscius sui, non ad tempus assumptum, sed iam dudum Deo cognitum Petrus testificatur affectum. Quis est enim alius, qui de se hoc facilè profiteri possit? Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur. Our Lord asked (that question of Peter, whether he loved him) not to learn, but to teach him, whom being to be lifted up into heaven he left unto us, 
The Pope is left to us, as the Vicar of Christ's love toward us.  as the Vicar of his love (that is to say in plainer terms, such a one, as should be in steed of Christ in those things, that for his tender love towards us he would us to have.) For even so thou hast (in the Ghospel) Simon the son of john lovest me? Yea verily thou knowest Lord, that I love thee. jesus saith unto him: Feed my lambs. Peter here knowing right well the secrets of his own conscience, professeth that his good affection (which he bore to Christ) was not now entered into him for the present time, but that God knew it long before. For who is the man elles, that may soon profess this much of himself? And therefore in as much as he only of all professeth it, he is preferred before al.  
Lo M. jewel, by this you may see, I spoke not of this matter altogether of mine own head, and without farther authority. S. Ambrose saith in effect so much as I said, That Christ, for so much as he should ascend into heaven, and withdraw his visible presence from us, lea●● behind, him for our behoof S. Peter, as Vicar of his love. Now of this I may conclude, for so much as Christ, who died for our love, and redeemed us with his blood, ceaseth not to love us: that he left not only Peter, to be the Vicar of his love for his own life only, but also Peter's Successors for ever, that is to say, the Popes, for other Peter's Successors we know not.  
Arnobius likewise understandeth this supreme charge, and authority to be given unto Peter, and therefore consequently unto Peter's Successors, applying the same text of Scripture to that purpose. These be his words. 
Arnobius in Psalm. 138. johan. 10. johan. 21.  Nullus Apostolorum nomen Pastoris accepit. Solus enim Dominus jesus Christus dicebat, ego sum Pastor b●nus: & iterum, me, inquit, sequunturoves meae. Hoc ergo nomen sanctum, & ipsius nominis potestatem post resurrectionem suam Petropoenitenti concessit, & ter negatus, negatori suo hanc, quam solus habuit, tribuit potestatem. None of the Apostles hath received the name of Pastor (or shepherd.) For our Lord jesus Christ alone said, I am a good shepherd. And again, my sheep (saith he) follow me. So then this holy name, and the power of the name, our Lord after his resurrection gave to Peter being repentant, and being thrice denied, he gave the authority, which he had alone, unto his denier.  

Peter by the three fold commandment of feeding, must feed all sorts of the Flock the lambs, the young little Sheep, and the great Sheep.  S. Ambrose according to the word of commission spoken to Peter thrice repeated, feed, feed, feed, noteth three degrees of authority to be exercised in feeding. jam non agnos, ut primò, quodam lact vescendos, nec oniculas, ut secundò, sed oves pascere iubetur, perfectiores ut perfectior gubernaret. Now (that is to say, when Christ said at the third time, Feed) Peter is not commanded to feed lambs, that are to be fed with a certain milk, as at the first time: nor is he commanded to feed the little sheep, as at the second time: but the Sheep he is commanded to feed, that the perfiter should govern them, that are of the perfecter sort.  
That learned Father S. Leo saith, 
Leo epist. ad Episcopos per provinciam Viennen. constitut.  Cùm Petro prae caeteris soluendi & ligandisit tradita potestas, pascendarum tamen ovium cura specialius mandata est. Whereas the power to lose, and bind was delivered unto Peter above the rest, yet the charge of feeding the Sheep, is committed to him more specially. The same S. Leo saith of Peter in an other place, Non solùm Romanae sedis, sed & omnium Episcoporum noverunt esse primatem. As for Peter, they know him not only to be chief ruler of the See of Rome, but also the Primate of all Bishops. 
Peter primate of all bishops. Serm. 2. in Anivers. Assumpt.   
What shall I allege S. Gregory, whose words be most manifest? He acknowledgeth S. Peter, and therefore every Bishop of Rome his Successor, to have the charge of the whole Church by commission of Christ, alleging to that purpose the words, for alleging of which you blame me, as though I did it of mine own self without farther authority. Thus he saith. 
Epist. 32.  Cunctis evangelium scientibus liquet, etc. It is evident to all that know the Gospel, that the cure and charge of the whole Church, hath been committed by the word of our Lord, to the holy Apostle Peter prince of all the Apostles: For to him it is said. Peter, 
joan. 22. Luc. 22.  lovest thou me? feed my sheep: to him it is said, Behold Satan hath desired to sift you, as it were wheat, and I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith fail not. 
Math. 16.  And thou being once converted, strengthen thy brethren. To him it is said. Thou 〈◊〉 Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And unto thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: And whatsoever thou bindest upon earth, shallbe bound also in heaven, and what so ever thou lowsest on earth, shallbe loosed also in heaven. Behold he receiveth the keys of the heavenly kingdom: the power of binding and lousing is given to him: the charge of the whole Church, and principality is committed to him. And here I will add that followeth in S. Gregory, & tamen universalis Apostolus non vocatur, and yet he is not called the universal Apostle, lest M. jewel find great fault with me, 
Reply 225.  as he doth in his Reply, for leaving it out, and lest once again he feign, that I have the Chinecoughe, and that I set S. Gregory to school, 
Gregor. lib. 6. epistol. 37.  and keep him in awe, and suffer him not to tell more than I will give him leave, and many such gay good morrows, that needed not at al. The same S. Gregory writeth in much like sort to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria.  
Leaving all other Fathers, that might here to this purpose be alleged, 
Bernardus lib. 2. de Consideratione.  for brevities sake I will end with S. bernard, who writeth thus to Eugenius. Other pastors have their flocks assigned unto them, each man one. All are committed to thee, the one whole flock to one. Neither art thou only the Pastor of all the sheep, but also the only Pastor of all the Pastors. demandest thou of me, how I prove it? Forsooth out of the word of God. 
joan. 21.  For I pray you to whom (I will not say of the bishops) but also of the Apostles, were all the sheep so absolutely, and indeterminately committed? If thou love me Peter, feed my sheep: which sheep? The people of this, or of that city, of this, or of that country, or kingdom? My sheep, quoth he. Who now doth not evidently see that Christ did not appoint him certain, but assigned him all? Where no distinction is made, there nothing is excepted. Thus you see, how little cause you had to say, why doth M. Harding avouch so great a matter of himself only without farther authority.   
jewel. Pag. 103. 
And if this so large Commission be to Feed, and feed so many, why then doth the Pope feed so little?  
Harding. The Pope feedeth, and why Christ appointed him to be his Vicar.  
The stubborness of Heretics is a let, 
The .18. Chapt.  that his diligent feeding can not take place in many. How many Articles of the Christian Doctrine had the perversity of Heretics wrapped up in a Confusion, and brought in doubt, that few men knew, how to unfold them? The Pope's diligent feeding hath so by General Councils through his authority and care assembled, unfolded, and disclosed all the false crafts, and sleights of Heretics: that now every man that will, may have in a readiness by perusing the Canons of the Councils, what Doctrine is true, and wholesome, what is false, and heretical. Of late years he employed his diligence in calling all 
The Pope feedeth, but some refuse his good food, and feed of Poison.  the Protestants unto the Council of Trent, he gave them safe Conducts to come, and depart without danger of their persons, and there, during the time of their abode, to propone, argue, and dispute of the points in controversy with all freedom. 
Why the Ministers of England went not to the General Council at Trent, most liberal and free Safe conducts being granted them.  But ye of England knowing your own weakness, and that ye were not so well able to prove your doctrine in learned Assemblies, as ye were with boasting Challenges, and bold talks to prate it out of pulpits among the ignorant at home, lest with shame ye should there have been put to silence, and proved unlearned: wylily absented yourselves. Notwithstanding liberty was given you, to come, and say for your Gospel, what ye could, and as it appeareth in the Acts of the same, to frame your safe Conduct, if ye desliked the form set forth in the Council, in as ample manner for your own safeguard, and benefit, as ye could devise.   
jewel. Pag. 103. 
Again, where learned M. Harding to reason thus: Christ is ascended into heaven, Ergo, the Pope is head of the whole world?  
Harding.  
Nay, where learned M. jewel to fashion such peevish arguments, of his own devise, and fathering them upon his Adversary, to scoff at them, as if they were of his Adversaries making? If this Argument be nought, let him amend it, that framed it. If it be ridiculous, the Reader may see, what a ridiculous head he hath, that brought it forth. My reason dependeth in this sort. If it had pleased Christ to have remained here visibly among us always, and to have taken continual order himself for the external government of the Church: we should not have needed any other general head, but Christ himself, who had been sufficient. But for as much as Christ's bodily, and visible presence through his Ascension was for good purposes taken away from us, that we might have better occasion to exercise faith, and the holy Sacraments: it was needful, that in his steed he should leave some one General Vicegerent, 
In. 24. caput Luca.  and Vicar of his love, as S. Ambrose termeth him, that should have full authority to rule the whole Church. The parts of this reason are well linked together, both by divinity, and also by logic. As M. jewel hath framed it, it serveth for nothing, but to make sport among Prentices. I allege not Christ's Ascension for the full and sufficient cause of having one general Head, as M. jewel would bear men in hand, if any be so simple to believe him: 
The cause why Christ hath placed his Vicar here in his stead. Ambros. in. 24. cap. Lucae.  but as the occasion, why he should place an other in the absence of his Visible person, in his steed. The necessity of the Church, that disorder and confusion be avoided, and that unity be kept, considered together with the great love, that Christ hath to the Church, is the full cause why Christ placed in his steed a general Vicegerent, Vicarium amoris sui, the vicar of his love, as S. Ambrose calleth him.   
jewel. Ibidem. 
But ye say, God speaketh not now unto us mouth to mouth. etc.  
Harding. What rule is like to be, if the Scripture be made ruler and governor.  
Your drift is in this place, 
The. 19 Chapt.  to put the whole government of the Church quite from the Pope, whom Chrysostom, as I have told you before, taketh to be the universal Head, because he is S. Peter's Successor, and to drive us to deliver the whole rule unto the Scripture, and that being removed quite from any one certain sense, and left to men's Fantasies to descant upon it. What unity, and good Order will follow thereof, they of Germany, ye of England, the Lutherans, the zwinglians, the calvinists, the Osiandrines, the Zuencfeldians, the anabaptists, the new Puritans that now spring up so freshly, and other sects wherewith the world swarmeth, have told us already, the which could never yet come to any good unity, and common agreement.  
Ye leave us also an other sort of governors, Apostles, 
Ephes. 4.  Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Doctors, of whom S. Paul speaketh. If these be the Governors appointed by holy Scripture, how falleth it out, that ye, contrary to Scripture, have given the supreme government of your Church of England to lay Princes, some being under their nurses governance, some being women? 
The cas● thus standing, if the Ministers agree not in doctrine, how shall unity be made, and the people kept unpoisoned?  If these forenamed the Apostles, etc. be the right governors, how happeth it, that they can do nothing concerning Order to be taken for the Church, but by authority derived from a mere lay power? If these, that is to say, the successors of the Apostles, Prophets, etc. be the right governors, what if any of these jar, and fall at square among themselves (as it hath oftentimes been seen) either within the compass of one Realm, or in divers Realms, and do poison the people with sundry Heresies, to whom shall we resort to have them called home, and reduced unto order? whom have you lest us in this case, as judge, and supreme Governor to end all Dissensions, and to condemn perilous Heresies? They of Germany take themselves to be as good men, and to know the Truth, as well (if no better) as either D. Parker of Canturburie, or M. Grindal of London, or Bachelor young of York, or any of the other wived Priests, Monks, and Friars, yea as M jew. of Sarisburie himself.  
Ye of England will not yield to them of Saxony, they of Lifeland, Swethen, Denmark, Pole, Scotland, Zuitzerland, and Geneva, will not yield themselves subjects to either of you both. And yet every one of these sundry congregations will preach still the doctrine of their own sect, one contrary to an other. How now M. jewel? Let us hear what wise tale you can tell us, by whose authority we may come from these great Dissensions, and manifold Schisms, to Unity. Entreaty can not do it. Colloquies, meetings, and Conferences of the learned of each sect, can not bring it to pass. The more it hath been attempted, the worse end hath ever been concluded. Have not you left us then a beautiful Church? a blessed company of Ministers, that will not come to Order? Yea leaving us without any lawful authority of one Head to reduce us to unity, do you not leave us in endless strifes, and indeterminable broilles? Be we not much bound unto you? Were not the world wise, and well advised, to forsake all old orders, and to put confidence in this your new devise?  
The same self S. Chrysostom, whom you allege to have all ruled by the Scriptures, saw a little farther, than you see M. jewel, when he said, that the charge of the whole world was committed to Peter. 
Chrysost. in Matth. Homil. 55. Ambros. in cap. 24. Luca. Theodoritus in Epist. ad Renatum. Cyprianus. lib. 3. Epist. 13.  So did S. Ambrose, when he named Peter, and by a consequent Peter's Successor, the Vicar of Christ's love. So did Theodorit●●, when he said, the See of Rome holdeth the stern, and hath the government of the Churches of the whole world.  
You allege S. Cyprian, though far otherwise then he writeth, and that out of that epistle, in which he willeth Stephanus the Pope to depose Martianus the Bishop of Arles in France for Heresy, and put an other in his room, which argueth a supreme authority of government in the Pope: you allege him I say, as if he said, that therefore there are many Bishops in the Church, that if one fall into heresy, the rest may help. But what if there be as many Heretic Bishops, as there be Catholic, as it hath commonly been seen in the East Church? What if the Heretics, being more learned, will not yield?  

Cyprian. ad Cornelium. lib. 1. Epist. 3.  S. Cyprian in an other place spareth not to tell you, that Schisms, and heresies rise of no other cause, then for that the whole brotherhood, that is to say, the company of Christian people, Obey not one high Priest, that is in Christ's steed. Which saying by what reason it taketh place in every several Diocese, by the same it is to be understanded in respect of the whole world. For as Heresies rise of disobedience of the people to their Bishop: so they rise no less, yea rather much more, as experience teacheth, of the disobedience of the Bishops themselves, if they will not be under one Head. And as the people are not kept in unity, but by being under one Bishop, so neither the Bishops, except they be likewise under one chief Head, and ruler, who is the Successor of Peter, to whom, as loving Christ more than the rest, which the Scripture showeth, the charge, not only of the lambs, and weaker sheep, but also of the great and stronger sheep, was committed, as S. Ambrose before alleged, hath well noted.  
Whether S. Peter were fault worthy, when S. Paul reproved him, as you tell us without proof, 
Defence pag. 103.  it remaineth in question betwixt S. Augustine, and S. Jerome. But if there were any thing worthy of reprehension in S. Peter that S. Paul saw, there was great humility in S. Peter to agnize the fault by the warning of his inferior. Likewise there was in S. Victor the Pope, in that he would give ear unto S. Ireneus. Of that S. Peter's humility thus speaketh S. Cyprian in his epistle to Quintus, which is also rehearsed of S Augustine. 
August. li. 2. de Baptis. count Donatist. cap. 1.  Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit, & super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam, cùm secum Paulus de Circumcisione disceptaret, postmodum vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere, & obtemperari à novellis & posteris sibi potius debere. 
Example of humility to S. Peter.  For neither Peter whom our Lord chose to be first, and upon whom he builded his Church, at what time Paul reasoned with him about Circumcision, by and by challenged any thing proudly unto himself, or stately took aught upon him, as to say, that he held the Primacy (or the chief rule over all) and that such as came newly to the Faith, and were his aftercomers, ought rather to obey him. But this kind of humility is not found among Heretics. The more courteously they be warned of their Heresy, the more stubborn they grow, and stay not so, but do the uttermost they can, to make their parties as good, as the Catholics, as by sundry old heretics, to them that have read the Tragedy's by them played in the Church, is most evident. How now M. jewel? What remedy? Shall we resort in this case to any Head, that hath General authority, or stand still jarring, and snarling the one at the other, without alremedie? For aught I see, you are like to leave us still in the briars.  
Touching your gloss of the Canon Law, they may perhaps one day, if it shall be thought worth the labour, be altogether answered in some one several treatise, where doubtless it shall appear, to your small estimation, with what beggarly rags, and clouts, you have patched together your clouted cloak.   
jewel. Pag. 104. 
For the rest, M. Harding saith, One King is able to rule one Kingdom: Ergo, one Pope is able to rule the whole Church.  
Harding.  
My talk runneth not so bare, as you rehearse it: your grace is alway to report worse, than you find. I said, that a King (or Queen) in governing a Realm, ruleth not all in his own person, but doth many things by his deputies and Officers. Even so, why may not the Pope in all Christendom take order, by other fit men having from him commission, notwithstanding his person be not present? For very shame M. jewel, make not your adversaries tale worse than you find it: For by that you must much discredit your cause.   
jewel. Pag. 104. 
Of the government of Princes we have daily practise: But of Popes, that ever used this universal Dominion over the whole Church of God, M. Harding is not able to show us one.  
Harding. The government of the whole Church exercised by the Popes actually.  
If the Pope's manner had been to bring men in subjection by the Sword, and force of Arms, 
The 20. Chapt.  as it is not, which thing Kings have used to do: then had ye as well known the Pope's Universal Government (which you had rather call Dominion) by practice, as you do now know the Kings. Or were it so that ye fealte so sensibily the pain of Excommunication, as ye do the torments, that Kings use against Rebels, when they once draw their sword of correction: you would much more fear to offend the Pope, than ye do now the force of Princes. But your manner is always to fear him, that hath the sensible rod in his hand, ready at a word to give the stroke: the Pope because he useth long patience, before he striketh, and when he striketh, his stroke bringeth no bodily pain, but causeth a spiritual separation of man's soul for his contumacy, from the unity of the Church, and from God, which is not sensibly fealte: therefore ye fear to offend Princes, and utterly set nought by the Pope's authority.  
But what if none of the Popes hitherto ever exercised their universal government over the whole Church of God (which in deed is not true) is the●● right therefore any thing the less? Not at al. The Duke of Savoie (you know) hath in right the Dominion and rule of Geneva, yet they of the town (such is the spirit that your holy Gospel breatheth into the people) like errant Rebels have kept him out of his right many years. And what if this be not true, that you say? What if divers Popes may be named, that have ruled the whole Church, both the East, and the West, as far as any Christian Emperor extended his Dominion? May you not then revoke your stout assertion? You have read, I suppose, of the great council of Chalcedon under Pope Leo, and of the great Council of Lateran under Innocentius tertius, and the Councils of Florence, and of Lions. How say you, I pray you, find ye not there, that the Greek Church, as well as the Latin Church, agnized the Pope's Supremacy? I deny not, but that a few Heretics, or Schismatics perhaps might disobey him at certain time, and in certain places. But what then? So do rebels oftentimes disobey their Princes. His authority notwithstanding took place through the whole Church among obedient Christians.   
jewel. Pag. 104. 
But God be thanked, it appeareth already to all them that have eyes to see, that we have not departed from the servile obedience of that See, But upon just cause, and good a●ise.  
Harding.  

The 21. Chapt.  Yea God wot, upon as just causes, as they of Germany rebelled against Charles the fift, that noble Prince, their lawful Emperor, or, if ye list, upon as just causes, as they of Geneva departed from the Duke of Savoie their lawful Prince, or, if ye will wade farther, upon as just causes, as the huguenots of France have, to remove their lawful king from the godly and accustomed government of his realm, by open rebellion, now the second time.  
What you account servile obedience, 
Servile obedience.  I know not, but of this I am well assured: that such government as ye, and they of your spirit use in some places, when the world serveth your turn for the establishing of your Gospel to work your policies, may well be called a yoke made of hard iron, whereas the Pope's yoke (if it must needs be called a yoke, 
Yoke of iron, yoke o● wood.  because ye speak of servile obedience) is but of soft wood, that is to say, light, and easy. As all thieves would gladly depart from the obedience of their lawful judge, and call it Servile, if that might be allowed: even so all such adversaries of the Catholic Church, can think every small cause, yea being no just cause at all, sufficient to depart from the obedience of the Pope the chief Pastor, whose office is to condemn all their Heresies, as all your Heresies at this day are condemned in the Council of Trent by the Pope's authority.  
Touching the argument you make à contrario sensu, 
Pag. 104.  out of the words of Calixtus Epistle in Gratian: if you had foreseen the folly of it, I dare say, 
Distinct. 12. Non decet. M Iewel● Argument.  you would never have printed it for very shame. The argument is this. What so ever is done without discretion of justice, against the order of the Church of Rome, it may not by any means be allowed: Ergo, what soever is done by discretion of justice, notwithstanding it be against the Order of the Church of Rome: yet ought it to be well allowed. First, your duty had been, to have laid the causes of your departure from the Church of Rome before some lawful judge, and have proved the causes so alleged, both true and just, and not to make yourselves judges, both of the sufficiency of the causes, and of your departure. next, your duty had been, to have weighed well this Argument, whether it receiveth any deceitful sophistication, 
The folly of M. jewels argument showed by the like.  either in itself, or in his like. Is this argument (trow ye) good, M. jewel? What so ever thing is done without discretion of justice, against the order of God's law, it may not by any means be allowed: Ergo, what so ever is done by discretion of justice, notwithstanding it be against the Order of God's law, yet ought it to be well allowed. And yet is this argument in all points like yours. Such Divinity, such Logic. Well may this Logic be allowed in your new school at Geneva, in any learned University of Christendom certainly it will not be allowed. Look what fault ye can find in the later Argument, the same may ye find in your own. This later may be a glass unto you, to behold your folio in the first.  

The Gloze expressly found contrary to M. jew.  Verily where you found these words in Gratian, even there in your own Gloze upon Gratiam, you found your Argument disproved with these very words. Hic vacat argumentum à contrario sensu: Here the argument deduced of the contrary sense is void, and holdeth not. This you saw, or your gatherer for you. Yet you would it should out, be it taken well, or otherwise. Thus you delight to be striking, though we can soon heal your wounds. For so you think to persuade the simple, that ye have much matter against us.  
The places of S. Augustine, and of Pius, that you allege, 
Pag. 104.  make nothing against the Pope, therefore I marvel why you allege them, serving you to so little purpose. Perhaps this may be your manner of reasoning: S. Augustine would not have us to give over to any Bishops, be they never so Catholic, if they happily be deceived, and be of a contrary judgement to Scripture: Ergo, we may not believe the Pope, if he be of a contrary judgement to Scripture. Why did not you first prove, that the Pope hath determined against the Canonical Scriptures, wherein the whole weight of the matter lieth? But your luck is always to leave that unproved, which you should chief prove, and to encumber the Reader most with matters impertinent, and quite besides the issue. S. Augustine's place would have served better to conclude, that men ought not to believe Heretics, which are certainly deceived, if they may not believe Catholics, when they be deceived. But then, where were your credit become, who are proved to be such Wolves, and Traitors, as S. Bernard spoke of in Goncilio Remensi, which Council you allege so often times? 
Pag. 104.    
jewel. Pag. 107. 
S. Jerome saith: Dices, super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia: 
Hieron. Aduersus jovinian. lib. 1.  Licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super omnes Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur: Ye well say, The Church is founded upon Peter: Notwithstanding in an other place the same thing is done upon all the Apostles: and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and the strength of the Church is founded equally upon them al.  
Harding. M. jewel allegeth this and other places to his own confusion.  

The. 22. Chapt.  What ill fortune hath M. jewel ever to allege the Fathers to his own shame? That so he doth, it appeareth by many other, and by this very place of S. Jerome against jovinian, which he allegeth maimedly, cutting of the half sentence. For the other half sentence is this: tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut Capite constituto, Schismatis tollatur occasio. Yet among the twelve there is one chosen out, to th'intent he being ordained Head, the occasion of Schism be taken away. Thus S. Jerome there. If I had nipt of such a notable piece of a sentence, M. jewel would have been at me with the Chinecough. etc. It had served S. Hieromes turn better, reasoning against jovinian the Heretic (who affirmed the state of Virgins to be of no greater perfection, than the state of married persons, as M. jewel doth also at this day, which heresy S. Jerome confuted) never to have granted, that S. Peter, who had been a married man, was ordained to be the Head of the Church, if it had been, as M. jewel would persuade. But because the truth was, that S. Peter was appointed Head among the Apostles, S. Jerome doth not deny it, but showeth the cause why he was preferred before S. John the Evangelist. This is M. jewels plain dealing. What is falsehood, if this be not falsehood?   
jewel. Pag. 107. 
S. Chrysostom of Peter saith thus: 
Crysost. in Matth. h●mil. 83.  Duplex crimen erat, tum quia repugnavit, tum quia caeteris seipsum praeposuit: Peter was in double fault, both for that ●e withstood Christ, and also f●r that he set himself before the rest.  
Harding.  
The common saying is, the blind eateth many a fly. Even so doth M. jewel, for lack of dew consideration devour many a soul error. S. Chrysostom hath not one jot in this place that maketh for M. jewel. He speaketh of that stout confidence, that Peter had of himself, when he said: 
Mat. 26. Two faults committed by S. Peter, Zacha. 13  Although they all (meaning the rest of the Apostles) shall be offended by thee, I will not be offended by thee. Nevertheless he offended twice, saith S. Chrysostom: First, in that he withstood Christ, and considered not what was alleged out of Zacharie the Prophet before, who said, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: Yet S. Peter (were it for the great love, and the affection, that he bore to his Master, or were he touched with some ambition, and trusted to wade through of himself without farther help of special grace) warranted the matter, that he would never fall from Christ. There is one of his faults.  
The other fault is, Quoniam praeposuit se illis, because he preferred himself before the other Apostles. What meaneth that, M. jewel, say you? What so ever you would men should think of it, it maketh no matter. The right meaning of the place is, that Peter offended the second time, because he thought himself more sure, as touching standing to his Master, than all the rest of the Apostles. What is this to the meaning, that you would feign wring out of this place: that Peter was not Head of the Apostles? In the self same Homily before S. Chrysostom calleth him, verticem Apostolorum, the very Head, and chiefest of all the Apostles. Etiam ipsum Apostolorum verticem negare permisit: Christ suffered (saith he) the top, or head himself of the Apostles, to deny him.  
Again, S. Chrysostom faith in an other Homily, as is afore told, that Peter had committed unto him the charge, 
Chrysost. hom. 55. in Matt.  and government of the whole world. Thus you may see, how all things go against the hear (as they say) with you M. jewel, thus always to allege such sayings out of the Fathers, as further not your cause but rather hinder it. So shall all they do, that fight against the Truth.   
jewel. Pag 107. 

Augustin. epist. 86.  S. Augustine maketh Peter Fellow, and Equal with the other Apostles: Inter seconcorditer vixerunt Petrus, & Condiscipuli eius: Peter and his fellows lived agreeably together.  
Harding. Peter fellow Disciple with the rest, and yet Head of all, by S. Augustine.  

The 23. Chapt.  Peter, and they that were Christ's Disciples with him, lived concorditer (for that is S. Augustine's word) in good concord together, I grant: what conclude you thereof? So did Christ, and the Apostles live in concord and agreeably together, and yet there was a difference between them pardy. If you harp upon the term Condiscipuli, 
joan. 15. Matt. 28.  which you interpret fellows, Christ calleth his Apostles in one place his friends, and in an other place, his brothers. And yet every wise man confesseth a difference, and that Christ was their Head, and that they were his Disciples, and subjects. Even so may we judge of this Fellowship, that was between Peter, and the rest of the Apostles. How be it, in the self same Epistle of S. Augustine, S. Peter is called Caput Apostolorum, Coeli ianitor, & Ecclesiae fundamentum: 
Augustin. epist. 86.  The Head of the Apostles, the porter of Heaven, and the foundation of the Church. Which saying not being S. Augustine's own, but an other man's, yet his silence in not speaking against it in that place, proveth, that he doth well allow it.  
And that to be even so, the same S. Augustine in a Sermone, which he made to the people, unto whom he spoke always without all obscurity the plain truth, calleth S. Peter Head of the Church saying. 
Augustin. de tempo. Ser. 124. Head of the church.  Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite componit Ecclesiae: & in ipso vertice componit membrorum omnium sanitatem: in Petroscilicet illo, qui dixerat, etiam si oportuerit me mori tecum, non te negabo. He cureth the sickness of the whole body in (Peter) the very head itself of the Church, and in the very crown of the head itself, he setteth in order the health of all the members: I mean in the self same Peter, that had said: Although I were driven to die with thee, 
Mat. 26.  I will never deny thee.   
jewel. 
And the very ordinary Gloze giveth these words to S. Paul: Non didici ab aliis, tanquam à maioribus: sed contuli cum illis, 
Gloss. Galat. 2.  tanquam cum amicis, & paribus: I learned not of (Peter, and) others as of my betters, but I had conference with them, as with my Equals, and friends.  
Harding. Difference between learning, and conferring together.  
Haddit M. jewel learnedly considered the difference, 
The 24. Chapt.  that is betwixt learning, and conferring, he would never for very shame have alleged th●s place of the ordinary Gloze. In learning, the teacher is of greater dignity, In conferring, what soever the persons otherwise are, either of one dignity, or of divers: as touching the act of conference, they make themselves equal, as doth the King with his Counsel, when they lay their heads together to bolt out one matter. Yet no man may thereof reason, that there is no difference of state betwixt the King, and them of his Counsel: or that every of the Counsel is of equal state one with an other. What need S. Paul had of S. Peter to have matters decided by his authority, 
Act●. 15.  it appeareth in the Acts of the Apostles, when he with Barnabas, and others, were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, to know whether the Gentiles were bound to be circumcised. But M. jewels hap is always to fall upon places, that bring him small worship, or advantage of his cause.    

The Apology. Part. 2. Cap, 3. Divi. 4. pag. 107.  
It was said indifferently to them all, feed ye, etc.  

Confutation,  
We deny that it was said indifferently to them all, Feed ye, 
johan. 21.  yea or that it was said at all, Feed ye. To Peter, and none else was it said, Feed my lambs, Feed my sheep .. Which word of Feeding so singularly spoken to Peter in the presence of the other Apostles, proveth, that it was not indifferently said to all, Feed ye.   
jewel. Pag. 107. 
It forceth not greatly what M. harding deny, or grant, having neither reason nor authority, but only his own. But if power were not given indifferently to all the Apostles, tell us then, wherein is the ●ddes? What had Peter more? What had the others less? Or what old Doctor, or learned Father ever saw this difference?  
Harding. M. jewel is told where he may find his demands answered, and are also here answered in part.  
Though we tell you this, 
The 25. Chapt.  and prove it never so plainly, yet still will you wrangle. The Fathers have infinite places for Peter's pre-eminence above the rest, as I have partly here, but more largely in my Answer Answer to your Challenge, showed. 
Article. 4.  Yea, the self same places of the Fathers, that you allege to prove the contrary apparently, within few lines after do utterly, and in plain words so refute you, as yourself know, that for very shame you durst not to allege any whole place of certain the old Fathers, but jewishly left them circumcised, as I have showed before in sundry allegations of S. Jerome, of S. Chrysostom, of S. Augustine, and of others, whereby the Reader hath a view, and may conceive, what you have done in the rest. And yet such is your impudency, as though you walked invisible, and none were able to detect your false dealing: you call importunately upon us, to show the odds, and to tell you what authority Peter had, more than the rest: And to declare what old Father ever saw any such difference. If it may please you to read the fourth Article of my Answer to your Challenge, M.D. Saunders book entitled, the Rock of the Church, and M. Stapletons' Return of your Untruths upon you in justification of Untruths, which you impute unto me: there may you have more old Fathers, than ye have yet, or ever shallbe able to make reasonable answer unto.  

A most plain and evident testimony of the Pope's Primacy over all the world. Chrysost. homil. 1. de poenitentia.  In the mean time, tell us what S. Chrysostom meant, when he said thus in his first homily de poenitentia. Ecclesiae primatum, gubernationemque Petro per universum mundum Christus tradidit. Christ hath delivered unto Peter the primacy, and government of the Church through the whole world. When ye can show us such a plain testimony out of any Father, that S. Peter had not the primacy, and supreme government delivered unto him by Christ: you shall seem to say somewhat.   
jewel. Pag. 107. & 108. 
Christ said equally unto them al. Receive the holy Ghost: whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven: Go into the whole world: Preach the Gospel to every creature. These words perceive equally unto al. Peter had no more the holy Ghost, no more power to forgive sins, no more commission to go into the whole world, no more authority to preach the Gospel, than others had.  
Harding.  
Why are you so copious in buy matters, wherein I never strived with you, and so barren in the principal matter, that lieth in controversy betwixt us? Equal power was granted to the Apostles to gather the Church: this was never denied you. But their power was not equal to rule the Church, after that it was gathered from every coast of the world: The which point you disprove not.   
jewel. Pag. 108. 
M. Harding saith: To the Rest of the Apostles it was not said at all, 
johan. 21.  Feed ye. To Peter, and to none else was it said, Feed my Lambs, Feed my sheep. Yet Christ himself saith. Quod uni dico, omnibus dico: 
Marc. 13.  That I say to one, I say to al.  
Harding. M. jewel foully falsifieth the word of Christ himself.  
What M. jewel, will ye never leave your falsifying? 
The 26. Chapt.  And are ye not a frayed, to corrupt the holy word of the Son of God himself? Is our cause so good and substantial, that ye can make no show of truth against it, but by foul corruption of the Scripture?  
Where is this written? Be ye not a frayed for your advantage, to deceive the world with Scripture of your own making? And were it true that S. Mark had so written, how can you wrest it to your purpose? Thus it is good Reader. Our Saviour gave a general warning, not only to the Apostles, but to all men believing in him, to be watchful against our Lords coming, which shall be suddeinely, at such time as they know not, and therefore said, Vigilate, watch ye etc. That it should not be thought he meant only of the Apostles, to whom he spoke: he added in the end (not as M. jewel falsely reporteth, quod uni dico, omnibus dico, that I say to one, I say to all) but, quod autem vobis dico, omnibus dico, vigilate. 
Marc. 13.  What I say to you (my Apostles) that I say to all (Christians who so ever they be) watch ye. Now cometh me M. jewel in, and by this place would prove, that the words, which our Saviour spoke to Peter in S. john, concerning the commission he gave him to Feed his Lambs, and his Sheep, were spoken, not to Peter alone, but to all the Apostles. And why? Forsooth because in this place of S. Mark, Christ giving a general warning to watch against our Lords coming, said, What I say to you, I say to al. To all, M. jewel? But what? said Christ to all, Pascite? No forsooth good Sir: that he said to all, was, Vigilate, Watch ye. Certainly the unlearned, that read your books, had need to watch your fingers.  
This is M. jewels worthy Argument, this is the liberty he giveth unto himself, this is his new profound Logic. He might by this Scripture as easily have concluded, that all Christians, as well of the lay and secular sort, were as well commanded to Feed Christ's Lambs, and sheep, as Peter himself, or the other Apostles. For if he will grate upon the words (not as he falsely allegeth them, quod uni dico, omnibus dico, what I say to one, I say to all) which are not in the Scripture, but, quod autem vobis dico, omnibus dico, what I say to you (mine Apostles) I say to all (Christians) Why may not every Tinker, and souter take upon him to Feed Christ's Lambs, and Sheep, saying, if he be rebuked for his presumption, He that said to Peter, Feed my Sheep, said he not to all in general, What I say to one, I say to all? And if he said to all, wherefore should I not feed Christ's flock, as well as Peter?  
Yea, if either S. Marks Scripture, What I say to you (mine Apostles) I say to all, or M. jewels scripture, what I say to one, I say to all, may take place, and be understanded in general: what need shall there be of Bishops, Priests, Ministers, or of any Order at all, sith that by M. jewels interpretation, what was spoken to one, or more Apostles, was spoken to all men, and women indifferently? Such good order will ensue of M. jewels disorderly handling of the Scripture. Yea whereas Christ said to judas, quod facis, fac citius, 
By M. jewels divinity, it may be proved, that every man is bid to make speed in betraying Christ. joan. 13. 1. Cor. 3.  do quickly that thou art about to do, every man shall betray Christ again. For after M. jewels divinity, Christ said, what I say to one, I say to al. O worthy clerk: Nay o miserable people, where such corrupters of Scripture, have charge of souls.   
jewel. Pag. 108. 
S. Paul saith: What is Peter, what is Paul, but the Ministers of Christ, through whom ye have believed? Paul hath planted, Apollo hath watered. etc.  
Harding. This place of the Scripture, and two other of S. Chrysostom answered, by which M. jewel would prove, that Peter had no preminence in government above the other Apostles.  
What conclude you thereupon? 
The .27. Chapt.  That there is no difference of pre-eminence betwixt the Apostles? Or, that all the ministers of the Church are equal? Bishops, Priests, and Deacons? I marvel, why ye allege it. S. Paul's meaning is in that place, that the Sacraments take not force to work grace by any minister, be he of high, or low degree, be he good, or be he otherwise. The virtue of the Sacraments is given by Christ, who is the principal giver of grace by his Sacraments, as by instruments. Ergo, saith M. jewel, Peter hath no more pre-eminence to rule the whole Church, than the rest of the Apostles. How do the joints of this argument hang together? By some new kind of Logic I suppose. Certain it is, the world hitherto never knew any such.   
jewel. Pag. 108. 

In Epist. ad Galat. Cap. 1.  Chrysostom saith, Angeli, quamlibet magni, tamen servi sunt ac ministri. The Angels of God, be they never so great, yet are they but Servants, and Ministers.  
Harding.  
As well may you beat down the pre-eminence, that Emperors, and kings have upon their lay subjects by that place of S. Paul (for kings and Emperors are but Ministers) as to overbear thereby the pre-eminence of Peter in government above the rest of the Apostles.  
Yea you may as well conclude thereby a plain equality (such as the anabaptists would have) among all Christian men, as equality of Authority among the Apostles. What mean you M. jewel? Will you by such a text convey to all subjects, equal power, and authority with Kings? to all Deacons with Priests? to all Priests, with Bishops? to all wives, with their husbands? to all Children, with their parents? to all scholars with their Masters? Mean you to bring the world to such a Confusion? It were good you had the counsel of some learned Physician, to purge you of such wild disordered humours: or at least, to keep you close in some dark place, till you come to yourself again. For these fantastical dreams signify, your brain is not in good temper.   
jewel. Pag. 108. 

Chrysost. homil. 2. in Epist. ad Timoth. 2.  Therefore to conclude, he saith: Ne Paulo quidem obedire oportet, si quid proprium dixerit, si quid humanum: sed Apostlo Christum in se loquentem circumferenti: We may not believe Paul himself, if he speak any thing of his own, or of worldly reason: but we must believe the Apostle bearing about Christ speaking within him.  
Harding.  
Thus you reason: we may not believe Paul, if he speak any thing of his own: Ergo, Peter had no pre-eminence above the rest of the Apostles. Logic must needs be good cheap, where this wise argument cometh to market for good chaffer. Where findeth M. jewel this new proper Logic? As well might he conclude: Ergo, Christ hath no pre-eminence above the Apostles. If we search, and examine S. Chrysostom well, we shall find, that he spoke those words, against them, that take upon them to judge, and to condemn the life of Priests, and thereupon break from the unity of Religion. Of which sort M. jewel is one, who hath now a good while sitten in his throne of judgement, as it were, and hath condemned the Pope, and the whole clergy, and forsaken the Catholic faith, and the unity of the Church, for none other cause, for aught that he can allege, but only for the Pope's ill life, and for the negligence of some of the clergy.  
Look well upon that Homily of S. Chrysostom M. jewel, and you shall perceive, that his discourse is as much directed against your own arrogant manner in condemning all the Christian world, specially for condemning of the Pope, because his supreme Authority can not bear with sundry your errors, and Heresies, as against any man in the world beside. The force of your argument is this: We may not believe Paul himself, if he speak any thing of his own Head, thereby to condemn Priests for their living: Ergo, Peter hath no more authority, ne no more power to rule then the other Apostles. O M. jewel, call in these arguments for shame of the world, why suffered you them to escape your pen?  

That S. Paul said somewhat of his own 1. Cor. 7.  But how say you Sir? Shall you not find, where S. Paul spoke of his own some thing? Have you forgotten, who said, Nam caeteris ego dico, non Dominus, For to the rest I say, not our Lord? and yet you must believe him, if you deny not the Scripture. Again, saith he not some thing of worldly reason, as you have translated, humanum, 
Rom. 6.  where he writeth to the Romans, Humanum dico propter infirmitatem carnis vestrae, I speak as one that followeth the trade of man's reason, for the infirmities sake of your flesh: I trust you will be entreated to believe him. Thus how discreetly you bring in the Fathers to speak for you, I need not to declare. Your own bad stuff showeth it at large.    

The Apology. Cap. 3. Diuis. 5. pag. 108.  
And as Jerome saith, All Bishops where so ever they be, be they at Rome, 
Ad Euagrium. De Simplicitate praelator.  be they at Eugubium, be they at Constantinople, be they at Rhegium, be all of like pre-eminence, and of like priesthood. And as S. Cyprian saith, There is but one Bishopric, and a piece thereof is perfitly, and wholly holden of every particular Bishop.  

Confutation.  
My lady the Interpreter not without the will and advise of this Defender, hath altered the sense of the latin, as the author of the Latin hath altered the words of S. Jerome. For neither speaketh S. Jerome of Bishops in the plural number, neither saith the Latin Apology, that the Bishops be all of like pre-eminence, which this translation hath, but, of the same merit, and of the same Priesthood, etc.   
jewel. Pag. 109. 
Here to dissemble these childish Cavillations of the altering of Numbers, the Singular into the Plural: and of the changing of this word Merit, into this word pre-eminence: which great fault, if it were any, by M. Harlinges own Confession, proceeded only from the Interpreter, and not from the Author: etc.  
Harding.  
Dissemble hardly M. jewel what ye list, so that with all ye confess the truth, that you are not able honestly to discharge yourself of that, which you pass over by dissimulation. Such dissembling shifts serve your turn not seldom, as the which you can sooner use, then against the truth shape a reasonable answer. But leaving aside your dissimulation, Tell me I pray you, where find you, that ever I confessed, that the fault of changing this word, Merit, into this word, 
This word Merit, changed by M jewel into this word, pre-eminence.  pre-eminence, proceeded only from your good lady the Interpreter, and not from the Author? Have not I in plain words told you the contrary? Have I not laid the fault as much upon the Author that allowed the Interpretation (as your good Mistress M. C. saith in her epistle) as upon the Lady Interpreter? How then can you deliver the Author from all blame by mine own Confession? Look better M. jewel upon the book again: where, if you shall find no such Confession of mine, but the plain contrary, remember, who is not ashamed openly to avouch Untruth. But it will not be otherwise, you have by long practise gotten a full perfit habit thereof.   
jewel. Pag. 109. 
What S. Jerome meant hereby, Erasmus, a man of great learning, and judgement, expoundeth thus. Hieronymus aequare videtur omnes Episcopos inter se. etc.  
Harding. Erasmus answered. Difference found between Deacon and Priest in Order, and between Bishop and Bishop in power of government.  
And is Erasmus in deed a man of such learning and judgement, 
The .28. Chapt.  as you say? If he be, how happeth it, that you condemn those articles of religion, which he confesseth true? He agnized the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, which you deny. 
Erasmus against the false Gospelers. Aduersus Pseudevamgelicos, & fratres inferioris Germaniae.  How happeth it, if he be a man of great learning, that he wrote so earnest an epistle against the false Gospelers (so he calleth them of your side) of which number you are? How happeth it, that he wrote that vehement, and long Epistle to the Brothers of the Inferior Germany, commonly called the Low country, to beware of all such heresies, which you, and your fellows do now profess? If Erasmus be not such a one, as you say, why do you allege his authority, whose judgement in sundry articles ye contemn? But what hath Erasmus to help you in this matter? Truly when all is searched, nothing at al.  
Yet by the way it is to be marked, that you would bind us with Erasmus authority, a man of our time, whom yourself in divers Articles, as in the approbation of the Mass, of the real presence, free will, and of such other, do greatly dislike: yet you will not stick to deny utterly, not only the authorities of the Fathers within these last nine hundred years, but also of them sometimes, that wrote within the first six hundred years. For so do you deal afterward with that holy, and great learned Father S. Leo, whom you labour to discredit, being pressed with the witness he giveth of the prerogative of the See Apostolic of Rome, as though his desire were, 
Pag. 111.  as your false surmise is, to enjoy as great honour as he could, for his own time. Have you no better mean to avoid that Father's authority M. jewel, but by charging him with ambition?  
Where Erasmus saith, 
Erasmus in Antidoto post Scholia in epist. Hieronym ad Euagrium.  that S. Jerome seemeth to put in equal match all Bishops together, as if they were all equally the Apostles Successors: that part of his saying, you could well remember: but where he saith within five lines following, that the Metropolitan hath a certain dignity, and jurisdiction above other Bishops, which taketh away the equality, that you dreamt of: your eyes, without being called on, that part of the sentence were very loath to see. Take the one with the other M. jewel, then is the equality of Bishops in regiment quite gone, though they remain equal in the order of Priesthood, and in that, that the highest archbishop in the world, yea the Pope himself, is no more a Priest, nor Bishop, then is the poor Bishop of Eugubium, or who so ever is the lowest Bishop in the world, though his authority to rule and to govern, be more ample, and large, than any others. Read the old Fathers in such sort, that you may understand them without mistaking their right, and purposed meaning: then may you cite them both to your own honesty, and to the commodity of others.  

The error of one Falcidius.  One Falcidius a foolish man, utterly deceived, went about to prefer, as S. Jerome of him to Euagrius seemeth to report, or to match in one equality, as S. Augustine saith, the order of Deacons, with the order of Priesthood. For suppression of which error, the rather to abbase the Deacons vanity, 
August. in Quaest. veter. & no. Testam. Quest. 101  S. Jerome disputeth, that in divers places of the Scripture, in certain respects, Priests are taken for Bishops, and Bishops for Priests: so that if the Deacons be about the Priests, sith the Scripture doth call Priests, by the name of Bishops: it will follow, that Deacons should also be above Bishops. Which absurdity is so evident, as no man may grant it. Therefore, for the avoiding of this absurdity, which would follow upon Falcidius false assertion, it behoved him, and such as held with him, utterly to revoke that error, that Deacons are, either above Priests, 
That a Priest is above a Deacon.  or equal with them. A Priest may do all that a Bishop doth, save that he can not give Orders: A Deacon can not do all things that a Bishop doth, save only the giving of Orders: for he can not consecrate the body and blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament: Ergo, the Priest that hath more power than the Deacon, must be above the Deacon.  
This is S. Hieromes very drift in that Epistle to Euagrius, with the which meaning of S. Hieromes, your author Erasmus doth well agree, 
Erasmus in Antidoto. post Scholiam in epist. ad Euagrium.  where he writeth thus upon the same Epistle. Itaque quòd hic aequat humilium urbium Episcopos cum alijs, ad Diaconos est referendum, qui nonnullis locis praeferebantur presbyteris, quos propemodum aquat Episcopis. Where as he doth here equally match the bishops of the meaner Cities, with other (that are bishops of great Cities) it is spoken for the Deacons sake: who in certain places were preferred before the priests, whom almost he maketh bishops fellows. And again, In hoc igitur aequales sunt Episcopi, & presbyteri, quòd ubicunquesunt, Diaconis sunt praeferendi. Touching this point Bishops and Priests are equal, for that they are to be preferred before Deacons, where so ever they be.  
But that there is great difference in authority of government betwixt Bishops ', Priests, and Deacons, S. Jerome is plain in the last sentence of that Epistle, where he writeth thus. Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento, quod Aaron & filii eius, atque levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, & Presbyteri, & Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia. And that we may know, the Apostles Traditions were taken out of the old Testament, what Aaron, and his Sons, and the Levites were in the Temple, bishops, Priests, and Deacons, may challenge to themself, the same in the Church. But Aaron being the high Priest, and Bishop, was in authority far above all the rest: Ergo, if Priests be named in Scripture bishops, as S. Jerome reasoneth against their folly, that preferred Deacons above Priests: There is one bishop found out, that aught to have special rule over all the rest, and that by a consequent of the very Scripture.  
Whereas S. Jerome condemned the lewd disorder of the City of Rome, not of the Church of Rome (as M. jewel untruly interpreteth) which he saith is one with the Church of the whole world, keeping one rule of truth with the rest, for having Deacons in more honour than Priests, and putteth the matter to be tried by authority, saying, that the authority of the universal Church of the whole world, with the which the Church of Rome is one, is rather to be followed, than the corrupt manner and custom of that one City: there is no reason, why he should seem in that place to have used the word Merit, 
Merit for pre-eminence, after M. jewels judgement.  for this word pre-eminence, as M. jewel full vainly jangleth, and can not prove. His silly arguments stand thus: The authority of the world, that is to say, of the universal Church of the whole world, and therefore of the Church of Rome also being One Church with the rest, is greater than the authority of the City of Rome: Ergo, the word Merit in the next sentence following must signify pre-eminence. Again, the power of riches, and the baseness of poverty, maketh not a Bishop either higher, or lower: Ergo, the word Merit, in the sentence before must signify pre-eminence. This is strange Logic, by use whereof every fool may seem to reason wisely, if it were once allowed in open schools. 
The world is more than the City, expounded.   
Whereas S. Jerome to Euagrius speaking against the evil custom of Rome, where a Deacon was preferred before a Priest, saith, Si authoritas quaeritur, Orbis maior est urbe. If we seek for Authority, the world is more than the City: he meaneth not, as the circumstance of that Epistle giveth, that authority there should signify, authority in government, as M. jewel hath interpreted, making S. Jerome to say, that in Authority of government, the whole world is greater than the City of Room, whereby he thinketh to displace the Pope, and to deprive him of his authority in government, and to bestow it confusely abroad in all the world, whereof in deed, the Confusion which they may best hold, and stand by, might be procured: The truth is, S. Jerome there is not to be understanded to speak of the Church's authority in government, but of common, and public authority to be followed for avoiding of that error, that made a Deacon better than a Priest, or at least equal with a Priest. In Controversies we follow authority. Now saith S. Jerome. If we seek for authority, the world is greater than the City. As who should say, let no man defend the error by the authority of the City of Rome, because there a Deacon is preferred before a Priest: for what shall we esteem the custom of one City, the whole world holding the contrary? And the authority of no one City, can be comparable to the authority of the whole world. Therefore pretending one to object unto him, that the manner was at Rome for a Priest to be ordered at the testimony of a Deacon, he saith, Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuetudinem: what bringest me forth the custom of one City? As who should say, 
Neither at Rome was more honour given to Deacons, then to Priests.  it were not to be regarded in comparison of the custom of the whole world.  
Now that the Church of Rome gave not greater honour to Deacons, then to Priests, by S. Jerome himself it seemeth to be evident, for so much as Priests there sat in the Church, where Deacons used to stand, and the Deacons never durst to sit among the Priests, 
Hiero. in eadem epistol. ad enuagrium.  whiles the Bishop was present. Although he confesseth, that once in the bishops absence, he saw a Deacon, when disorder took place, sitting among the Priests, and at private Feasts in private houses giving the benediction to Priests. Whereby it is manifest, that the preferring of Deacons above Priests, rose not of any ordinary custom of the Church of Rome, where all states best kept due order in the bishops presence, but of the private pride of some Deacons, and of the simplicity of the people of that City. Therefore S. Jerome saith not, Quid mihi profers Romanae Ecclesiae consuetudinem, why bringest me forth the custom of the Roman Church: but, Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuetudinem? Why bringest me the custom of one City? The ignorant people made more of the Deacons, 
Euseb. lib. 6. Eccles. histor. ca 33.  because they were but few in number, to wit, but only seven at one time, as Eusebius maketh mention, whereas at that time there were six and forty Priests in that Church, whom the people, as S. Jerome saith, for the number had in contempt.  
Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubij, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegij, sive Alexandria, siue Tanis, eiusdem meriti, eiusdem est & sacerdotij. Behold Reader how M. jewel hath translated this sentence. Where so ever there be a Bishop, be it at Eugubium, be it at Rome, be it at Constantinople, be it at Rhegium, be it at Alexandria, be it at Tanis, they are all of one worthiness, they are all of one bishopric. Where the nominative case Episcopus, Bishop, being of the singular number, so placed by S. Jerome with the verb Est, also of the singular number, because it served not M. jewels turn, guilfully in translation a change is made into the plural, and thereby the meaning of the sentence clean altered, to th'intent the sentence might so the rather sound to his purpose, which is to make all bishops equal in authority of rule, and government. Now S. Hieromes words do signify, that a Bishop is of the same Merit, and of the same Priesthood, whether he be Bishop of a great City, or of a little. And here is to be noted, that M. jewel can not yet brook this word, Merit: and whereas before he used the word, pre-eminence, being by me admonished of it, now he translateth, eiusdem est meriti, they are all of one worthiness. Likewise he termeth, eiusdem sacerdotij, of one Bishopric, for, of one Priesthood.  
How so ever you bring in S. Jerome for the equality of Priests with Bishops, it forceth not. It is well known, S. Jerome never dreamt of such an equality, as you would have, when he wrote this sentence, Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet, 
Hieron. adversus Luciferainos.  cui si non exors quaedam, & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Eccesia efficientur schismata, quot sacerdotes. The safeguard of the Church dependeth upon the dignity of the highest Bishop, unto whom, if a peerless, and supreme power be not yielded, there shall arise so many Schisms in the Church, as there be Priests. If God have a special regard to the safety of the Church, and if the Church can not be safe, without there be a peerless, and a supreme power yielded unto the highest Priest, which is a Bishop, as S. Jerome saith, what so ever M. jewel say to the contrary: God must needs allow the having of such Bishops, as shall have power peerless to rule their flocks, not only their lambs, but also their sheep, to wit, the Clergy, the Priests, and the Deacons under them. 
Hieron. Lib. 1. adversus iovinianum.  He saith also, Propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto, schismatis tollatur occasio: Therefore is there one chosen among the twelve (saith S. Jerome) who should be made Head, that the occasion of Schism might be taken away. And that we should be put out of doubt, who chose that one to be Head above all the rest, and why Peter was rather chosen than john, that was so dearly beloved, S. Jerome saith, delatum est aetati, partly in consideration of his age, and partly because he would deliver john from the envy, that he should have incurred, if he had been placed in that room being so young a man. M. jewel had need to look better upon his book, and to learn by these places better to temper the other sayings of S. Jerome. S. Jerome saith unity can not be kept, the Church can not be in safeguard, Schisms can not be suppressed by equality of Priests with Bishops: Ergo, there must be Bishops, that shall have power to rule the Priests, and the rest. Thus M. jewels equality will not stand with the doctrine of S. Jerome.  
Although (saith S. Augustine) after the names of honours now used in the Church the state of a Bishop be greater, 
August. Epist. 19  than the state of a Priest, yet in many things Augustine is less than Jerome. Notwithstanding we ought not to refuse, and disdain to be corrected of any man, though he be our inferior. Upon these words of S. Augustine M. jewel reasoneth, that the difference of power and authority betwixt Bishops and Priests, had no allowance from Scripture, but by the custom of the Church. As though one thing could not be allowed both in Scripture, and also by the common custom of the Church. The common custom of the Church teacheth us to fear God daily: doth not the Scripture allow the same? To honour our Father, and mother: And doth not the Scripture command the same? But M. jewel would feign make debate betwixt the custom of the Church, and the holy Scripture, and therefore full providently he hath interlaced a Parenthesis of his own politic devise in this manner: The office of a Bishop, is above the office of a Priest (not by authority of the Scriptures, but) after the names of honour, which the custom of the Church hath now obtained. I have here before declared, that there was a sect of Heretics calls Aerians, as S. Augustine reporteth, who denied, that there was any difference at all between the state of a Bishop and the state of a Priest: 
August, de Haresib. ad Quoduult deum. Haeres. 53.  which opinion being accounted for heresy by S. Augustine, aught to stop any reasonable man's mouth, and to persuade him, that S. Augustine's opinion is quite contrary to that, which M. jewel holdeth.   
jewel. Pag. 1●1. 
As for Pope Leo, his own authority in his own cause can not be great. The Emperor saith, Nemo debet sibi ius dicere: 
ff. Li. 2. de jurisdict. omnium judicum. 16. q. 6. Consuetudo: in margin.  No man may minister law unto himself. And it is noted thus in the Decrees, Papa non debet esse judex in causa propria. The Pope may not be judge in his own cause.  
Harding. The Pope may be judge in the cause of the Church.  
Though Leos Authority be not great in his own cause, 
The .29. Chapt.  yet in the cause of the Church being so ancient, so holy, so learned a Father, by your own grant it must be very great. The words you bring, are of your own forging. Wherefore as ye have hitherto been a forger of Doctors, Scriptures, the Canon law, and Gloss, so now you are become a forger of the Civil law. With what words the law is written, here anon you shall see. But be it true, that Ulpian said, (for so you should have said, 
The Emperor alleged for Ulpian.  and not the Emperor, as your skill in the law unskilfully telleth us) no man may minister law unto himself. Yet neither he, not the Emperor ever forbade, but that a man may truly report of his own matters. Now Pope Leo that holy man, and great learned Clerk in the place by me alleged, doth not minister law unto himself in his own cause, but for the better government of the Church, and that peace, and good order may the better be kept in the Church, reporteth a difference, or diversity of power to be among Bishops, with likeness of Order, and honour, as S. Jerome in his epistle to Euagrius confesseth them to be of one merit, and of one priesthood. In declaring whereof, he speaketh of the right, that the Bishops of the See Apostolic, S. Peter's successors ought to have in the government of the universal Church through out the whole world. This M. jewel was not his own private cause, but the cause of the whole Church, in which he might give judgement.  
But M. jewel guilfully seemeth to put the case, as though there had been many Catholics, that called Pope Leo to law for usurping the authority not dew unto him, and as though he had been defendant against them all, yea as though he had stepped up into his judgement seat, and there sitting as a judge in his own matter, had pronounced sentence for himself. Which thing he did not, nor ever was there any catholic man, that laid any such kind of usurpation to his charge: he never stood as defendant, nor sat as judge in his own cause: but discreetly, and truly as occasion served, signified unto the world his lawful authority, and his successors, as Kings use to do in their titles of honour, and styles. If M. jewel will call his double wived lawyer unto him, and with him peruse the law, that beginneth, Qui jurisdictioni praeest, neque sibi ius dicere debet, 
● Qui iurisdiccioni ff. de iurisdict. omn. iudic.  neque uxori, vel liberis suis etc. (which is the true law, that he should have alleged) and will consider, that Princes, Kings, and Emperors use to do in their own causes by very order of law: and if he will therewith search out the right meaning of the law, 
L. in privatis. ff. de inoffic. testamen  In privatis iudicus pater filium, vel filius patrem judicem habere potest: he shall find, both that he hath fondly, vainly, and rashly alleged a law, that he understood not, nor made any thing to his purpose, but only to fill up paper with words, and also that it is one thing, to say, Nemo debet sibi ius dicere (as he falsely allegeth the Law) and that it is a far other thing, to say, Qui iurisdictioni praeest, neque sibi ius dicere debet, neque uxori, vel liberis suis, neque libertis, vel caeteris quos secum habet: For so is the law uttered by Vlpianus.  
As for your marginal note out of the Decrees, you show how barren and poor your matter is, that for defence of it, you are feign to run for help to notes put in the margin of the Gloze: a very poor shift God wot. To your marginal note I answer. The Pope (as there the Gloss saith) if there be a matter in law between him, and an other man about a temporal thing, ought not himself to be judge in that case, and to take the thing into his own possession, before it be tried whose it is, but to choose Vmpeeres to sit upon it. Now mark what followeth good Reader: 
16. q. 6. Consuetudo.  tamen si vult esse judex in causa Ecclesiae, potest esse: yet if he list to be a judge in a matter concerning the Church, he may be. Certainly no one thing more concerneth the wealth, tranquillity, and good order of the Church, then that which Leo entreateth of in the epistle. 84. to Anastasius the Bishop of Thessalonica, which in my Confutation to good purpose I alleged.   
jewel. Pag. 111. 

Concil. Aphricanum cap. 105. Superbum seculi typhum.  It is well known, that the Pope hath sought for, and claimed this universal authority these many hundred years. Pope Innocentius was therefore reproved of pride, and worldly lordelinesse, by the whole Council of Aphrica.  
Harding. The Aphrican Council untruly reported by M. jewel.  

The 30. Chapt.  The Pope hath not sought for that, which our Lord gave unto S. Peter, no more then S. Peter sought for it at Christ's grant. The fame he may justly claim, for so much as it pertaineth to the feeding and government of Christ's flock, and to the strengthening of the faithful, as being the Successor of S. Peter.  
That you say of Innocentius, is utterly false. He was not so reproved of pride, and worldly Lordelinesse, as more like a proud worldly Lordeling, than an humble plain handler of God's Truth, you say. Neither be those words, superbum seculi typhum, which you lay forth in your Margin, to be found in any Epistle of the Aphrican Council to Innocentius, nor be they spoken, or written at all against Innocentius, as you bear us in hand. Neither was Innocentius then a live, when the Aphrican Council was holden, but departed this life long before. I grant there is extant an epistle of the Aphrican Council to the learned Pope Coelestinus, in which Epistle Innocentius that blessed man is not once touched. Neither was the charity of that whole Council so small, as to speak so ill of a holy Bishop so long before departed. The manner of those Fathers was to pray for such, specially for the Bishops of Rome deceased rehearsing their names in their Masses, and in no wise to report so ill of them. How be it, in that whole epistle Pope Innocentius is not so much as once named, nor spoken of. There we find these three words fumosum typhum seculi, that is to say, the smoky pride of the world (or the vain stoutness of the temporalty) but in a far other sense, and to an other purpose, than M. jewel pretendeth.  
Whether he rightly understood the place, or no, I have good cause to doubt. It seemeth that the Bishop of Rome in the cause of Appiarius (whom the Aphrican Bishops had deposed, and removed from his Bishprike, for crimes not sufficiently proved) sent his Clerks, that were his Agentes in Aphrica, unto certain noble men of the Country bearing offices under the Emperor, to require their assistance, if need should so require: which is as much to say, as now we use to speak, as, implorare brachium seculare, to call upon the temporal power for help, that justice may be executed. With this the Aphrican Bishops did much mislike, and therefore besought Pope Celestine, that it should no more be done, but that matters might be ended by them, being Bishops of that province, without all intermeddling of the lay power. The words of the epistle are these. 
Concil. Aph●ican. cap. 105.  Executores etiam clericos vestros quibusque potentibus nolite mittere, nolite concedere●ne fumosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi, quae lucem simplicitatis & humilitatis diem, Deum videre cupientibus praefert, videamur inducere. Furthermore we beseech you, that you send no more your Clerks, that be your Agentes, unto any of the great men, and that you grant to no such thing hereafter, lest we should seem to bring the smoky (or vain) stoutness of the world into the Church of Christ, which to them that covet to see God, showeth forth the light of simplicity, and humility. This is the Untruth you make upon the Aphrican Council in reproving Pope Innocentius of pride, and worldly Lordelinesse, fully answered.  
Now as vow have brought an untruth against the Pope, out of the Aphrican Council, as you pretend, so may it please you to consider of the contrary reported in the behoof of the Pope's supreme authority in government, out of a Council of Aphrica, where we find the same authority with these words avouched and acknowledged. Maximè tustè debent (Episcoporum judicia, & negotia ecclesiastica) ab ipso praesulum examinari vertice Apostolico, 
Epist. Stephani & trium Conciliorum Aphrica ad Damasum Papam Con. 10. 1.  cuius vetusta solicitudo est, tam mala damnare, quàm relevare laudanda. Antiquis enim regulis censitum est, ut quicquid horum quamuis in remotis, vel in longinquo positis ageretur provincijs, non prius tractandum, vel accipiendum sit, nisi ad notitiam almae sedis vestrae fuisset deductum, ut eius authoritate, juxta quod fuisset pronunciatum, firmaretur. The judgements of Bishops, and ecclesiastical matters, ought most justly to be examined of him, that is the Apostolic top (or the crown of the head) of the Prelates, whose care it is of old, as well to condemn ill things, as to relieve good things. For it hath been decreed by the old Canons, that what so ever matter of the Bishops were in suit, though it were in provinces that be far of (from Rome) it should not be ended before it were brought to the notice of that your See, that it might be assured by the authority of the same, right so as the sentence in judgement should be pronounced. By these words, and by the whole Epistle of the Fathers of that Aphrican Council assembled together under the archbishop Stephanus, it appeareth evidently, how reverently they submitted themselves, and the determination of their causes and controversies unto the Pope, and how far of they were from the outrageous spirit, as to charge Innocentius, or any other Pope with pride, and wordly lordelinesse, as M. jewel hath feigned.   
jewel. 
Pope Bonifacius. 2. condemned S. Augustine, and all the said Council of Aphrica, and called them all heretics, and Schismatics, 
Inter decreta Bonifacij. 2. Instigante diabolo.  for the same, and said they were all * lead by the Devil. Pope Zosimus to maintain this claim, corrupted the holy Council of Nice.  
Harding. Bonifacius 2. Foully be lied.  

The .31. Chapt.  It is pity this man hath not a good matter. For where he maketh so much of nothing, what would he do, had he somewhat? But it is easy to say much in a naughty cause, for one that is not a shamed to lie. It can not be found among the Decrees of Pope Boniface the .2. (unto which M. jewel referreth us) nor any where else, that he ever condemned that blessed, and learned Father S. Augustine by name, nor the Council of Aphrica by any solemn sentence, pronounced against them. Verily that he called them all Heretics, and Schismatics, for the same, that is to say, for the Pope's universal authority, or for any thing, and that they were lead by the Devil, it is an impudent lie. The most grievous words he uttereth against them, are these in an Epistle, that he writeth to Eulalius the Patriarch of Alexandria, exhorting him to rejoice, and to give warning to other Bishops near unto him, to rejoice also, and to give God thanks, for that the Church of Aphrica was reconciled, and returned to the obedience of the Church of Rome, from whence they had severed themselves for the space of a hundred years, upon some stomach, as it appeareth, for that they would not admit any Appellations of the Bishops of Aphrica to be made unto the Pope, which authority the Pope claimed by a Canon of the Nicene Council, 
Concil. Sardicen. ca 7 Bonifac. 2. Epist. ad Eulabium. Concil. to 1. pag. 1057.  and likewise by a Canon of the Council of Sardica. Aurelius Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus, cum collegis suis (instigante Diabolo) superbire temporibus praedecessorum nostrorum Bonifacij atque Coelestini contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit. Aurelius some time Bishop of the Church of Carthage began with his fellow Bishops (the Devil enticing them) to be proud against the Church of Rome in the days of Boniface, and Celestine my predecessors. etc. Of Heretics, and Schismatics, here is not a word. And though he said, the Devil enticed them, yet will it not follow, that all they were lead by the Devil. The Devil enticeth many: yea whom doth he not entice to evil? Yet all be not lead by the Devil. To be enticed of the Devil, is one thing, to be lead, is an other.  
Touching Pope Zosimus, say what ye can, following your Master Caluine, and when ye have said all that ye can say, it is well known, ye shall never clearly prove, 
Caluine Institut. Cap. 1.  that he corrupted the Council of Nice. For this I refer the Reader to M. Stapleton in his Return of Untruths upon M. jewel, Articulo. 4. fol. 30. & sequentib. Peruse the place Reader, and thou shalt find thyself well satisfied touching this point. That, which there is said in defence of Zosimus against their slanderous reports, M. jewel should first have disproved, if he had minded in that matter to try out the truth, and then have laid it again in our way. But he full craftily dissembleth all, and maketh as though he had not seen any such thing, thereby both to encumber us with oft repeating of one thing, and the reader with hearing that, which hath been said before.   
jewel. Pag. 111. 
S. Hilary, and other learned Bishops of France, for usurping such unlawful authority, charged this same Pope Leo, of whom we speak, with Pride, and ambition.  
Harding. What a man this Hilary was and how unworthy to be called S. Hilary.  

The 32. Chapt. An impudent, and cra●ty lie.  This is both an impudent, and also a crafty lie. Impudent, as being such, wherein M. jewel himself knew, he lied. For all is utterly false. For neither this Bishop Hilary, as evil a man as he was, nor any other Bishops of France, for aught that M. jewel hath to show, charged Leo with pride and ambition for usurping unlawful authority. 
Leo epist. 89 ad Episcopos provincia Viennen.  In deed he is reported of Leo to have spoken arrogant words against the reverence of S. Peter. But what the words were, or, that he laid pride and ambition to Pope Leos charge, M. jewel hath nothing to allege. Much less can he prove it, of the other learned Bishops of France.  
Leo contrariwise having heard the complaints of the great disorder, and outrage of this Bishop Hilary, charged him with a strange pride, and immoderate ambition for usurping undew authority. For as it is clear by that epistle of Leo, wherein this matter is laid forth, this Hilary took upon him to exercise the jurisdiction of the metropolitans, challenging unto himself the ordinations and making of Bishops of all the Churches in France. He unjustly deprived Celidonius of his Bishopric. He besides all right and reason deposed Protectus lying sick in his bed, and set an other bishop in his room, whereby he seemed, besides the breach of the Canons, to have done very cruelly, and to have sought the shortening of his life. He road up and down in the Country of France, as the people complained of him, like a light person, much unlike a Bishop, and ran from place to place with a company of armed Soldiers, to be the better able to put his unlawful attempts in execution, if any resistance should have been made.  
All this notwithstanding M. jewel calleth him S. Hilary, wherein he useth craft, 
S. Hilary, a wicked man sainted by M. jewel because he despised the Pope.  for which this may be well called a crafty lie. For who is there, specially of the unlearned, that hearing the name of S. Hilary, would not think, that famous Father, and learned Doctor, S. Hilary the Bishop of Poitiers to be meant? For none beareth that famous name of S. Hilary, but he. Thus can M. jewel to help forth his Gospel, abuse the name of God's Saints, and make a Rebel, a proud, an arrogant, and ambitious usurper of other men's right, a Saint. Of such Saints they have Canonizate us good store. Thus he would get credit to his doctrine that impugneth unity, under the false colour of the name of a blessed Saint.  
Wherefore good reader let not M. jewel beguile thee with the name of S. Hilary, who as he died long before this Hilary was borne, so he was always obedient to the see of Rome, as who granteth, that S. Peter for the confession of the true faith deserved to have, 
Hilar. do. Trinit. li. 6  Vltra humanae infirmitatis modum supereminentem locum, a place of authority passing all other beyond the measure of humane infirmity: whereas this Hilary, that M. jewel speaketh of, was a violent usurper of others right, a seditious troubler of the unity of the Church, and otherwise an ill man, and such a one as against whose unjust, and violent doings, the godly and discrete Citizens of certain Cities in France, directed their common letters unto Pope Leo, to have refourmation. And thus is the forged matter of this Hilary new sainted by M. jewel, truly answered.   
jewel. Pag. 111. 
But, gentle Reader, that thou mayst the better understand, what credit thou oughtest to give to this Pope Leo, specially setting forth his own authority, I beseech thee, consider, with what majesty of words, and how far above measure, he avanceth the authority of S. Peter. These be his words. Christus Petrum in confortium Individuae unitatis assumpsit. 
Leo Epist. 89. Leo Epist. 52.  Christ received Peter into the company of the indivisible unity: Authoritate Domini mei Petri Apostoli: by the Authority (●ot of Christ, but) of my Lord Peter the Apostle: Deo inspirant, & beatissimo Petro Apostolo: By the inspiration of God, and of S. Peter the Apostle. etc. 
Leo. 89.   
Harding. These Phrases of Leo defended, and justified.  
It is happy that once you have met with an old Father within the first six hundred years, 
The 33. Chapt.  whose words are so plain for the pre-eminence, and supremacy of the See of Rome, that you could not possibly find any probable Gloze to avoid them. Being therefore destitute of a direct answer, you go about to find fault with the manner of utterance that Leo useth. And here you are sore offended with the majesty of words, with which he extolleth the authority of S. Peter. Which certainly be no other, then may be found in divers other ancient learned Fathers.  
Touching the first sentence, you should have laid it forth truly, as it is in the Doctor, then would it appear to contain no such immoderate, nor ambitious dignity, as you find fault withal. The words of Leo are these. Petrum in consortium individuae unitatis assumptum, 
Leo epist. 89. Matt. 16.  id quod ipse erat, voluit nominari, dicendo: Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram adificabo ecclesiam meam, etc. Christ willed Peter, taken into the company of his indivisible unity, to be named that thing, which he was himself, saying? Thou art Peter (or Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church. What is that, wherewith a Christian man should here be offended? O say you, Leo maketh Peter received into the company of the indivisible unity. I grant M. jewel. But what indivisible unity meaneth he?  
First, all unity is indivisible. For where there is a Division of a thing into two, three, or more, 
Peter received into in divisible unity with Christ.  there is not unity, but multiplicity. Now there is unity of Substance, and unity of quality. S. Peter is not reported of Leo, to be assumpted into the fellowship of unity of Substance, or of nature with Christ the Son of God, for so he should have made him equal with God, as Christ is, for nothing is of one Substance, or consubstantial with God, but that, which is God. Which God, though he be three in Persons, yet is one in Substance. Into this indivisible unity of Substance Peter is not received, which full devilishly you would the Reader to conceive and imagine to be the meaning of S. Leo in those words.  
Into the company of the indivisible unity of a quality, or grace, or name with Christ, S. Peter was assumpted, that is to say: Christ gave him a quality, a grace, a name, that is proper to himself. What is that? Leo expoundeth himself: That which he was himself, he willed Peter to be named, saying. Thou art Peter, as much to say, thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church (and lest we should think, that Christ gave him that name only, and not the thing signified by that name: Leo addeth further)  aeterni aedificatio templi, mirabili munere gratiae Dei in Petri soliditate consisteret, that the building of his everlasting Temple, should by the marvelous gift of God's grace, stand in the foundenesse of Peter. Christ is the Rock, 
Christ is the Rock and Peter is the Rock, and how either? Leo sermo. 2. in Nativitate Ap. Petri, & Pauli. Matt. 16.  and Peter is the Rock. How Christ? How Peter? Christ, by his own power, Peter by participation.  
But let us hear Leo expounding himself more plainly. Thus he saith: evangelica siquidem referent historia, etc. As the story of the Gospel telleth, our Lord asketh of all the Apostles, what men thought of him. And so long as they be in declaring the doubtfulness of man's understanding, the talk of them that answer, is common among them al. But when it is required, of what sense the Disciples are, there he is first in confessing our Lord, which is first in the Apostolic dignity. Who, when he had said: Thou art the Son of the living God: jesus answered him: Blessed art thou Simon the son of jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed (this) unto thee, but my Father, that is in heaven. Therefore blessed art thou, because my Father hath taught thee, neither hath earthly opinion deceived thee, but heavenly inspiration hath instructed thee, and it is not flesh and blood, that hath showed me unto thee, but it is he, whose only begotten Son I am. And I, quoth he, tell thee, that is, as my Father hath manifested my divinity unto thee, so I make known to thee, thine excellency. Quia tu es Petrus, id est, cùm ego sim inviolabilis Petra, ego lapis angularis, qui facio utraque unum, tamen tu quoque Petra es, quia mea virtute solidaris, ut quae mihi potestate sunt propria, sint tibi mecum participatione communia. 
Peter is asmuch to say, as Rock.  Because thou art Peter, that is, whereas I am the inviolable Rock, I the Cornerstoane, which make both one, yet thou also art the Rock, because by my virtue thou art made sound and sure, that the things which are proper unto me by power, may be common to thee with me by participation. Thus far Leo.  
By these last words he declareth unto us, how Christ received Peter into the company of his indivisible unity, to wit, by admitting him to enter commons (as I might say) with him, and by making him partaker through free gift, of that name, and not of that name only, but also of that excellency, which is Christ's own by power. Deceive not the unlearned Reader M. jewel, by such pieces of Doctors sayings, which laid forth barely, and alone without circumstance of the place whence they be picked out, may perhaps seem obscure, and doubtful, and being viewed in their Authors, or otherwise set out in their own colours, appear most true, plain, and agreeable to the Scriptures.  
Furthermore where Leo saith: The Council of Chalcedon abhorred the prodigious devices of the Devilish heresy of Eutyches, 
Leo epist. 52.  consenting unto my writings strengthened with the authority and merit of my Lord the most blessed Apostle Peter: 
My Lord S. Peter.  M. jewel findeth a great fault with him for calling S. Peter, my Lord the most blessed Apostle Peter. For the use of which humble term, he might as well find fault with S. Gregory, who calleth Mauricius the Emperor likewise by the name of Lord, 
the term, my Lord used of the antiquity. Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 3. pa. 834. co. 2  and with the learned men of the time that Leo lived in, for so the Bishops at the Council of Chalcedon spoke of Leo himself, Domini nostri, & sanctissimi patris, & Archiepiscopi Leonis lecta est epistola. The Epistle of our lord, and most holy ffather, and Archiebishop Leo hath been read, with the whole nation of the French men, who speaking of S. Peter, of S. james, and of such others the friends of God are wont to, 
My Lord R. Peter, My Lord S. james  say, Monsieur saint Pierre, Monsieur saint jaques, my Lord saint Peter, my Lord saint james: with the Italians also, who use to speak likewise. That this manner of speech was not strange in the Church, it appeareth by sundry Monuments of the Grecians of later time. Matthaeus Hieromonachus, 
Matthaus Hieremonachus in Collectan.  maketh Constantine the Great so to speak: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We do this in the worship of my Lord S. Peter.  
As for that other phrase, Deo inspirant, & beatissimo Petro Apostolo, by the inspiration of God, and of S. Peter the Apostle (so here it is tran●●●ted, but falsely) for which M. jewel condemneth Leo, as using immoderate, and ambitious speech in the praise of S. Peter, to the behoof of his own pre-eminence: it seemeth strange in deed, yea so strange, that at the first reading, my mind gave me, that M. jewel, to deceive the Reader, hath foully abused the place. As I thought, so it was. For now I find, that these words are in Leo in deed. But they are to be construed far otherwise, than this translation reporteth. Here I must bring M. jewel to his small Rules of Grammare, and ask him, how he construeth these words, 
Leo epist. 89 in fine.  Obtestamur ut ea, quae à nobis Deo inspirant, & beatissimo Petro Apostolo decreta sunt, seruetis. Verily were he at a Grammare school, and would tell his Schoolmaster, that here beatissimo Petro Apostolo, were put in the ablative case absolutely, as Deo is, and so would make S. Peter to give inspiration to Leo, as well as God: he were worthy to have six stripes on the bare, three for his negligent, and gross ignorance, three for the blasphemy, attributing that to S. Peter, which is only to be attributed unto God.  
There is no inconvenience in this sentence good Reader. Thou mayst tell M. jewel, that beatissimo Petro is here the ablative for the preposition à, which requireth the noun following it to be put in the ablative case. And thus is the whole to be construed, as if the preposition (à) were repeated again before beatissimo, we beseech you that ye keep the things, which by the inspiration of God, have been decreed of us, and of the most blessed Peter the Apostle.  
Let no man think it strange, 
S. Peter joined with Leo.  that S. Peter is here joined with Pope Leo. The Father's speaking of any Godly Decree, ordinance, sentence, or writing published by any Bishop of Rome for the benefit of the Church, have commonly so spoken of it, as both it proceeded from the Pope for the time being, and also from S. Peter, because doubtless the privileges which Christ granted to S. Peter for the health of the Church, remain still to every Bishop of Rome, his lawful Successor. And what so ever is decreed by the Successors of Peter, sitting in Peter's Chair, it ought to be unto us none other, than a Decree of S. Peter him sefe. For to us he is Peter. Therefore the learned Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, having heard the famous Epistle, that Pope Leo wrote to Flavianus against the Heresy of Eutyches, 
Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 3.  allowing well of it in their solemn Acclamations, which the Grecians always used in their Councils, cried out, Petrus per Leonemita locutus est, Peter hath so spoken by Leo.  
Leo himself seemeth to declare, in what sense S. Peter is thus joined with him in government of the Church, where he saith thus. Post resurrectionem suam Dominus beato Petro Apostolo post regni claves, 
Sermo. in ●atiuitate Petri et Pauli.  ad trinam aeterni amoris professionem, mystica insinuatione ter dixit, Pasceoves meas, quod & nunc proculdubio facit, & mandatum Dominipius pastor exequitur, confirmans nos exhortationibus suis, & pro nobis orare non cessans, ut nulla tentatione superemur. Si autem hanc pietatis suae curam omni populo Dei, sicut credendum est, ubique protendit, quantò magis alumnis suis opem suam dignatur impendere, apud quos in sacro dormitionis thoro, eadem qua praecedit carne, requiescit? Our Lord after his resurrection, said thrice (signifying a mystery) unto S. Peter the Apostle, 
johan. 21.  after the keys of his kingdom had been given to him, at what time he made three times profession that he loved him: Feed my sheep, which without doubt he doth also now, and as a godly shepherd fulfilleth our lords commandment, confirming us with his exhortations, and not ceasing to pray for us, that we be overcome by no tentation. And if he streatche abroad in every place this his Godly care to all the people of God, as it it to be believed, how much more doth he vouchsafe to bestow his help upon his own dear ones, among whom he resteth in the sacred bed of his dormition (that is to say, in his Sepulchre) in the same flesh, in which he goeth before us.  
In what sense then S. Peter is said to feed Christ's sheep to this day, in the same sense it might well be said of Leos decrees, that they were Decreta à Leone, & beatissimo Apostolo Petro, things decreed by Leo, and by S. Peter the Apostle, God giving the good inspiration. Certain other such phrases of Leo M. jewel condemneth as containing immoderate and ambitious praise of S. Peter, and for the same would discredit that ancient learned Father, about the discussion of which, I think it not worth my labour to stand. They may well be admitted with a convenient understanding, and such as every good man would at the first reading of them, conceive. Marry I confess a curious carper, will find fault not only with that this holy Father, but with what so ever any learned Father hath written, if he be disposed to wrangle upon that which seemeth to be contrary to the doctrine he hath taken upon him to maintain.   
jewel. Pag. 111. 
Some others have thought, that as well these Epistles of Leo, as also others more, and other the ancient Bishops of Rome have been interlaced, and falsified by the ambitious Popes, that followed afterwards etc.  
Harding.  
Of the number of these some others, yourself are one M. jewel, and your fellows are the rest: who neiter being able to avoid the truth by Leo most clearly uttered, nor willing to yield unto it, would feign, wist ye how, raise up against the credit of his Epistles a surmise of Corruption, and falsifying, a common practice of yours. But what you, and such others as you are, think of Leo, it skilleth little. He hath been esteemed hitherto for a worthy Clerk, and a holy Father. Berengarius your first founder hath always been accounted an heretic, and so shall all the zwinglians, and calvinists, that follow him, upon whose credit ye have gauged the everlasting state of your souls, be accounted of the Church for ever. Of all your weak shifts, this is the weakest, and hath least colour of learning, to say of that in an ancient Father ye are not able to answer, that it is interlaced, and falsified by the Popes. If ye could once purchase you this authority, to condemn of corruption, and falsifying what is found to make clear against you, bring we never so much for proof of the Catholic religion, your Answer may soon be ready. What you say of Pope Zosimus falsifying of the Council of Nice, it hath been thoroughly answered by us, as I told you before, and as you know M. jewel right well, and yet you dissemble it, as if nothing were by us said at all, and let not so oftentimes to sing one song. Which argueth a contentious wit, and a desire to fill up great books, be the matter never so much, and sufficiently before answered.   
jewel. Pag. 112. 
Touching that M. Harding calleth the Pope, the prince of Pastors, be might have remembered, 
1. Pet. 5.  that the right of this name belongeth only unto Christ. S. Peter saith, That when Christ the prince of Pastors shall appear, ye may receive the uncorruptible crown. Now, to inseaffe the Pope with Christ's peculiar titles, a man might think it were great blasphemy.  
Harding. The Pope lawfully called the Prince of Pastors.  

The 34. Chapt.  Great blasphemy say you? Woe be then to S. Augustine, that spoke such great blasphemy, when in a Sermon made before the people, 
August. de Sanctis Serm. 28.  he called S. Peter, principem Apostolorum, the prince of the Apostles: But the Apostles were Pastors, yea the chief Pastors of Christ's flock: Ergo, S. Augustine saw, that it was no great blasphemy, to call S. Peter principem Pastorum: the prince of Pastors. 
August. de verbis domini in evang. secundum Math. Sermon. 13. Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 2. c. 14. In Registro epist. 32. In johan. Homil. 87  He hath the like words in an other place. Idem Petrus a petra cognominatus beatus, Ecclesiae figuram portans, Apostolatus principatum tenens. The same blessed Peter having his name of a Rock, bearing the figure of the Church, holdeth the princehood of the Apostleship. Eusebius also calleth S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prince of all the rest of the Apostles. To S. Peter prince of all the Apostles, the charge of the whole Church was committed, saith S. Gregory. S. Chrysostom nameth him, Totius orbis magistrum, the master of the whole world, no whit less in effect, than Prince of Pastors. S. Bernard saith to the pope, Tu Princeps Episcoporum, Thou art Prince of Bishops. But Bishops are Pastors, Ergo, the Pope is Prince of Pastors. To leave many others, and to conclude with S. Augustine, thus he saith speaking of S. Peter: Quis nescit illum Apostolatus principatum, 
August. de Baptis. contra Donatist. lib. 2. cap. 1.  cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum? Who knoweth not, that that Princehood of the Apostleship, is to be preferred before every Bishop's state?  
Where is this great blasphemy become, that M. jewel so horribly layeth to our charge? What will he accuse all these holy and learned Fathers of Blasphemy? I hope, though he spare not us, yet he will be good Master unto S. Bernard, S. Gregory, S. Augustine S. Chrysostom, and to Eusebius. As for S. Leo, who is plainest of all, I dare not here to name, lest I should seem to reverse M. jewels high judgement, whom he hath so late here before by his solemn sentence condemned. Yet it may please him to be advertised by us, that Titles which appertain to God himself, when they are in their dew order, and degree given unto men, 
Exod. 7. Psal. 81.  contain no blasphemy. Moses is called in Scripture the God of Pharaoh. And rulers in the Psalms, are called also by the name of Gods.   
jewel. 
As for the other authority of S. Cyprian, M. Harding saith, we understood it not: and therefore he willeth us to look better upon our books. The Council is good. etc.  
Harding. The origen of unity beginneth of one, who is Peter, by S. Cyprian. The pope's pre-eminence proved by S. Basil.  

The .35. Chapt.  The fruitless pain you took in laying forth so many places of S. Cyprian together, and all to the end men should conceive, you understood your book, doth give us sufficient witness, that either of malice you will not, or of ignorance you can not declare, to what end all those places do pertain. If you had joined to these places of S. Cyprian, which you allege, but one place of the same S. Cyprian, which you durst not talk of, lest all your confuse heap should stand you in no steed: the case had been so plain, that the shame would have been yours. S. Cyprians whole purpose is to show Christian men (not by long talk of arguments, but by the marking of two things, that is to say, the Churches received Doctrine, and the Head of the Church) how to stay themselves in the right faith, and unity, when so ever Schisms, and Heresies shall happen to rise. For this purpose he speaketh of the Church, and of the unity of the Church: which unity among divers other things, doth principally stand in the having of one Bishop to be Head over al.  
Although (saith S. Cyprian) Christ give equal power after his resurrection to all the Apostles, and say, 
Cyprianus, de Simplic. Praelatorum.  as my Father hath sent me, even so do I send you, receive ye the holy Ghost, if ye shall remit any man's sins, they shallbe remitted unto him: if ye shall retain any man's sins, they shallbe retained: yet to the end he would make Unity manifest, he ordained by his authority the beginning (or origine) of the same unity to begin from one (to wit, from Peter) The rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, endued with like fellowship, both of honour, and of power: but the beginning riseth forth from unity (to wit from Peter). that the Church may be showed (to be) one. Hitherto S. Cyprian. This place of S. Cyprian doth sufficiently prove, not only, that Christ began his Church from Peter, but also, why he would there should be only one, from whom he might begin his Church (and not those many, of whom M. jewel dreameth) because (saith he) he would have his Church showed one. The plain meaning whereof can be none other, but that the Unity of the Church can by no other way so conveniently stand, as by the having of one visible Bishop head over al.  
As the multitude of Priests, 
Hieron. ad Euagrium.  of whom S. Jerome speaketh in his Epistle to Euagrius, was driven to choose one to be Bishop among them in Alexandria that was S. Marks see, to avoid Schisms, that would have rend and torn the Church asunder, and to keep Unity: even so S. Cyprian saw, that among the multitude of Bishops, the case being like, to avoid Schisms, and to keep unity, 
Hiero. adversus lovinianum lib. 1.  it was necessary one Bishop to be placed head over al. The which thing S. Jerome saith, Christ did, when he ordained Peter Head of the Apostles, to take away occasion of Schism.  
As touching the place of S. Basil alleged for the government by a multitude of Pastors, if M. jewel, mean, 
Basil. ad Neocaesarienses.  that S. Basil thought the multitude of Pastors should rule without having of one Head, he is far deceived: and yet that must he mean, otherwise that place maketh nothing for him. But that untrue meaning of his needeth no other wise to be controlled, then by S. Basil himself writing thus to S. Athanasius. 
Basiliusin epistol. ad Athanasium pag. 549. In Graeco codic. Frobe●.  Visum est utile scribere ad Episcopum Romanum, ut consideret res nostras, & judicij sui decretum interponat, ut quoniam de communi & Conciliari Decreto aliquos inde huc emandari difficile est, ipse sua authoritate negotium componat, etc. It hath seemed good unto us, to write unto the Bishop of Rome, that he will consider of our cases (or 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  visit us, for so the Greek may be translated) and to determine the matter by his sentence, that, for as much as it is hard for any to be sent hither from thence by authority of a common and Synodical Decree, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he take the matter into his own hand, and by his authority strike the stroke.  
Why should S. Basil, being a Greek of the East Church, think it convenient to write to the Bishop of Rome being in the West, to consider of, (or to visit them of the East, for so to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth) their state, and to send forth a Decree of his judgement, and to give sentence, unless he agnized the prerogative of the Bishop of Rome, which your fellows deny? Verily by this place it appeareth evidently, of what judgement S. Basil was touching the Bishop of Rome his Supreme Authority in rule. The more ye stir this matter, the more it turneth still to your own shame.   
jewel. Pag. 115. 
The whole body of Christendom was divided into four Patriarkeshippes: whereof the first was Rome.  
Harding.  
Search out M. jewel, 
The .36. Chapt.  by whom was the whole Body of Christendom divided into four Patriarkshippes, whereof the first and chief was Rome, and why Rome was the first, and not rather the second, or third, thereby shall you perceive, how yourself unwares are taken in your own snare. 
In Praefat. Nicen. Concil.  In the Preface of the Nicene Council we read, that the Church of Rome was preferred before all other, not by decrees of any Synod, but by the voice of our Saviour Christ in his Gospel, when he said to Peter, Tu es Petrus, thou art Peter etc. 
Math. 16.    
jewel. pag. 115. 
And each of them was limited, and bounded within itself: Alexandria to have the oversight over Egypt, and Pentapolis: Antioch over Syria: Jerusalem, over Jewry, Rome over Italy, and other Churches of the west.  
Harding.  
If none else had jurisdiction over Italy, and other Churches of the West, then is the Bishop of Rome your lawful Patriarch, that dwell in England: otherwise it will fall out, that England shall be no part of the whole Body of Christendom, if it be under the rule of no Patriarch. If he be your Patriarch, as he is by your own confession, why do not ye obey him?   
jewel. Pag. 115. 

Copus. dia. 1. 166.  And herein we have the exposition of Theodorus Balsamon, that lived five hundred years ago, and was Patriarch of Antioch, and, as some of M. hardings friends have thought, a man of great learning. Yet for as much as M. Harding here utterly refuseth him, not only as a Schisma●tique, but also as a man void of learning, and reason: etc.  
Harding.  
That he swerved from learning, and reason in the exposition of the .6. Canon of the Nicene Council, is my saying, not that he was void of learning, and reason absolutely, as you untruly report, to make some apparent contradiction betwixt me, and M. Cope. A man may for the love he beareth to his own false opinion, or schism, expound a Canon contrary to his own learning, as M. jewel doth many times, and yet in other respects be a right well learned man.    

The Apology. Cap. 3. Diuis. 7.  
The Bishop of Rome, except he do his duty as he ought &c. we say, that he ought not of right once to be called a Bishop, or so much as an Elder. For a Bishop as saith S. Augustine, is a name of labour, and not of honour.  

Harding. The Pope, or any other Bishop is Bishop, though he be negligent in doing his duty.  

The .37. Chapt.  I said enough to this in my Confutation, whereof the chief pith M. jewel in the Defence hath slily lest out, that it might not in his own book appear to the Reader, how fully the Apology is in that place confuted. Now I add thereto this much more. Can any man justly blame the Pope that now is, for the doing of his duty? Hath not he, and other his Predecessors in our time assembled a general Council, and therein disclosed all your heresies, with mature disputations examined, confuted, and condemned them? Hath not he in so doing done more good, then M. jewel (if he should recant, and become a true Catholic) do all the days of his life, though he were suffered to preach as many Sermons, and do otherwise, as true Penance would require?  
Yea suppose he had left at this undone, neither had answered to his vocation in most dutiful wise, were he therefore no Bishop at all? As S. Augustine saith, a Bishop is a name of labour, and not of honour: So S. Hierom saith, 
Hieron. in epist. ad Euagrium.  that a Bishop is a name of honour, and of dignity. Let M. jewel make both these to agree together, and grant, that a Bishop is both the name of labour, and of honour: Of labour, because his chief office, and merit standeth in the diligent and painful doing of his duty: of honour, because qui bene praesunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni sunt, 
1. Tim. 5.  maximè qui laborant in verbo & doctrina, Priests that govern well, are worthy of double honour, specially such as take pains in the word, and teaching.  
But put the case the Pope doth not his duty: hath he lost by and by the order of priesthood, or Bishoply order? M. jewel saith yea, but S. Chrysostom saith no: 
Chrysost. Homil. 2. in cap. 1. epist. 2. ad Timoth.  in whom we find these words. Sacra ipsa Oblatio sine illam Petrus, sive illam Paulus, sive cuiusuis meriti Sacerdos eam offerat, eadem est quam dedit Christus ipse Discipulis, quámque Sacerdotes modo conficiunt. Nihil habet ista, quám illa minus. The holy Oblation itself, be it Peter, or be it Paul, or of what so ever merit the Priest be, that offereth it: it is the self same, that Christ did give to his Disciples, the self same, that Priests at these days also do consecrate. Thus S. Chrysostom. If a Priest of what so ever merit, or desert he be, good, or evil, do offer up the self same oblation, that Christ gave to his Disciples, as S. Chrysostom saith, seeing he hath full power, be he good, be he nought, to consecrate, and to offer up the self same oblation, that Christ gave to his Disciples: how shall M. jewel not grant, but that he remaineth a Priest still, be he never so negligent, or otherwise unworthy of that dignity? Likewise a Bishop, be he never so unmindful, and careless touching his duty: it is not his negligence, or evil life, that bereaveth him of his bishoply Order, and Degree.  
For proof hereof, if there were no other testimony to be alleged, this of S. Chrysostom might suffice. But S. Augustine disputing with the Donatists, 
August. de Baptis. contra Donatist. lib. 1. cap. 1.  whose heresy was of near cozenage unto that M. jewel here holdeth, hath so plain a place, that neither he, nor all his fellows shall ever be able to avoid. And this it is. Sacramentum Baptismi est, quod habet, qui baptizat. Et Sacramentum dandi Baptismi est, quod habet, qui ordinatur. Sicut autem baptizatus, si ab unitate recesserit, Sacramentum Baptismi non amittit: sic etiam Ordinatus, si ab unitate recesserit, Sacramentum dandi Baptismum non amittit. Nulli enim Sacramento iniuria facienda est: si discedit à malis, utrumque discedit: Si permanet in malis, utrumque permanet. Et paulò post. Redeuntes, qui priusquàm reciderent ordinati sunt, non utique rursus ordinantur, sed aut administrant quod administrabant, si hoc Ecclesiae utilitas postulat, aut si non admistrant, Sacramentum Ordinationis sua tamen gerunt, & ideo eye manus inter Laicos non imponitur. It is the Sacrament of Baptism, that he hath, which is baptised. And it is the Sacrament of ministering Baptism, which he hath that is in Orders. But as the baptised person, if he should depart from the Unity (of the Church) doth not lose the Sacrament of Baptism: even so he that is in (holy) Orders, if he depart from the unity (of the Church) doth not lose the Sacrament of giving Baptism. For to no Sacrament may we do wrong. If (the Sacraments) do depart from such as are ill, both the Sacraments (of Baptism, and holy Orders) do depart. If it abide in such, as are ill, both (the Sacrament of Baptism and of holy Orders) do abide. Again there a little after. They that return (from Schism and Heresy) if they were in holy Orders, before they became schismatics, they do not receive holy Orders again, but either they do minister that which they did minister, if the profit of the Church do so require, or, if they minister not, yet do they bear the Sacrament of their holy Orders still, and therefore the hands are not laid upon them among the lay sort. Hitherto S. Augustine.  
What hath M. jewel to say unto this? If S. Augustine say, that an Heretic, or a schismatic doth not lose the priesthood, that he had lawfully before he fell into Schism, or Heresy, shall M. jewel control him with his new Divinity, and say unto him, no sir, it is not so, For if a Bishop be negligent, and do not his duty, I say, he loseth his Order, or Bisshophoode, and is no more a Bishop? M. jewels ill luck is, that whereas he readeth many Fathers, or some others for him, and heapeth a number of their sayings together to fill up a great book: never a one can be found, that when any matter cometh to trial, maketh clearly for his side. No marvel. For truth can never be made to serve against truth.   
jewel. Pag. 117. 
As for Wicklefe, he expoundeth plainly his own meaning, etc.  
Harding. Hus mistaken for Wicklefe: a Canon of the Council of Valentia truly expounded.  

The 38. Chapt. Article. 22.  The expository Article, that you allege, is one of john Hus his Articles and not Wicklefes, condemned in the fifteenth session of the Council of Constance. Therefore it is false, that Wicklefe ever expounded his meaning in that Article, and much more is it false, that he did it according to mine own construction, 
Hus mistaken by M. jewel for Wiklefe.  as you say. Thus you rehearse and translate, Papa, vel praelatus malus, et praescitus, est equivocè pastor, & verè fur, & Latro. The Pope, or any other wicked prelate in doubtful speech is a Pastor, but in very deed he is a these, and (Latro) a robber.  
Here with M. jewel (Latro) is a murderer. This is john Hus his article, not john Wicklefes. This needed not to have been marked, but that M. jewel is so precise, and so watchful, to pry for the least escapes that any of us maketh.  
How be it both were Heretics, both Hus, and Wicklefe, and therefore we may bear the better with M. jewel, if he mistake the one for the other, Hus, for Wicklefe, and think, that Wiclefe had more zeal of the house of God, more learning, more knowledge, than all the Bishops of that age (for so he judgeth): yet if he spoke, or meant more than truth may bear, M. jewel (who dareth not plainly, and flatly either to allow, or to condemn the man, but with Iffes, and Andes) mindeth not to defend him. Yet he doth the best he can to defend him by a Canon of the Council of Valentia in France not truly understanded, but altogether misconstrued. Which Canon, if it were truly translated, that is to say, otherwise then M. jewel hath translated it, it should appear, he were fully answered, and confuted. 
A canon of the Council of Valentia in France truly expounded, that was corrupted by M Jewels false translation. Concil. Valentin. Cap. 4. Conciliorum. Tom. 1. pag. 414.   
The canon truly translated is thus. Who so ever (sub ordinatione) at the time that order is given either of deaconship, or of Priesthood, or of Bishophod, shall say they are defiled with mortal sin, they are to be removed from the foresaid (not orders, as M. jewel falsely translateth, but) ordinations, that is, orderinges, or giving of Orders, for so the word signifieth, the very act of ordering, not the Orders themself: whereby is meant, that they ought to be removed and bid to depart without Orders: if one I say would thus translate the Canon, as the preposition, sub, importeth, M. jewel were put quite besides his purpose, and Wiklef should remain undefended, and guilty of heresy, as he was before M. jewel took in hand to defend him.  
Remember M. jewel, Ordination is the act of giving Order, Order itself is the effect of Ordination, or ordering. By this Council of Valentia they, that confessed themselves defiled with mortal sin, were removed, not ab ordinibus, from Orders, for they had not yet received them, but ab ordinationibus, from the giving of Orders, unto which they came for Orders. Use truth M. jewel, deceive not your unlearned Reader with false translations.  
Wicklefe is charged with this Article in the Council of Constance, 
A king is not a king, and a Queen is not a Queen by Wicklef, if they be in deadly sin. A king being in deadly sin, is a king by wiklef. Huss. and M. Ie●vel (aequ●uoce) in doubtful speech only, and by a word of doubt, meaning, as a painted man, is a man  Nullus est Dominus civilis, nullus est praelatus, nullus est Episcopus, dum est in peccato mortali: None is a temporal Lord, none is a prelate, none is a Bishop, so long as he is in deadly sin. Behold Reader, how M. jewel in Wicklefes' defence, bringeth in Wicklefe expounding his own meaning, or rather Hus for Wicklefe. The Pope (saith Hus whom M. jewel taketh for Wicklefe) or any other wicked prelate, in doubtful speech is a Pastor, but in very deed he is a thief, and a murderer. What then saith Master Wicklefe of a king, or a queen, that is in deadly sin by the plain exposition of his own meaning? What answereth M. jewel in this case for his friend Wicklefe? Marry whereas Wicklefe saith, If a king, or a Queen be in deadly sin, than neither is he a king, nor she a Queen, M jewel cometh in with Hus, and thus expoundeth the meaning of Wicklefe, he is a King, and she is a Queen, but how? In doubtful speech only, he meaneth in name only. In very deed both he and she, are, either of them a thief and a murderer. For so he must say of the Princes, as he saith of the Priest, and Bishop, that he is a King, or she a Queen, by a word of double meaning, as for example, unsavoury salt is called salt, or as the Prophets of Baal, are called Prophets, or as a painted man, is called a man, or, as S. Gregory saith of the Priest by M. jewels report, let him or her be called a King, or a Queen, though in deed he be no King, and she no Queen, but a thief. etc.  
If a King, or a Queen being in deadly sin, be no King, nor Queen in deed, as M. jewel with Hus must say, and Wicklefe doth say: what honesty hath he done Wicklefe, in so making him to expound plainly his meaning, to deliver him from the obloquy of his Heresy, and from the hatred of Princes, when the exposition is as lewd, and of as great force, as the Heresy is itself, that I laid both to Wicklefes charge, and his at the first? Though with your Rhetoric you may do much, and beguile the simple, yet think not, but the wise do see, whither the maintenance of this doctrine tendeth. It is ill halting before kreples, they say. Truly I judge this halting will appear much worse before princes. They had need take heed, sith that ye are so bold with them, that they fall not into deadly sin, lest soon after by this Doctrine they be driven out of their kingdoms.  
The authorities in this place by you alleged out of S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Gregory, S. Cyprian, 
Pag. 117.  do not mean, that such as are ill livers, do lose the Sacrament of Orders once had, which to say, were a very great, and an old condemned heresy of the Donatists: but that all such do not live, as the dignity of Priests, and bishops doth require, and that they be not such, as have all the good virtues and qualities, that Priests and bishops ought to have. Many things are for certain respects denied, which absolutely are not denied. 
All that in a respect is denied, is not absoluely denied. Psal. 21. Ephes. 6.  Ego sum vermis, & non homo, I am a worm, saith the Prophet speaking of Christ, and not a man. Will you hereof by like Logic conclude, that Christ's humanity is denied? Non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem, & sanguinem, we have no wrestling against flesh, and blood, saith the Apostle in some respect, because our principal conflict is not against flesh, and blood, and yet we have a conflict, and a great conflict against flesh, and blood, and are commanded therefore to crucify the flesh with his lusts. 
Galat. 6.  But because the Apostle saith so, shall we deny, that we have to wrestle, and fight against flesh, and blood at all? I trow you, nor your fellows, are not yet so spiritual, but that ye will confess, ye have to fight against the flesh. Verily the world seeth, your works be not yet all of the spirit, but some of the flesh.   
jewel. Pag. 118. 
If the name of Universal Bishop be a proud name in others, why may it not also be a proud name in the Bishop of Rome?  
Harding. The name of Universal Bishop is not a proud name in the Pope, because he hath it of right.  

The .39. Chapt.  Because the word taken in the right sense, is the very right, that our Saviour Christ gave to S. Peter, and to his Successors, which right of universal regiment he gave not to others. You may as wisely reason thus: If the name of a Queen be a proud name applied to Margery Horn M. horns dame of Winchester, why may it not also be a proud name in Elizabeth the lawful Queen? With such gear you fill up your paper, and like a great Clerk, set us out great books full fraught with stuff of small substance, and less honesty.   
jewel. Pag. 118. 
May Pride be humility, and humility Pride, only in respect of divers persons?  
Harding.  
Pride is Pride, and humility is humility in what so ever person. Neither can ever the one be the other. But that thing, which is proudly, or with pride done of one man, may of an other man be done humbly, and without all breach of humility. You might have demanded many wiser questions than this. Know you not, that the title of honour, which is due to any person, may be acknowledged of the same, without any pride at all? S. Paul offended not in pride, when he said, he was an Apostle (sent) not of men, nor by man. 
Gal. 1.    
jewel. Pag. 119. 
Likewise Chrysostom saith, 
Dist. 40. Multi.  Quicunque desideraverit primatum in terra, inveniet in coelo confusionem: nec inter servos Christi computabitur, qui de primatu tractaverit: Who so ever desireth primacy in earth, in Heaven he shall find confusion: neither shall he be accounted among the servants of Christ, that will once entreat of primacy.  
Harding.  
If that be the saying of S. Chrysostom, 
A forged saying at tributed to S Chrysostom.  why did you not quote the place? And why make ye so much a do for the Primacy of the Queen's highness in Ecclesiastical matters within the Realm? Intend you to bring yourself, and her highness into Confusion, and to shut yourself out of Heaven? S. Chrysostom hath no such saying. That which goeth before in Gratian, is taken out of Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, Homil. 43. in cap Matth. 23. 
Maximinus Arrianus.  which is well known not to be S. Chrysostom's, and witht great probability though to be the work of an Arrian Heretic named Maximinus.  
But this saying which here you allege out of Gratian, is neither there, nor in S. Chrysostom. It is a forgery, and that you knew well enough. Yet you are not ashamed to use it to deceive the ignorant Reader. Leave, leave M. jewel to abuse the simplicity of the unlearned with such forged pieces, and patches. What you allege out of S. Chrysostom truly, or out of any other Doctor, we shall soon answer it by God's grace. For we are sure, that truth always agreeth with truth. As for such forgeries, we return them back to you again.  
But because both you M. jewel, and others the chief Pillars of your side, have said so much touching the name of Universal Bishop, and have so vehemently inveighed against the Pope for the same, bearing the unlearned in hand, ye have a great advantage against us therein: I think it good and necessary, here to treat more fully thereof, and to show, how little ye are to be trusted, as well in this, as in many other points of Doctrine, and how far ye abuse the unlearned Reader by misreporting the third Council of Carthage, being deceived, (if it be error, and not wilful malice) by a place of Gratian very ignorantly, and grossly mistaken.   

M. jewels Forgery concerning the name of Universal Bishop.  

The 40. Chapt. Universal. whi●therby is signified.  This word, Universal, doth import asmuch as one in all, and all in one. For the name of Universality leaveth nothing uncomprised: so that if any man be properly the universal Patriarch, or Bishop, there is no Patriarch, or bishop, which is not in him, and which he is not. Therefore when John of Constantinople named, and wrote himself, Universal Patriarch, or Bishop, albeit perhaps he meant not thereby to derogate from all other patriarchs, and Bishops, but only to make himself equal with the best, (which now also M. jewel liketh well of, and defendeth it for lawful): yet S. Gregory, and before him Pope Pelagius, considering the slander, that might rise by occasion of that proud Title, did worthily resist the said name, and style, as proud, and wicked, both in itself, and specially in the Bishop of Constantinople. For if any man living should take any such name unto him, it should be the first, and chief of all Bishops, which is, the Bishop of Rome. But he doth not so, ne never did so, as the truth is: therefore much less any other Bishop should challenge that name unto him.  
These things are at large proved, and set forth, both by me in my Answer Answer to your Challenge, 
Artic. 4. fol. 90. b. Return. Artic. 4.  and by M. Stapleton in his Return of Untruths against you M. jewel: where you shall find, that S. Gregory did exercise his jurisdiction over all the Bishops in the world (in case they failed in any thing) and took himself to have cure and charge of them all, not as a King, and Tyrant, but as a brother, yea rather a servant to al. 
Gregor. Lib. 7. Epist. 64.  For he confesseth every Bishop to be his equal, so long as he sinneth not, or as long as his Church suffereth not some defect. And in that case, he supplieth all negligences, and all defects, and provideth for all Churches in Asia, in Europa, and in Aphrica, as his Epistles do fully declare. The which if I were disposed here ambitiously to blaze, as M. jewels custom is, I might write out the effect of twelve great books of S. Gregory's epistles, which do fully prove these my sayings. But for so much as that is already done sufficiently, let this one sentence serve for al. S. Gregory saith of his own Church of Rome: 
The Apostolic See Head of all churches. Gregor. li. 11. epist. 54.  Apostolica Sedes omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est. The Apostolic See is the Head of all Churches.  
This being so, let us now consider, that M. jewel doth not only mislike with the name of Universal Bishop, as not becoming the Bishop of Constantinople, because he was of lower degree, than the Bishop of Rome, nor only as unseemly also for the Bishop of Rome, because it containeth a proud and ambitious brag, and a meaning, that may be taken in evil sense (for which cause no Bishop of Rome ever used that name): 
Defence pag. 118.  but also he misliketh with me for saying, that the name of Universal Bishop in a right sense, is no proud name, in respect of him, to whom it belongeth. By a right sense I mean that sense, which S. Gregory allowed, and that, which the fourth general Council allowed.  
Yea farther M. jewel saith, that some Popes would have had, 
Ibidem.  and ambitiously laboured for the title of Universal Bishop: and again, that the Council of Carthage forbade the Pope of Rome to be called the Universal Bishop. All these things are false and fond, as now it shallbe proved.  

Gregor. li. 4. epist. 32 ad Mauricium. Iten eodem lib. epist. 36. ad Eulogium & Anastasium. Item codem lib. epist. 38. ad johannem Constantinop. Gregor. li. 4. epist. 36 T●e name of Universal Bishop offered to Pop● Leo by the Council of Chalcedon. The name of Universal 8. in what sense agreeable to the ●ope.  first, S. Gregory witnesseth, that the fourth Council offered the name of Universal Bishop to Pope Leo▪ Therefore (say I) there is a good meaning in that name, which the See of Rome may lawfully use. For it is not to be thought, that the fourth Universal Council assembled out of the whole world (wherein were six hundred thirty and six Bishops) would have offered that name unto the Pope, which by no means could be verified of him. S. Gregory's words are these, written to Eulogius, and Anastasius, the two patriarchs of Alexandria, and of Antioch. Sicut veneranda vestra sanctitas novit, uni per sanctam Chalcedonensem synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolicae (cui Deo disponente deseruio) hoc Vniversitatis nomen oblatum est. As your Reverend holiness knoweth, this name (of Universality, or of Universal Bishop) was offered by the holy Council of Chalcedon to the only Bishop of the Apostolic See, wherein I serve by the disposition of God.  
If then that name of Universality was offered to the Pope, and only to him: how can it be justified, that the said name may in no sense be agreeable unto the Pope of Rome? If it may be agreeable unto the Pope in any sense, it is in this, because he is the chief of all Bishops, who by office hath care of the whole Church. For the name of Universal must needs have respect to the Whole Church. And in that only sense did the Fathers of that Council of Chalcedon offer that name to the Pope, because they knew that thing, dignity, and office to be in the Pope, for that he is S. Peter's Successor: which cause also is expressed in S. Gregory. 
Gregor. lib 4. epist. 32.  Certè (nomen universalis Episcopi) pro beati Petri Apostolorum Principis honore, per venerandam Chalcedonensem Synodum Romano Pontifici oblatum est. Sooth (the name of Universal Bishop) was offered by the reverend Council of Chalcedon to the Bishop of Rome, for the honour of S. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. Mark M. jewel, he saith not that it was offered, because Rome was the Imperial City: That had been a heathenish respect: but it was offered for the honour of S. Peter. If it may then be used in a good sense only of that Bishop, who is the Successor of S. Peter, M. jewel hath unjustly reproved me.  

That no Pope used the title of Universal Bishop Gregor. li. 4. epis. 32  Now to the second point, that no Pope used the same title. So saith S. Gregory in the same place. Nullus corum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit, nec uti consensit, ne dum privatum aliquid daretur uni, honore debito Sacerdotes privarentur universi. None of the Bishops of Rome hath taken this name of Singularity upon him, nor did consent to use it: lest, whiles some peculiar thing should be given to one, all Priests (or Bishops) together should be deprived of their due honour. This modesty was then in Popes for six hundred years together. But this man here saith:   
jewel. Pag. 118. 
Wherefore then did their Successors that followed afterwards, so ambitiously labour to get the same?  
Harding.  
They laboured not for it, nor used it any time afterward, as their style in all ages till this day, doth witness. For the Bishops of Rome doth not write themselves Universal Bishops, 
The Pope's style, servus servorum Dei.  but each one, servum servorum Dei, the Servant of God's Servants. And that style was of purpose taken and retained of them, to check thereby the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople, who never left his proud name of Universal, till the turk was sent over him, to chasten both him for his Shisme, and all that defended, or obeyed him in despite of the Bishop of Rome.  
And that you bring out of Platina, proveth not, that any Pope ever called himself Universal Bishop: but when the Bishops of Rome saw, that the Bishops of Constantinople would needs by force keep, and use that arrogant name: 
Bonifacius. 3.  then Bonifacius the third intending to stay, that together with that name, the right of the See Apostolic should not be lost, and pass away to the See of Constantinople: then I say Bonifacius obtained, verily not that the See of Rome should be made Universal, or be made Head of all Churches, for so it was ever: but that it might be so taken, and called of all men: lest the Grecians should think, that the chief Pastor of God's sheep sat in Constantinople. Whereof it would follow, that if the chief Postour once taught Heresy (as now the Bishop of Constantinople doth concerning the proceeding of the holy Ghost) than the whole Church should perish, sith all the flock dependeth upon the chief shepherd. Now M. jewel, as he is wont to do, hath most guilefully endeavoured to persuade the Reader, that the Popes call them themselves Universal Bishops, and bringeth Platina forth in such sort, that he will not let him speak his whole mind. His words are these. 
Platina in vita Bonifacij. 3.   
Bonifacius tertius à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit, magna tamen contentione, ut sedes beati Petri Apostoli, quae caput est omnium Ecclesiarum, ita & diceretur, & haberetur ab omnibus: quem quidem locum Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendicare conabatur, faventibus interdum malis Principibus, affirmantibúsque eò loci primam sedem esse debere, ubi Imperij Caput esset. Affirmabant Romani Pontifices, urbem Romam, unde Constantinpolis Colonia deducta est, Caput Imperij meritò habendam esse, cùm etiam Graeci ipsi literis suis principem suum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, Romanorum Imperatorem vocent, ipsique Constantinopolitani etiam aetate nostra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non Graeci vocentur. Omitto quòd Petrus Apostolorum Princep● Successoribus suis Pontificibus Romanis, regni coelorum claves dederit, potestatémque à Deo sibi concessam reliquerit, non Constantinopoli, sed Romae. Illud tamen dico, multos Principes, maximè verò Constantinum comparandae Synodi ac dissoluendae, confutandi vel confirmandi ea quae in Synodis decreta erant, Romanae sedi tantummodo concessisse. Meritò igitur sedes Romana caeteris antefertur, cuius integritate, & constantia cunctae haereses confutatae sunt & explosae.  
Boniface the third obtained of Phocas the Emperor (although not without great difficulty) that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter, which is the Head of all Churches, should both so be called, and also taken of all men, the which place (or preferment) the Church of Constantinople went about to challenge, wicked princes sometimes helping forward the matter, affirming, that the chief See aught to be in that place, where the Head of the Empire was. The bishops of Rome avouched, that the city of Rome was for good cause to be taken for the Head of the Empire, as from whence the city of Constantinople had been translated: Whereas also the Grecians themselves call their Prince, the Emperor of the Romans, and they of Constantinople even in our days are called Romans, and not Grecians. I let pass, how Peter the prince of the Apostles gave unto his Successors the Bishops of Rome, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and left the power, that was given him of God, not to Constantinople, but to Rome. Only this I say, that many Princes, but specially Constantine, granted to the See of Rome only, power and authority to gather, and dissolve Counsels, to reject, and allow those things, that were decreed in Synods. Therefore the See of Rome is worthily preferred before the rest, as by whose integrity, and constancy, all Heresies have been confuted and quite put away.  
This was the Platina M. jewel, whom you alleged, and durst not let him to tell out his tale. But he saith not, that the Popes laboured to be called Universal Bishops, but only to stay the Grecians from a false, and erroneous opinion, and to keep them in the unity of the Roman Church, from whence that usurped name did by little and little withdraw them.  
Thus have we seen two errors of yours, the one, 
Three errors of M. jew. touching this point of universal Bishop  whereas you reprove me for saying, that the name of Universal taken in a right sense, is no proud name in respect of the Bishop of Rome: the other because you impute to the Bishops of Rome, that they laboured for that ambitious name.  
The third error followeth, 
Pag. 118.  which is worse than the other two. For you say, these be the words of the Council of Carthage, as Gratian allegeth them, 
Dist. 99 Prima.  universalis Episcopus nec ipse Romanus Pontifex appelletur. The Bishop of Rome himself may not be called the universal Bishop. And this thing you prosecute, 
Pag. 121. 122.  and repeat again and again. But you bely the Council, and Gratian, and the Gloze too, all at once. And yet you are so highly advanced in your own conceit, that ye seem to make a glorious triumph for it. Thus you say.   
jewel. Pag. 121. 
Now M. Harding, compare our words, and the Councils words together. We say none otherwise, but as the Council saith. The Bishop of Rome himself ought not to be called the Universal Bishop. Herein we do neither add, nor minish, but report the words plainly, as we find them. If you had looked better on your book, and would have tried this matter, as you say, by your learning, ye might well have reserved these uncivil reproaches of falsehood to yourself, and have spared your crying of shame upon this defender.  
Harding.  
I never cried so oft shame upon the Defender, as he deserved, and that he is a shameless man, it shall now be here as clearly tried, as ever it was before. I lay three main Lies to your charge in this matter. 
Three main lies laid to M. jewels charge. Pag. 118. Pag. 121.  Let the world understand, how well ye are able to discharge them. One, for that you say the Council of Carthage forbiddeth the Pope to be called Universal Bishop: An other, for that you say, that Gratian saith so. The third, for that you say, that so much is noted in the Gloze. First the Council of Carthage is extant both in Greek, and in Latin: but those words be found in neither of both Copies. In Greek, the Decree is thus uttered.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In which words there is no mention made of the Universal Bishop. Now the Latin words are these in the first book of the Counsels. 
Carthag. Conc. 3. c. 26.   primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum, aut summus Sacerdos, aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed tantùm primae sedis Episcopus. It is by us decreed, that the Bishop of a first See be not called the Prince of Priests, or the highest Priest, 
M. jev. falsifieth the Council of Carthage. In Nomocanon.  or any the like, but only the Bishop of a first See. Where also no mention is made of the Universal Bishop. Balsamon also making a Comment upon the same Canon, yet speaketh no word of the Universal Bishop. We see then plainly, that M. jewel hath falsified the said Canon, by adding the words of Universal Bishop to it, which are not in the Canon expressed.  
Nay (saith he) your own Doctor Gratian doth allege it so. This say I, 
M. jev. falsifieth Gratian'S meaning.  is a worse falsehood than the former. Gratian useth to keep a certain order, and method in other places of his book, as he doth in this special place, 
Distin. 99  whereof M. jewel now would feign take advantage. In that Distinction he treateth of patriarchs, saying in the first part, that archbishops must obey patriarchs. In the second, that archbishops must not be called ordinarily Primates: In the third, that the Pope himself is not to be called Universal.  
And so doth the Gloze divide this Distinction, 
Glosa in distin. 99  beginning thus. Haec Distinctio dividitur in tres parts, in quarum prima dicitur, quòd ubi erant Primates Gentium olim, ibi sunt modò Primates, id est, Patriarchae, qui idem habent officium, licet nomina sint diversa. Secunda ibi: nulli Archiepiscopi. Tertia ibi, universalis.  
This Distinction is divided into three parts: in the first of which it is said, that where the Primates of the Heathens were in old time, there are now the Primates, that is to say, patriarchs: who have the same office (that Primates have) although the names be divers. The second part of this Distinction beginneth at the words, Nulli Archiepiscopi: The third part beginneth at the word, universalis. This being so, it will follow, that Gratian meant to place the Canon of the Council of Carthage, in the second part of his 99 Distinction. And so the matter of the universal Bishop is not referred by Gratian to the Council of Carthage. He never meant any such thing. Neither was there any cause in deed why he should so have meant. 
The true discussion of Gratian'S words in the 99 distinction.  But it is referred to the third part of the distinction, which followeth afterward. For it is Gratian'S custom for the connexion of his matters, one after an other, to put in his own words many times, whereby to signify unto his reader, what followeth. These words then (universalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur: unde Pelagius secundus omnibus Episcopis). These words I say, be Gratian'S own words, which are this much in English. Not so much as the Bishop of Rome himself, may be called Universal Bishop, whereupon Pelagius the Second writeh to all Bishops.  
If now M. jewel be so blind a Lawyer, as to say, that the words universalis Episcopus, etc. do appertain to the former Decree of the Carthage Council, and be a piece thereof: he may say also that these words, unde Pelagius Episcopus, etc. be words of the Carthage Council. For they are no less in the same Chapter, as it may seem. But verily a mean wise man might have seen the difference of these matters. And yet M. jewel is so lusty in his game, that he doubteth not to say:   
jewel. 

Pag. 121. distin. 99  And in the Gloze thereupon it is noted thus. In hac distinctione dicitur, quòd Papa non debet dici universalis. In this distinction it is said, that the Pope ought not to be called the Universal Bishop.  
Harding.  
O impudent Gloser. Are you not ashamed to show your peevish falsehood after this sort? Why left you out the beginning of the sentence? Why have you placed, and counterfeited the words, otherwise than they are in the gloze? There they are thus written, universalis, 
M. jew. foully falsifieth the Gloze upon Gratian.  haec est tertia pars Distinctionis, in qua dicitur, quòd Papa non debet vocari universalis. This word, Universal is the first word, whereat the third part of the distinction beginneth, in which third part it is said, that the Pope ought not to be called Universal. It is the third part, saith the gloze, which is to say, it is not the second part, (wherein the Decree of the Council of Carthage was rehearsed) it is the third part. For as the first part spoke of Primates, the second of archbishops so the third speaketh of the Pope. The Decree of Carthage belongeth to the matter of archbishops, and therefore it standeth in the second part. Where are now these vain brags so oft doubled by M. jewel, that these words (Let not the Pope be called the Universal Bishop) are the words of the Council of Carthage, as Gratian allegeth: 
Pag. 118.  They are not the words of that Council, neither doth Gratian so allege them, nor doth the Gloze so take them, and consequetly you are like yourself, I need not tell what.  
Some man perhaps will say, at the lest they are Gratian'S words, and then he holdeth, that the Pope ought not to be called the Universal Bishop. Concerning that objection I answer, that Gratian doth no more but join together divers decrees, and his words depend upon those that follow. For he referreth himself to the Decrees, which he there immediately after reciteth. These Decrees are, the one of Pope Pelagius the second, the other of Pope Gregory the first, which both refused the name of Universal Bishop, as also all their successors have done. But neither of them both refused that sense, and meaning of the name, wherein the fourh Council offered that name unto Pope Leo: 
In what sense the fourth Council offered unto Pope Leo the title of universal Bishop which the catholics defend. Greg. li. 7 Epis. 64.  and that sense we only defend: To wit, that the See of Rome is Head of all Churches, and may correct, or supply the want of any Church whatsoever, by sending a Bishop to it where none is, or by deposing him, that is unwotthy of that room. For hereof the same S. Gregory (who refused to be called, Universal) writeth thus. Quod se dicit (Primas Bizancenus) sedi Apostolicae subijci, si quae culpa in Episcopis invenitur, nescio quis ei Episcopus subiectus non sit. Cùm verò culpa non exigit, omnes secundùm rationem humilitatis aequales sunt. Whereas the primate of Constantinople saith, he is under the Apostolic See, 
A saying of S. Gregory to be noted touching this whole controversy.  if any fault be found in the Bishops, I know not what Bishop is not subject hereunto. But when no fault requireth so, all are equal, according as humility would it should be.  
Concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, I think it not convenient to stand here any longer about it, seeing all the Articles thereof are sufficiently by me handled already, both in my Answer to the Challenge, and also in the Confutation of th'Apology, M. Dorman also hath answered to the Objection out of the sixth Council of Carthage, and M. Stapleton hath well handled the matter of Appeals, of the confirmation of Counsels, of the Pope's jurisdiction over the East, and of their not erring in the faith. D. Saunder hath showed Peter to be the Rock, and the Popes to be his successors. He hath showed also, how the other Apostles were equal with Peter, and how in other respects they had less power, for ordinary continuance in their successors, than Peter had.  
But if I were of M. jewels boasting humour, I should now dissemble all this, and write it in here a fresh, as though nothing had been said thereof before. But I trow wise men espy that smoky pride in him well enough. I wiss less books might have served him, for any good stuff that is to be found in them.     

The fourth Book containeth a full refutation of all that M. jewel hath laid together in his pretenced Defence touching the Succession of Bishops in the Church from the Apostles time, unto this present age: Item a proof of the necessity of Confession.  

WRITING the Confutation of the Apology, I had occasion to speak of the Succession of Bishops. Thereto M. jewel in his pretenced Defence hath replied at great length. Wherein because he may perhaps to the unlearned seem to have some colour of advantage against us, the matter being of good weight, I judge it not unprofitable to bestow some labour, and here to confute his whole Defence touching that point, whereby I doubt not it shall appear, how little credit he deserveth, if his sayings be thoroughly examined, where he blazeth forth most show of learning. That it may appear, how directly he answereth the points of this Controversy, and of what pith his own sayings, and how much to the purpose his testimonies be, and how truly alleged, and that all be made the more plain and clear: I will rehearse, first, the place of the Apology, that gave me occasion to treat of Succession, than the words of my Confutation, against which M. jewel bendeth the force of his Defence. After this I will lay forth his whole Defence sentence by sentence, word by word, as I find it in his book, and so briefly as I can, refel the same. I am driven to rehearse that discourse of my Confutation again, because a great part of the Defence depending thereof, and being directed against the same, unless it were again by rehearsal commended to the reader's view and memory, our whole disputation would be obscure, and uncertain. And this have I done also the rather, to th'intent the reader might have that part of my Confutation entire and whole, which M. jewel hath caused to be set forth in his book, pared, hewed, dismembered, and altogether disgraced.   

The Apology part. 2. Cap. 5. Diuis. 1. in the Defence. Pag. 125.  
Furthermore we say, that the minister ought lawfully, duly and orderly to be preferred to that office of the Church of God, and that no man hath power to wrist himself into the holy ministery at his own pleasure. Wherefore these persons do us the greater wrong, which have nothing so common in their mouths, as that we do nothing orderly and comely, but all things troublesomly and without order: and that we allow every man to be a priest, to be a teacher, and to be an interpreter of the scriptures.  

Confutation. fol. 56. a.  

Al from star to star left out by M. jewel.  Saing and doing are two things. Ye say well in outward appearance. Would God your doing were accordingly. Albeit the manner of your saying had been more commendable, if in so weighty a point you had spoken more particularly and distinctly, not so generally, and confusely. * Ye say that the minister ought lawfully to be called (for so hath your Latin) and duly and orderly to be preferred to that office of the Church of God. Why do ye not so? why is not this observed among you Gospelers? What so ever ye mean by your Minister, and by that office, this are we assured of, that in this your new Church Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, or any other inferior Orders ye have none. 
No holy orders, among the gospelers. Le●● out by M. jewel.  In saying thus we speak not of our Apostates, that be fled from us unto your congregations. Who as they remain in the order which they received in the catholic Church: so being divided and cut of from the Church and excommunicate, lawfully they may not minister the sacraments. * For where as after the doctrine of your new Gospel like the foreronners of Antichrist ye have abandoned thexternal Sacrifice and priesthood of the new Testament, and have not in your sect consecrated Bishops, and therefore being without Priests made with lawful laying on of hands, as Scripture requireth, all holy Orders being given by Bishops only: how can ye say that any among you can lawfully minister, or that ye have any lawful Ministers at all?  
This then being so, let me have leave to oppose one of these Defenders consciences. And that for the better understanding I may direct my words to a certain person, let him be the author of this Apology, or because his name to me is unknown, let him be M. jewel. for with him gladly would I reason in this point the rather for acquaintance, and for that he beareth the name of a Bishop in that Church, where myself had a room.  
How say you Sir minister Bishop, ought the Minister to be lawfully called? aught he duly and orderly to be preferred to that office, or (as the Latin here hath) promoted or put in authority over the Church? in the Apology this Defender saith yea. 
Left out by M. jewel.  Then answer me directly. How prove you yourself lawfully called to the room you take upon you to occupy? First, touching the ordinary Succession of Bishops, from which as you know, S. Iraeneus, Tertullian, Optatus and S. Augustine bring argument and testimony of right and true religion: do you allow the same with those fathers, or no? If not, then descent you from the learned and most uncorrupt antiquity. which is not reasonable, neither then are you to be heard. If yea, then how can you reckon us up your succession, by which you may refer your imposition of hands and consecration to some of the Apostles, or of their scholars, as the foresaid fathers did, to repel the novelties of heresies, and defend their continual possession of the Church? Which if ye go about, how can ye but to the great hindrance of your cause bewray your weak hold? For whereas succession of doctrine must be joined with the succession of persons, as Caluine in his institutions affirmeth, and Beza avouched at the assembly of Poyssi in France, and we also grant: 
Succession of doctrine joined with succession of persons.  how many Bishops can you reckon, whom in the Church of Sarisburie you have succeeded as well in doctrine as in outward sitting in that chair? How many can you tell us of, that being your Predecessors in order before you, were of your opinion, and taught the faithful people of that Diocese the doctrine that you teach? Did Bishop Capon teach your doctrine? did Shaxton? did Campegius? did Bishop Audley? Briefly did ever any Bishop of that See before you teach your doctrine? It is most certain they did not. 
B. Shaxton and, B. Capon repent. Left out by M. jewel.  How so ever those two first named only in some part of their life taught amiss, how afterward they repented, abhorred your heresies, and died catholics, it is well known.  
Now besides these whom else can you name? 
M. jewel can show no lawful succession in the bishopric of Salisbury.  If you can not show your bishoply Pedigree, if you can prove no Succession, then whereby hold you? Will you show us the letters patents of the prince? Well may they stand you in some stead before men: before God, who shall call you to account for presuming to take the highest office in his Church not duly called thereto, they shall serve you to no purpose.  

I cast out by M. jewel.  Here if you allege an interruption of this Succession of doctrine, as it hath been alleged by some of your side: then must you tell us when and where the same began, which you can never do. 
In prascis ptionibus adversus haereticos. These be Tertullians' words.  You know what Tertullian saith of such as ye be. Edant origines ecclesiarum suarum etc. We say likewise to you M. jewel, and that we say to you, we say to each one of your companions. Tell us the original and first spring of your Church. Show us the register of your Bishops continually succeeding one another from the beginning, so as that first Bishop have some one of the Apostles, or of the Apostolic men for his author and predecessor. For by this way the Apostolic churches show what reputation they be of. As the Church of Smyrna telleth us of Polycarpe by john the Apostle placed there. The Church of the Romans telleth us of Clement ordained by Peter. S. Augustine having reckoned up in order the Bishops of Rome to Anastasius successor to Siricius, who was the eight and thirteth after Peter, saith that in all that number and roll of Bishops there is not found one that was a Donatiste, 
Epist. 165.  and thereof he concludeth, Ergo the Donatists be not catholics. So after that we have reckoned all the Bishops of Sarisburie from Bishop Capon upward, we shall come at length in respect of doctrine and orders, to S. Augustin the Apostle of the English, who was made bishop by S. Gregory, and from S. Gregory upward to S. Peter. And in all that rewe of Bishops we shall find never a one that believeth, as M. jewel believeth. ergo your Zwinglian and Calvinian belief M. jewel and of the rest of your fellows is not catholic. 
Left out by M. jewel.  But what speak we of succession to them, who have no orderly succession, as no sect of heretics ever had? 
Hard que●●ion● proponed to M. jewel.   
Therefore to go from your Succession, which ye can not prove, and to come to your Vocation, how say you Sir? you bear yourself, as though you were Bishop of Sarisbury. But how can you prove your Vocation? By what authority usurp you the administration of Doctrine, and Sacraments? What can you allege for the right and proof of your ministery? Who hath called you? Who hath laid hands 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 upon you? Be you a Priest, or be you not? If you be not, how dare you usurp the name and office of a bishop? If you be, tell us who gave you Orders? The institution of a Priest, was never yet but in the power of a Bishop. Bishops have always after the Apostles time according to the Ecclesiastical Canons been consecrated by three other Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitan, and confirmation of the B. of Rome.  

Left out by M. jewel.  Thus Unity hath hitherto been kept, thus Schisms have been stayed. And this S. Cyprian calleth legitimam ordinationem. For lack of which he denied Novatian to be a bishop, or to have any authority or power in the Church. Hereto neither you nor your fellows, who have unlawfully invaded the administration of the Sacraments, can make any just and right answer, I am sure.  

Athanas. in Apologia. 2.  What, do not you remember what judgement Athanasius, and the Bishops of egypt, Thebais, Lybia, and Pentapoli were of concerning Ischyras the Arian? And why may not all good Catholic men judge the like of you? 
Ischyras and M jewel compared together.  Macarius a Priest of Athanasius (as it was laid to his charge by his accusers) pulled Ischyras from the altar as he was at Mass, overthrew the holy table, broke the chalice. The matter brought to judgement, Athanasius and those bishops both denied the fact, and also though it were granted, yet defended the same as well done, because Ischyras was not a lawful minister of the Church. And why so? Because he was not lawfully made Priest, nor with churchly laying on of hands consecrated. 
Left out by M. jewel. Colluthus. Hunc presbyteri & Diaconi Mareotici vocant non verum, sed imaginarium episcopum. Epist. ad Curiosum & Phylagrium. Apolog. 2. apud Athanasium.  For proof thereof they alleged, that neither he was of the number of those whom Alexander bishop of Alexandria before Athanasius received into the Church made Priests by Meletius the heretic, neither that he was by the said Alexander created. Then how is Ischyras a priest, say they, or of whom hath he received his orders? Hath he received them of Colluthus? For this shift only remaineth. (Colluthus was an Arian, who bore himself for a bishop and gave 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 priesthood himself, and never was consecrated bishop, and that all imposition of hands or giving of orders was counted of no force, and that all they whom he had consecrated, were brought down again to the order of the laity, and under the name and in order of lay men received the communion. Hereof they conclude that Ischyras could be no priest. And therefore it was denied, that there was the mystery of the body and blood of our Lord. 
What may be judged of the new communion.  By which example besides other points we are taught, what to judge of your pretenced Communion.  
Again what say you to Epiphanius, who writeth against one Zacchaeus of his time, for that being but a lay man with wicked presumption took upon him to handle the holy mysteries, and rashly to do the office of a Priest? 
Contra haereses lib. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lest out by M. jewel.  Likewise where he findeth great fault with two other, of which the one dwelled at a monastery in the wilderness of Egypt, the other at Sinaeum: for that they feared not to execute the things that belong to Bishops not having received the imposition of hands, 
The doing of a bishop's office by one that is not a bishop.  that pertaineth to the consecration of a Bishop. And will you understand what Epiphanius judged of that wicked disorder? He acknowledgeth it to be the part of men that of a certain presumption of minds violently and beside all truth play the rash and dissolute wantoness. 
What Epiphanius judgeth of it  For so the Greek signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus they be neither Priests nor Deacons, which be not consecrated lawfully according to the order used in the Church, that is to wit, by bishops lawfully consecrated, but either by the people or the lay magistrate, as it is in some places where this doctrine is professed, or by monks and friars Apostates, or by excommunicate priests having no bishoply power. 
In Dialogo contra Luciferia nos.   
Hereof S. Jerome saith notably. Hilarius cùm Diaconus de Ecclesia recesserit, etc. Hilary forasmuch as he went from the Church being a Deacon, and is only (as he thinketh) the multitude of the world, can neither consecrate the Sacrament of the altar being without Bishop and Priests, nor deliver Baptism without the Eucharist. And where as now the man is dead, with the man also the Sect is ended, because being a Deacon he could not consecrate any clerk, that should remain after him. And Church is there none, which hath not a Priest. 
Sacerdoten  But letting go these few of little regard that to themselves be both lay and Bishops, listen what is to be thought of the Church. Thus S. Jerome there. In whom leaving other things I note, that if there be no Church where is no Priest: where is your Church like to become after that our Apostates that now be fled from us to you, shallbe departed this life? 
Left out by M. jewel. By S. Jerome the English church shall be no Church at al.  And yet being with you as they be, your Church is already in such state as S. Jerome reporteth, that is, no Church at all, how so ever ye set forth your new gospel under the name of the Church of England. Bucer being once charged to give account of his vocation, had no other shift, but to acknowledge for defence of his ministery, that he had taken Orders of a bishop after the rite and manner of the Catholic Church.  

Luther's advise touching Muncers vocation  Sleidan recordeth that Luther himself wrote to the senate of Mulhusen concerning Muncer the preacher of the anabaptists, who stirred the common people of Germany to rise against their nobility, that the senate should do well to demand of Muncer, who committed to him the office of teaching, and who had called him thereto. And if he would name God for his author, that then they should require him to prove his vocation by some evident sign or miracle. If he could not do that, than he advised them, to put him away. For this is the wont of God said he, when so ever he willeth the accustomed form and ordinary manner to be changed, to declare his will by some sign. 
* Of what manner is the vocation of our supper intends  Therefore this being true, it remaineth M. jewel, you tell us, whether your vocation be ordinary, or extraordinary. If it be ordinary, show us the letters of your Orders. At lest show us that you have received power to do the office you presume to exercise, by due order of laying on of hands and consecration. But order and consecration you have not. For who could give that to you of all these new ministers how so ever else you call them, which he hath not himself? If it be extraordinary (as all that ye have done hitherto is beside all good order) show us some sign or miracle, If you fail in all these, why ought not you to be put away? 
* The Defenders have nothing to say for defence of their vocation.  If you can show no sign or miracle, as your virtue promiseth us none: bring us forth some example of your extraordinary vocation out of the Stories of Christ's Church that hath followed the Apostles. If you be destitute also thereof, at lest show us, what prophet in the old Testament ever was heard extraordinarily without sign, or miracle, or testimony of God. 
* Left out by M. jewel.   
Finally what can you answer to that, 
Lib. 1. Epist. 6.  which may be objected to you out of S. Cyprians epistle to Magnus touching Novatian? It was at those days a question, whether Novatian baptised and offered, specially where as he used the form, manner and ceremonies of the Church. Cyprian denieth it. 
Eusebius Ecclesiast. Hist. li. 6. cap. 43. in Graec.  For he can not (saith he) be counted a Bishop, who setting at nought the Tradition of the Gospel, and of the Apostles, nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est, succeeding no man, is ordained bishop of himself. For by no means may one have or hold a Church, that is not ordained in the Church. 
Left out by M. jewel. M. jewel and the rest of his companions, be no bishops, but usurpers of an undue office and ministery.  I leave here to recite the rest of that Epistle pertaining to this point, and all against you, for that it were to long. Thus it is evident, for as much as you can neither prove your doctrine by continual Succession of Priests, nor refer your Imposition of hands to any Apostle, or Apostolic Bishop, nor show your Vocation to be ordinary for lack of lawful ordination and consecration, nor extraordinary for lack of God's testimony and approbation by sign or miracle, or example of the old or new Testament: that you are not lawfully called to the administration of Doctrine and Sacraments, that you are not duly and orderly preferred to the ministery which you exercise, that you go, not being called, that you run, not being sent. Therefore we may justly say, that ye have thrust yourselves into that ministery at your own pleasure and list. For though the Prince have thus promoted you, yet be ye presumers and thrusters in of yourselves. Well, lands and manors the Prince may give you, Priesthood and Bishophod the Prince can not give you. 
jerem. 23.  This being so, we do you no wrong as ye complain, in telling you and declaring to the world, that touching the exercise of your ministery ye do nothing orderly, or comely, but all things troublesomly and without order. unless ye mean such order and comeliness, as thieves observe among themselves in the distribution of their robberies.  
Lastly, if ye allow not every man, yea and every woman, to be a Priest, why drive ye not some of your fellows to recant, that so have preached? why allow ye the books of your new Evangelists, that so have written? 
Left out by M. jewel.  And whether ye admit all sorts of the common people to be your Ministers of the word, to teach the people, and unreverently to handle the holy Scriptures, or no: our proof is needless, the thing is manifest. *   

Harding.  
Here treating of Succession, as thou seest Reader, I have among other things brought forth Tertullian demanding of the Heretics the Original of their Churches, 
Tertul. lib. de prescription.  and the Register of their Bishops succeeding one an an other from the beginning till his tyme. Again I have alleged S. Augustine naming. 38. Popes of Rome in order, 
August. Epist. 165  and thereof concluded, that because never a one of them was a Donatist, the Donatists were all Heretics. Whereupon I also concluded, that, seeing among all the Popes from S. Peter till this day, none was of M. jewels opinion, he and his fellows, the zwinglians, and calvinists, must by the rule S. of Augustine, be taken for Heretics. For the true Church is, where the true ordinary, and manifest Succession is, from the Apostles till these our days. This only I require of thee gentle reader, that thou wouldest vouchsafe to read this matter through: and not to judge before all be heard. For in deed following M. jewels confuse order of writing, I could not dispose my things in such Method and Order, as the weight of the matter requireth. Because the matter is of importance, I intent to leave out no part of M. jewels words, whereby he may seem to impugn the Catholic doctrine. And by the treaty of this one point it will appear, what huge books we should write, if we should direct a full answer to every part of his idle talk in the pretenced Defence contained. Thus than he beginneth.    

jewel. Pag. 127. 
Here hath M. Harding taken some pains, more than ordinary. He thought, if he could by any colour make the world believe, we have neither bishops, nor Priests, nor Deacons this day in the Church of England, he might the more easily claim the whole right unto himself.  
And in deed if it were certain that the religion, and truth of God passeth evermore orderly by Succession, and none otherwise: then were Succession whereof he hath told us so long a tale, a very good substantial Argument of the Truth.  
Harding.  
Irenaeus saith it is a certain Rule to know the Truth by. For having reckoned twelve Popes, who in order succeeded after S. Peter, to wit, Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anice●●, Soter and Eleutherius, who then was the twelfth Bishop from the Apostles, 
Irenaeus lib. 3. ca 3.  immediately he saith thus: Hac ordinatione, & successione, ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesia Traditio & veritatis praeconiatio, pervenit usque ad nos. Et est ple●issima haec ●stensio, unim & eandem vivificatricem fidem esse, quae in Ecclesia ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conseruata & troditain veritate. By this order and Succession, the Tradition, and preaching of the truth, which is in the Church from the Apostles time, came even to our days. And this is a most full declaration, that the faith, which is kept in the Church, and delivered in truth from the Apostles time even till this present hour, is the one self same faith, which is the causer of life and of salvation. He saith it is a most full declaration of the true and lively faith. And you will confess I trow, that where that faith is, there is the true Church of God.  
Such a Succession of Bishops in divers countries we have, and can show it from the Apostles time till this day. As the rew and order of Popes in all Chronicles doth show to the eye, and witnesseth to the understanding.  
But such a Succession M. jewel, and his fellows have not: therefore by his own confession, we have a good substantial Argument of the Truth.   
jewel. Pag. 127. 
But Christ saith, In cathedra Moysi sederunt Scribae, & Pharisaei: by order of succession, the scribes, 
Math. 22.  and Pharisees sit in Moses' chair.  
Harding.  
Well handled M. jewel. You bring these words, as though Christ had spoken them in the reproach of Succession: Whereas Christ in that place made an Argument for Succession in this wise: Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scriba & Pharisaei, 
Math. 23.  omnia ergo quaecunque dixerint vobis, seruate, & facite. Upon the chair of Moses, the Scribes, and Pharisees have sitten. Therefore keep ye, and do ye, what so ever they say unto you, or command you to keep.  
Can you not see that Ergo M. jewel, which is to say, Therefore? Can you not perceive that Christ made a plain argument why, and why only the Scribes, and Pharisees should be obeyed? The matter goeth as if in more words it had been thus said: The Scribes and Pharisees be naughty men, their works are not to be followed, they ●ie heavy and importable burdens, laying them on men's shoulders, 
Math. 23.  but they themselves will not so much as once m●●● them with their finger: They do all their works for a show. (Thus Christ himself doth paint them forth) all which notwithstanding, for only Successions sake, because by order of Succession they sit in Moses' chair, which my father and I have planted, in respect thereof do ye, and keep what so ever they command you to do and keep.  

Mark the word of keeping.  Mark that he bindeth the people to obey the very Scribes for Successions sake, and to obey them in keeping, and observing the former laws, and rites. To keep I say. Beware of that Bishop, who not succeeding, but usurping the chair of good men (as M. jewel doth having justled himself into the chair of good S. Osmund, and others more in the Church of Sarisburie) doth yet command the people not to keep things, but to cast them away. 
These new bishops will not the people to keep their faith, but to change their faith.  There is no Bishop of this new Religion, that commandeth the people to keep their old faith, and law: but always he biddeth them to change it. But Christ bade the people to do that, which the Pharisees commanded them to keep, and not to follow their deeds. The Pharisees killed Christ, but by keeping their laws and Orders, they should never have come thereto. If ever place of holy Scripture made for any truth in the Gospel, this place, which M. jewel bringeth against Succession, maketh for it, and so for it, that it can never be avoided. What Doctor ever wrote upon the holy Scriptures, who might not now be brought for a witness of this my assertion? S. Augustine saith, that Christ made the people secure concerning evil Rulers. Ne propter illos doctrinae salutaris Cathedra descreretur, 
August. Epist. 166.  in qua coguntur etiam mali bona dicere. Neque enim suae sunt quae dicunt, sed Dei, qui in cathedra unitatis, doctrinam posuit veritatis. Lest for their sakes the chair of wholesome Doctrine should be forsaken, in the which, yea wicked men are forced to say that which is good. For the things which they say, are not their own, but Gods, who in the chair of Unity, hath placed the doctrine of Verity. And immediately S. Augustine bringeth forth this text of Christ, whereupon we now dispute.  
S. Chrysostom saith, 
Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 74. Benefit granted unto Succession. johannes Sarisburiensis in Polycratico, de Curialium nugis. li. 6 cap. 24. Platina in Vitis Pontificum.  whereas Christ could not make the Scribes and Pharisees worthy of faith for their manners, he doth it à sede Moysi & doctrina, for that they sat in the seat of Moses, and taught his doctrine. So that, albeit Scribes and Pharisees did sit in S. Peter's chair at Rome (as M. jewel affirmeth one John of Sarisburie to say, who in deed saith it not of himself, but in familiar talk reported, unto Adrianus quartus, the Pope, what was bruited abroad by the common people): yet for their chair, and Successions sake, they must be obeyed. For in the chair of Unity God hath put the doctrine of Verity: and in that chair evil men have been constrained to say the Truth, as I could show at large by the example of Pope Vigilius, who a thousand years past, before he came to be Pope, promised the Empress to confirm the Patriarch of Constantinople being an Heretic: but being once in the chair of Peter, he chose rather (through God's grace) to suffer death, then that he would so defile the See Apostolic, as by open bishoply fact, to establish an heretic in a bishoply seat.   
jewel. pag. 127. 
Annas and Caiphas touching Succession, were as well Bishops, as Aaron, and Eleazar.  
Harding.  
Not fully so well: because perhaps they came to it by Simony; and yet because they were Bishops, and sat in that chair, God honoured them, I wiss not for any virtue of theirs, but only for their Chairs sake. The honour which God gave them, was the gift of Prophecy, as it appeareth by that which he gave evidently to Caiphas, who was the Bishop of that year. 
August. tract. in johan. 11.  Which thing S. john witnesseth in these words. unus ex Pontificibus Caiphas nomine, cùm esset Pontifex anni illius, prophetavit, quia jesus moriturus erat pro gente. One of the chief Priests Caiphas by name, whereas he was Bishop of that year, prophesied, that jesus should die for the people. Upon which place S. Chrysostom saith: 
Chrysost. In johan. homil. 64  Vides quanta sit pontificalis potestatis virtus? Cum enim pontifex esset, licet indignus, prophetavit, nescius tamen quid diceret, & ostantùm Gratia, non autem foelestum cor attigit. Dost thou see, how great the virtue of bishopply power is? For whereas he was a Bishop, albeit unworthy, he prophesied, yet not knowing, what he said. And the Grace touched his mouth only, but not his wicked heart. And afterward again.  
Quid signat▪ quum esset pontifex anni illius? What mean these words, whereas he was Bishop of that year? Among other this custom was corrupted. For now the high priesthood was not during life, but made a yearly dignity, and was given year by year, from the time that the chiefty was to be sold for money. Veruntamen etiam sic aderat spiritus. Yet that notwithstanding the holy Ghost (or gift of God) was yet present. Postquàm autem in Christum manus extenderunt, tunc eos dereliquit, & abijt ad Apostolos. But after they extended their hands upon Christ, than the holy Ghost forsook them, and went from them to the Apostles.  
S. Augustine likewise writeth thus. 
August. in Johannem. tract. 49.  Hîc docemur etiam homines malos prophetiae spiritu futura praedicere: quod tamen evangelista divino tribuit sacramento, quia Pontifex fuit, id est, summus sacerdos. Here we are taught, that even evil men foretell things to come by the spirit of prophecy, the which thing yet the Evangelist ascribeth to the divine Sacrament, because he was the Bishop, that is to say, the high Priest.  
If then Caiphas being one of the vilest men that ever was, and committing the most horrible sin that can be devised in murdering Christ, yet for his succession's sake, had the gift of prophecy: shall we now give ear to M. jewels itching humour, wherein he so rejoiceth to reckon up the faults of the Popes of Rome?  
Be it some of them were proud, and some conjurers, 
The Popes teach truth not withstanding their evil life.  or never see great sinners beside: yet so long as they sit in Peter's chair (which doubtless hath no less privilege, than Moses' chair had) we say, they have the holy ghost to this effect, that they keeping themselves in the faith of their Predecessors, shall not be suffered to teach us false doctrine out of the chair of Unity, which chair of Unity Optatus more than eleven hundred years past, affirmed Peter's chair to be, 
Optat. lib. 2. contra Parmen.  and reckoned up the Bishops thereof in order till his own time. Therefore as from Moses' time till Christ's Coming, God of his mercy provided, that a Bishop, and high Priest, with other Priests and Levites about him, should not fail in Moses' chair, whom all men under pain of death (as it is said in the book of Deuteronomie 
Deut. 17. ) were bound to hear, and obey: so much more in the time of Grace, God hath provided, that in the chair of S. Peter (to whom loving Christ more than the other Apostles, 
johan. 21.  he consequently gave Authority to feed his sheep, in such superiority above the other Apostles, as he loved above them): much more I say now God hath provided, that there shall not lack till Christ's second coming a Bishop, or high Priest in Peter's chair, with other Bishops, and Priests not only about him in that one City of Rome, but also joined with him in the same faith and doctrine in many Countries and Nations together, whose final sentence in matters of faith, and of good manners, who so ever heareth, and obeyeth, heareth, and obeyeth Christ, but who so ever despiseth the same, he despiseth Christ himself. Now I say to you M. jewel, what Bishop had your faith with preachers, Ministers, or Deacons about him from age to age, who might witness in all generations the Doctrine of Christ, and the ordinary Succession of the Church?   
jewel. Pag. 127. 
Of Succession S. Paul saith to the faithful at Ephesus: I know that after my departure hence, ravening wolves shall enter, 
Act. 20.  and succeed me. And out of yourselves there shall, (by succession) spring up men speaking perversely.  
Harding.  
I thought so: you have a succession to, but it is of ravening Wolves. They are your Predecessors, and ye are their Successors. For this saying, 
M. jewel falsifieth the Scripture.  as you have handled it, is yours, and no●●. Paul's. He saith not, that ravening Wolves should succeed him, as your blasphemous pen hath uttered: but he saith only that after his departure ravening Wolves shall enter in. 
Scriptures falsified by M. jewel.   
But he addeth not that they shall succeed him (that is your accursed addition) but he saith, non parcentes gregi, which you have left out. Those ravening Wolves shall not spare the flock, but shall divide the faith, and scatter the flock, as you have done. For where one Faith was, you have made two, and where charity was, you have set debate. Now whereas S. Paul farther saith, men speaking perverse things shall spring out of themselves, he saith not, 
Act. 20.  they shall spring by Succession: That is your foul corruption of the holy text.  
He addeth also other words immediately, which you have left out as utterly betraying your foul Heresies. It followeth in the self same clause and sentence, ut abducant discipulos post se: There shall spring out of yourselves men speaking perverse things, 
Act. 20.  to lead away scholars after them.  abducant, to lead away. Whence shall they lead them? from the Apostles, and from their Successors, and from the flock, wherein they lived before. Whither shall they lead them? Post se, after themselves. That is to say, they shall not keep the former Succession of Doctrine and order, teaching as their Fathers have done, but they shall depart from that Succession, and shall lead and cari●… others away with them, and become perverse Teachers, in such sort, that they shall have Disciples of their own, who shall bear their name: as Luther hath the Lutherans, Zuinglius hath the zwinglians, Caluine hath the calvinists after him, who go away from their forefather's Doctrine, and themselves set up a new belief, coming in Christ's name, and pretending his Gospel, but yet not teaching his truth, because they leave the Succession, where only his truth was, and is taught. For it only doth by open practice show, and witness the true meaning of his word.  

who be the leaders away of the Flock 3. Reg. 12.  This, this M. jewel is the Succession that we claim by. Tu abducis, you lead away the flock from their ancient Pastors, and shepherds, we tarry still behind in the old Succession of Peter's chair. jeroboam went out from Moses' chair, and carried ten tribes after him, so did Arius, and so did Luther, so did Caluine, so do you. The Prophets tarried behind with Moses' chair, in so much that good Simeon, Anna, Zacharias, Elizabeth, and our Lady the Blessed Virgin Marie, chose rather to dwell in God's Church with the unclean scribes, and Pharisees, then to go out ofter the Samaritans, and to seek a cleaner Congregation, either in the mount Garizim, or in Egipte in the Scismatical Temple of Onias. Even so do we abide still in the old Church, neither are we greatly moved with your mocks, and scoffs, when ye call it the Mumpsimus Church. Yea we abide contented with the old translation of the Bible, with the old Portuises, and Mass books, yea perhaps also among some Scribes, and Pharisees. But yet there by God's grace, we will look for our Lords glorious coming, who commended our forefathers to the special charge of Peter, 
joan. 21.  and therein us to his Successors.  
We are within the Fold, ye without, we are Sheep, ye are Goats: we keep in all that we can, ye draw away, and pull out all that ye can: we sprang not out of you, but ye out of us. If S. Paul had spoken of his Successors in that place, he would not have said,  abducant, to lead away scholars. For when some be lead away, some others tarry behind. Now the Successor, if he abide not behind, he is no Successor, 
Nestorius' a skatterer of the flock.  but a leader away. In so much that Nestorius being Bishop of Constantinople, yet when he taught otherwise of Christ's Person, than his Predecessors had done, he was then no Successor of Alexander, Paulus, and S. Chrysostom, because he disallowed those his Predecessors, but he was a scatterer of the flock, and a leader away of Scholars after himself, and not after his Predecessors.  
Think you that any true believing man taketh you M. jewel for one of the Successors of S. Augustine our Apostle, 
M. jew. no Successor of our Apostle S. Augustine,  who converted our English nation from Idolotrie to Christ? Are you his Successor? Why, you lead men away from him, and persuade in this your book, that he was not our true Apostle, nor any true teacher of God's word, but a cruel, and bloody man, 
1. joan. 2.  and proud above measure. Away Wolf, and devour thy Goats abroad, thou camest from us, but thou wert not of us, for if thou hadst been of us, thou hadst remained still with us. I exhort all Christian men to return unto the Succession of Peter, and of all other faithful men, who abide in the same faith with him.   
jewel. 
S. Jerome saith, they be not always the children of holy men, that (by Succession) have the places of holy men. 
Dist. 40. Non est.   
Harding.  

Double holiness.  There is a double holiness, one of life, an other of state, or office. Concerning life, it is true, that many times evil men succeed in the place of good. And so meant your Author, 
M. jew. falsifieth S. Jerome. Dist. 40. Non est facile.  as his own words (which in the same sentence you have left out) do witness. For thus he saith: Non Sanctorum filii sunt, qui tenent loca sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorum. They are not the children of the Saints, who hold the places of the Saints, but those who practise the works of the Saints. In this sentence you have least out the end, and have cast in of your own the word (always) and these two words (by Succession). And when all is done the sentence is not S. Hieromes, but Gratian'S own, added to the former words of S. Jerome. Howbeit they are somewhat altered. 
Hierom. epist. ad Heliodorum  For thus saith S. Jerome, Non est facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri, iam cum Christo regnantium. It is not an easy thing to stand in the place of Paul, and to hold the Degree of Peter, now reigning with Christ. of which ye can take no advantage against Succession, whereof we treat.  

Holiness of degree and office joan, 1.  But concerning holiness of Degree, state, and office, there is the same holiness in the Successor, which was in the Predecessor. For it is Christ that baptizeth, and that in like ministries worketh by the evil man, as well as by the good, so long as the Succession is not broken of, and forsaken. For if that be once done, he that maketh the breach, is not properly a Successor in truth, but a beginner of error. As for example: Who will say that Cranmer was the Successor of S. Thomas 
Cranmer no Sucessour of S. Thomas.  the blessed Martyr, or of Bishop Warrham in the chair of Cantorburie? I trow he himself would not say it, if he were a live, seeing he succeeded not in their Faith, and Doctrine.   
jewel. Pag. 127. 
Not withstanding the Pope himself will say, as it is before alleged, 
Dist. 40. Non nos.  If the Pope want good things gotten by his own merits, the good things which he hath (by Succession) of S. Peter his predecessor are sufficient.  
Harding.  
They are sufficient for him to do his ministerial office towards other, and so to make him holy by office: but not sufficient to make him holy in life. 
The ministery of an evil man is available to the effect of sacraments,  And the place doth evidently show, that only to be the Pope's meaning. And I suppose yourself M. jewel do not deny, but that an evil man may do the office of a good Predecessor, as well to the people's salvation in ministering Sacraments, as a man being never so good. Why then scoff you at the Pope for this saying? What greediness of gainsaying is this, to control where no fault is?   
jewel. Pag. 127. 
The Gloze thereupon saith, Petrus fecit Papas haeredes bonitatis suae. Peter made the Pope's Heieres of his goodness by Succession.  
Harding.  

M jewel falsifieth the Gloze. In Glosa. Distinct. 40. Non nos.  It is not so, but thus: Petrus ad hoc transmisit dotem meritorum cum haereditate innocentiae ad posteros, ut essent haeredes bonitatis suae. Peter made over the dowry of his merits, with the inheritance of his innocency unto his aftercomers, to the end they might be the heirs of his goodness. There is odds between these sayings, Peter would have them to be heirs of his goodness, and, Peter made them heirs of his goodness. The first he might do, the second he was not able to do. For goodness cometh only of God.   
jewel. Pag. 128. 

Distinct. 19 Sic omnes. in Glosa.  Again the gloze saith. Papa sanctitatem recipit à Cathedra The Pope receiveth holiness (by succession) of his chair.  
Harding.  
He receiveth holiness of dignity, degree, and office, but not of life. For that is the very meaning of the law, which saith that all the holy Decrees of the See Apostolic are so to be taken, as if they were strengthened with the divine voice of S. Peter him self.  
Mark, he speaketh of Decrees, but not of good works. And I trow M. jewel himself doth not deny, but that Baptism ministered, or the word of God preached by judas, was as good as that which was done by Peter. Why then scoffeth he (for hitherto he doth none other) but only to play his part?   
jewel. Pag. 128. 

johan. 8. johan. 9  Such affiance sometime had the Scribes, and Pharisees in their succession. Therefore they said, we are the children of Abraham. Unto us hath God made his promises: art thou greater, than our father Abraham?  
Harding.  
If the jews used these words in such sense, that how so ever they lived, they should be saved, as being the children of Abraham: it was a naughty sense. But if they had used the same words against the schismatical places of prayer, either of jeroboam, or of the mount Garizim, or of Onias' temple in Egipte: they had used them right well. For as Christ said, Salus ex judaeis est, 
johan. 4.  Salvation is of the jews, and not from the Samaritans, or any other Schismatics. And so concerning succession of dignity, and not of life, they might well say, unto us God hath made his promises. For so in deed he had, but yet with such condition, if they dishonoured not God, 
1. Reg. 1.2  and despised not Christ their Saviour. For in doing so, all the promises made to them were at an end, because God would seek a new people to himself, 
Deuter. 32  in case they would forsake him, and seek to themselves a new God.  
But now the Scribes and Pharisees used not these words against Schismatics, but against Christ himself, whom both the old Prophecies, and his own marvelous works witnessed to be the true Messiah. 
johan. 5.  And yet Christ came every year to the Temple, and kept all the Law, and honoured the Scribes, and Pharisees, for that they sat in Moses' chair, so that there was now no cause why they should talk of their Succession, and of God's promises against him, who denied none of them both, but maintained them both. For S. Paul said even after Christ's death unto the jews, 
Actor. 13.  To you we ought first to preach the word of God, But because ye refuse it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold we are turned unto the Gentiles. For so our Lord commanded us. The jews then abused themselves against Christ in pretending Succession, and promises, where obedience and faith should have been used. Even so if the Pope, or any other Bishop now at the second coming of Christ, would make claim to heaven by his Succession of S. Peter, or S. james, he should but deceive himself. But in the mean time any catholic Bishop may lawfully use the argument of Succession against heretics, and schismatics, who run out from the true Succession of Bishops, 
3. Reg. 12.  as jeroboam did from the high Priests of Moses. It skilleth much M. jewel how every place of scripture be applied. For that which serveth very well against Heretics, will not serve at all against Christ.   
jewel. 

joan. ●.  The Pharisees said, As for Christ, we know not from whence he came, or what he can show for his Succession.  
Harding.  
Albeit the Pharisees would not see or hear, what predecessors Christ was able to show for himself, yet God hath so notably commended the matter of Succession in Christ's own person according to his manhood, that I marvel you would once bring forth any example thereof, seeing it maketh so evidently against you. Christ verily to give example to all the world, how much they ought to esteem the order, and Succession, as well of Bishops in matters of Religion, as of Kings and Civil governors in politic matters, provided that his line, and succession should be most notable even from Adam, till his own Mother's time, the blessed Virginne Marie, as S. Matthew, 
Matt. 1. Luk. 3.  and S. Luke have testified.  
Neither could either the calamity of the people of the jews, or the sins of the house of David by any means hinder, but that Christ would come lineally from Abraham, and from David, which thing was written for our learning, and instruction, 
Rom. 15.  to show thereby that no sins of the Bishops, nor of the faithful people, shallbe able to stay, but that his providence in governing the Church by his Apostles, and their Successors, 
Continuance of Succession. Psal. 88  shall continue for ever, accordingly as David hath foretold at large, saying, If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my paths, if they profane my righteousness, and keep not my commandments, I will visit their iniquities with the rod, and their sins with scourges, but my mercy I will not separate from them: that is to say, from the seed of David, which is meant to be the faithful people, 
Gal. 3.  which bear the name of Christians. And to the Apostles Christ said, 
Matt. 28.  I am with you all days until the worlds end.  
If he be with them till the end, they likewise are in the world, till the worlds end. But they lived not so long in this world, therefore it is meant, that from age to age, and from man to man Christ will have always some to sit in the Chaieres, and Seats of his Apostles by ordinary Succession, until the worlds end.  
Of this Succession David in the person of Christ spoke in spirit, saying to the Church: For thy Fathers, 
Psal. 44.  Sons are borne unto thee. Thou shalt ordain them the Chief Governors over all the earth. The Church answereth. I shall be mindful o Lord of thy name in every Generation and Generation, therefore the peoples shall give praise, and thanks to thee for ever, and from age to age .. So that the cause, why the Church continueth, are the Governors by God appointed unto it, and as the Church continueth from age to age, so do they govern from age to age. For the Visible Flock of sheep can not long lack their Visible shepherd at any time, but that the Wolves will enter in, and disperse them a sunder.   
jewel. 
When Christ began to reform their abuses, and errors, they said to him, 
Luc. 20. Mark. 11. Beda in Lucam li. 5. cap. 80.  by what power dost thou these things, and who gave the this authority? where is thy Succession? Upon which words, Beda saith: They would have the people understand, for that he had no solemn Succession, that all that he did, was of the Devil.  
Harding.  

See what conveyance M. jew. useth to help his cause.  Scarce one line hath passed your hands, into the which you have nor conveyed of your own head, the word, Succession. Whereas neither S. Luke, nor S Matthew, nor S. Mark, nor S. Paul, nor S. Jerome, nor the Pharisees, nor Bede, whom you allege, used that word at al. But to make your tale sound against Succession, 
M. jew. falsifieth all his testimonies.  you drive all to that point: and thereby you falsify every place, that you bring, as every man shall find, who doth confer the matter with the Originals: and so all your Defence standeth upon fialsified Authorities. But our cause (God be praised for it) is so strong, 
Christ's true Succession.  that we need not to care, though all that were true, which you allege. For albeit the Pharisees would not hearken to Christ's Succession, yet in deed he succeeded lineally to all the Kings, and patriarchs, and thereby to the Priests also of the best Order, to wit of the Law of nature, and not of the Law of Moses, which was an inferior Law in respect of that of Nature.  
Christ therefore had not only a most perfit Succession, which is described in the Gospel, from Adam till joseph the husband of the Virgin Marie: but also with that his Succession he stopped all the mouths of his Enemies. For thus he said to them. What think you of Christ, that is, of your Messiah, whom you look for? 
Matt. 22.  Whose Son is he? They say to him, the Son of David. Christ saith to them. 
Psal. 109.  How then doth David call him Lord in spirit, saying, The Lord hath said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I put thy enemies, as a foot stool under thy feet: If then David call him Lord, how is he his Son? And no man was able to answer him a word. Neither durst any man after that day ask him any more questions.  
Here it is first to be noted, that the Scribes, and Pharisees knew Christ to have a Succession from David. For his Son (they said) he must be. Therefore M. jewel in making the Pharisees to acknowledge no Succession of his, hath corrupted the text of the Gospel, and uttered a great Untruth. The Pharisees knew, that Christ should succeed in the very best line: but they would not attend, nor consider, how that Succession was now brought to pass in the Son of Marie, who being of the house of David, had miraculously brought forth Christ the perfit end of the Law. So likewise M. jewel knoweth, that the Church of Christ must needs have a perpetual Succession: but he will not consider, how it is preserved chiefly in the chair of Peter, 
joan. 21.  to whom above all others the sheep of Christ were committed.  
Well, Christ then giving the jews to understand, that he succeeded in the line of David, 
Christ not only the Son of David, but also the Sône of God.  would have had them farther to consider, that he also was the son of God, and so showed, that he, who was David's Son, was also called the Lord of David: his Son by flesh, his Lord by Godhead, which thing did put them all to silence. Even so that weak, mortal, and some time miserable, and sinful man, whom sitting at Rome, M. jewel despiseth, when he heareth him to be according to the gift of God, the Vicar of Christ's love (as S. Ambrose calleth him) in feeding his sheep, 
Ambr. in commment. in Luc. c. 24.  and the Successor of the chief Apostle: he is surely astoined at it, and would be put to silence, if he were not worse, than a Pharisee. For admitting that the Pope were not S. Peter's Successor, but only one of the lowest Bishops of Christ's Church: yet who would not wonder to see him keep his Succession so notably fourteen hundred years together, whereas all the patriarchs, and thousands of Bishops beside, are so mangled, and so brought to nought?  
But now if we add hereunto, that the same is even by our enemy's confession, and ever was the first See, how much more ought they to wonder at the special providence of God in that behalf? Therefore even as it was miraculous, that the line of David was so notably preserved in so many changes, and captivities of the jews: right so may we say of the Bishops of Rome, in such sort, as smaller things do imitate the greater, and may in their manner be compared to the greater.   
jewel. 
Cyrillus frameth the Pharisees words in this sort. 
Cyrillus in Cathen. in Luc. 20.  Thou Being of the tribe of juda (and therefore having no right by Succession unto the Priesthood) takest upon thee, the office that is committed unto us.  
Harding.  
Here again you add these words (having no right by Succession unto the priesthood) of your own head. 
M. jew. falsifieth Cyrillus by adding words of his own.  Howbeit even there Cyrillus showeth, that Christ had right by Succession, which you should not have conceeled, had you dealt truly. For there it followeth. Sed si novisses, o Pharisee, scripturas, recoleres quòd hic est Sacerdos, qui secundùm ordinem Melchisedech offered Deo in se credentes, per cultum qui legem transcendit. O thou Pharisee, 
Christ had right also by succession.  if thou hadst known the Scriptures, thou wouldst remember that this is the Priest, which after the order of Melchisedech offereth up unto God those that believe in him, by a service of godly worship, which passeth the law.  
Why would you not see those words that followed in Cyrillus M. jewel? First Christ had a Predecessor in his Priesthood, even Melchisedech the high Priest. Secondly, Melchisedech is here declared to have offered unto God, and that Christ in offering unto God, fulfilled his figure: whereas you would have Melchisedech to make his oblation to Abraham, and not to God. Thirdly, the thing offered by Melchisedech, was not only bread and wine, but Abraham the Father of all believers was offered unto God by Melchisedech: And so Christ in his last Supper offered unto God, not now bread and wine only: but by his almighty power he turned the bread into the seed of Abraham, and so he offered unto God all the faithful, which by reason of their head Christ being truly contained under the forms of bread and wine, were also signified present as members joined with the head, and so were all offered ●nto God.  
Now whereas Christ was of the tribe of juda, that made for him, for out of that tribe the Messiah was looked for, by the Succession of the h●●se of David, as the Pharisees themselves confessed. And thereby they ought to have understanded, that their Succession from Aaron should yield unto the Succession of David, who had said that his Lord, 
Psal. 109.  and Son, should be also a Priest after the order of Melchisedech. And the jews knew, that they ought to have yielded to their Messiah, as to their chief head so long before promised.  
If you can show us M. jewel, that as Christ was prophesied of to put the Priests of Aaron out of their places, so Luther, Zuinglius, or Caluine was prophesied of, to destroy the Succession of S. Peter, we yield unto you. But as the high Priests, and Pharisees were never bound to yield unto any man, but only unto Christ at his first coming: so S. Peter's Successors ought never to yield, but only to Christ at his second coming. And so by all means the Succession is perpetual, and the true Religion never lacked it visible and clear, as this new Religion doth, which for lack of it can not possibly stand long, no more than that of the Arians, or of the Nestorians did. 
Sap. 4.  For Bastard slips take not deep roots. And therefore though they seem to flourish for a time, yet soon they vanish away. But the Tree, which Christ hath planted, that only shall endure for ever. That, say we is the chair of Peter, with all such Successions of Bishops, as keep them in the unity of Peter's chair.   
jewel. 
Chrysostom imagineth the Pharisees thus to say. 
Chrysost. in Math. Hom. 39  Thou art not of the house of Priests. The Council hath not granted it thee, the emperor hath not given it thee.  
Harding.  
You know this author is not S. Chrysostom, and yet still you name him so, not so much as adding, 
M. jewel very oft allegeth the writer of opus imperfe●ctum in Mattheum for Chrysostom, knowing him not so to be. Hom. 39  in opere imperfecto, whereby we might understand whom you mean, wherein of purpose you do untruly. Now to the matter. This writer (whether he was Maximinus Arianus, as some avouch, or who so ever he was) doth not only show, that the Pharisees might have had such thoughts, but also he showeth that the signs and the true priesthood agreed all, and met upon Christ, who had his power, not of men, but of God. And farther he addeth there in this wise: Sacerdos qui est secundùm Deum, omnem Sacerdotem timet offendere, quia omnes ex Deo fieri arbitratur; quamuis ex hominibus sit factus.  
Every Priest which is of God, feareth to offend any Priest, because he thinketh every Priest to be made of God, although he be made of men. But you M. jewel think no Priest at all now to be made of God. To be made I say. For you will grant none other Priesthood, than that Spiritual and internal Priesthood, which is common to women, and children, as well as to men. As for external Priesthood you think none at all to be made, and therefore you despise not only every Priest made of men, but also you despise the highest Priest of all, to wit the Bishop of Rome, and all his predecessors, being above thirty Martyrs, and more Confessors, and blessed Saints, that have sitten in that See, and have exercised their power over the whole Church, as it is well known of S. Clement, Eleutherius, Victor, Stephanus, and others.  
The Pharisees words may be truly applied to you M. jewel. For you will have no spiritual power to be in the Church, but that which the temporal Counsel, or Emperor, 
Lay Princes made governors of Christ's Church in all things and causes  or some like secular Prince doth give. For these officers have you made the supreme governors of Christ's Church in all things, and causes. He that saith in all, leaveth out nothing at all, wherein the temporal Prince is not supreme Governor. Therefore in your Church it is a good argument, thou mayst not do the office of a Bishop, preach, absolve, or Baptize, because thou art not admitted thereto by the Civil Magistrate. I wiss they of the Clergy in the Primitive Church would rather have suffered a thousand deaths, than they would have submitted the power, which Christ gave to them, unto the lay governors, who although Christ alloweth them and commandeth them to be obeyed, yet were not made by him masters of his Religion, and of his Church. The power must come from the Apostles by lawful Succession, which shall rule Christ's Church, and not from the Emperor, or from the King, much less from a woman, or from a child, having otherwise never so good right to thinheritance of a Crown.   
jewel. 
Thus to maintain themselves in credit, for that they had Succession and continuance from Aaron, and sat● in Moses' chair, they kept Christ's quite out of possession.  
Harding.  
They would have done so in deed M. jewel, but he did put them out of possession, because they would have had there priesthood to continue longer, than the prophecies had foretold, and God's Counsel had determined. For the law, and Prophets brought all to Christ, and there was showed, that a change should be made by him. Bring us forth the like Prophecies, that Luther, Zuinglius Caluine, or that lusty gospeler Beza must put the Pope out of possession, and forthwith by like Miracle bring you to pass, that the whole Church, (I mean all them that profess the Faith of the Roman Church) be dispersed, and destroyed, as Christ dispersed, and destroyed the jews: then we will leave the Pope, yea Christ also, and follow you, and them, as our second Messiah. But if, as from Aaron till Christ's first coming, the High Priests ought to have yielded their possession to no man that ever came, so from S. Peter till Christ's second coming, the Pope S. Peter's successor ought to yield his Chair to no creature: Then be ye assured, 
3. Reg. 12.  that as jeroboam setting up a Succession against the Succession of Aaron before Christ, was a wicked Schismatic, and an idolater: so what soever King, Queen, or Priest setteth up a Succession against S. Peter's Chair before Christ's second coming, is a Schismatic, and shall, without he, or she repent, be damned in hell fire with idolaters for ever. For S. Peter's Chair to the new Law is that, which Moses' Chair was to the old Law.   
jewel. 
The Pharisees said unto Christ then, even as M. Harding saith now unto us: Who ever taught us these things before thee? What ordinary Succession, and vacation hast thou? What Bishop admitted thee? Who confirmed thee? Who allowed thee?  
Harding.  
What meaneth this man? will he take upon him to be Christ himself? I thought he would have put Luther, Zuinglius, 
M. jewel showeth us in himself an Image of Antichrist.  Caluine, or Beza in Christ's place. But he will now have it himself. Mark his words good Reader, thou shalt see a very Image of antichrist. We must be like the Pharisees, and he must be like Christ: And therefore as Christ did put the Pharisees from their former Temple, Chair, and Law, so we must yield to M. jewel. For it was prophesied before for sooth, that as Christ was the end of the Law, so M. jewel should be the end of the Gospel. And as all the former Successions of high Priests, and of Levites gave place to Christ, and to the new Order, which he appointed: so must now all the former Successions of the Apostles, and the new law, yield unto M. jewel, and unto the order that he shall take hereafter, in Religion. For he seemeth as it were to say, I am Christ, and M, Harding is a Pharisey. And as the Pharisees asked Christ who ever taught us these things before thee, so M. Harding the Pharisey asketh M. jewel (who now is become Christ) what ordinary succession or vocation hast thou? What Bishop admitted thee? who confirmed thee? who allowed thee?  
Mark I pray thee good Reader, how it cometh to pass, which Christ said before, that many should come in his name, and should seduce many.  
There shall arise (saith he) false Christ's, and false Prophets: 
Math. 24  that is to say, men shall come, who, except they attributed to themselves mine own glory, authority, and power, should not deceive you. Such a one is M. jewel. For I say unto him in good earnest, that beside Christ himself, who was above all Succession, and might alter, and change the same, he can have none other man possibly from Adam the first man, till this hour, 
No man ever was, or shallbe of authority, to take away, or change the lawful Succession of Bishops.  but that lawful Succession of Bishops and Priests ought to be heard, and followed against that man, what soever he were. Cain ought to have obeyed Adam, to have remained with Seth, and not to have constituted a new company in such sort, that there should be one City of the children of men, and an other of the Children of God. Nemrod ought to have kept himself in the Succession of Seth continued by Noah, and not to have made himself a Prince by force, by which occasion the faith began to be abandoned. Ismaël, and Esau should have tarried in the Succession, and not have suffered their offspring the Agarenes, and Edomites, to leave the old Religion of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob. Core, Dathan, and Abyron should not have forsaken the Succession of Levi and of Aaron. 
joseph lib. 11. Antiquit. ca 8.  jeroboam should not have forsaken the Succession of Moses' Chair: Manasses the brother of jaddus should not have forsaken the same Succession, and have gone to build a new Temple in the mount Garizim. 
josephus de bello judaic. lib. 7. ca 30.  Onias should not have forsaken the known Succession at jerusalem, and have built a Temple in egypt. The Samaritans should not have sacrificed but only in jerusalem. Only Christ, only Christ I say, might lawfully according to the prophecies forsake the former ordinary Succession, 
joan. 21.  and elect a new, as he did saying to Peter, feed my sheep. From which hour till the end of the world, no man what so ever he be, may forsake the Ordinary Succession of Peter, but must keep himself in the same house of God with him, and his Successors, until Christ come again.  
From that Succession departed Martion, Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Eutyches, and briefly all other Heretics, which all have been condemned of Peter's See, and of all other Bishops, that were joined and linked in unity of faith and Doctrine with that See. Now for M. jewel to take upon him Christ's own peculiar office, such as no Patriarch, no Prophet, no Apostle ever had, and to require, that he may abolish the Mass, and change the order of the Communion, diminish the number of Sacraments, and transfer the Order of Succession from the Apostolic See, they can not tell whither, and all this, none otherwise than Christ himself did: is not this the proper spirit of Antichrist? Remember yourself M. jewel, whiles you have time to repent. And consider, that either you think yourself to be in very deed the Messiah of the world, who was anointed only of God, and needed no vocation of man: or else be you assured, that you are bound to hold of the ordinary Succession, of them I mean, who sit in S. Peter's chair, and are of the same faith, and communion with S. Peter's successor.   
jewel. Pag. 128. 
Therefore good Christian Reader, let not these M. Harding'S great words much abash thee. The Scribes, and Pharisees in the like cases used the like language long ago.  
Harding.  
Wherefore shall not the Christian Reader be abashed at my words, demanding of M. jewel, where his ordinary succession is? Wherefore I say, shall not the Christian Reader be abashed? Forsooth because by like M. jewel is Christ, or rather better than Christ, who putteth away Christ's former Church, and the succession of his Apostle S. Peter, as Christ did put away Moses' former Law, and the Succession of Aaron. Therefore as Christ passed Moses, in so many degrees must M. jewel pass Christ, if his doings shallbe justified. Therefore good reader be not abashed, if M. jewel be Christ. But if thou think not so, and yet dost think in religion as he doth, then be thou worthily abashed. For surely he is either Christ, who maketh a new Succession of Priesthood, and of Bishops: or Antichrist, who goeth about to undo the old former Succession, which Christ had established.   
jewel. 
Touching the Church of Rome, I will say no more at this present, but only that was spoken openly by Cornelius the Bishop of Bitont● in the late Council of Trident. utinam non à religione ad superstitionem, à fide ad infidelitatem, à Christo ad Antichristum velut prorsus vnanimes declinassent. Would God they were not all gone by consent together from religion, to superstition, from saith, to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist. These few words, considering either the speaker, or the place where they were spoken may seem sufficient.  
Harding.  
If you had considered either the speaker, or the place, so as you ought to have done, you might have been ashamed, to have alleged the words of a Catholic Prelate for your purpose. For what soever he meant by them, you may be well assured, he meant not to say, that the Catholic Church was gone from faith to infidelity, or from Christ to Antichrist. Otherwise he himself would not have still continued in that Catholic Church, which had seemed to him to have lacked faith, 
Cornelius episcopus Bitontinus  and Christ. But now the man is known in all Italy, and is alive to this day, who still continueth in daily preaching, and in exhorting all men to fly from your heresies to the Catholic faith, and to keep them in the Church: so that his deeds do well show, what he meant by his words.  
The which rule S. Augustine would have kept in the understanding of what so ever Writers, 
A lesson how to understand men's words in matter of Religion Contra epist. Parmen. li. 3. cap. 4.  and specially touching religion. And who so ever doth not so understand men's words by their deeds, upon his blindness he crieth out in this sort. Incredibilis est coecita hominum, & omnino nescio quemadmodum credi posset esse in hominibus tanta perversitas, nisi experimento verborum suorum factorúmque patesceret, usque adeo se clausos habere cordis oculos, ut commemorent sanctae Scripturae testimonia, nec intueantur in factis prophetarum, quemadmodum intelligenda sint verba Prophetarum. It is an incredible blindness of men: and verily I know not how it might be believed, that there is such frowardness in men, unless by the proof of their words and deeds it appeared openly, that the eyes of their heart were so fast closed, that they allege the testimonies of holy scripture, and do not consider by the doings of the Prophets, how the words of the Prophets are to be understanded.  
And strait after where S. Augustine saith those words, he showeth by example, what he meant. Hieremie had written, 
Hier. 2.  what hath Chaff to do with the Wheat? The Donatists thereupon reasoned, that the Catholics were Chaff, and themselves Wheat: but, saith S. Augustine by way of exposition there, did Hieremie, that said, the jews were Chaff, forsake their Church and fellowship? No verily. How so ever then Hieremie the prophet meant, we ought to understand his words according to his deeds. And seeing as concerning his deeds he lived in one Temple, and faith with them, whom he called Chaff, we may be well assured, that by the name of Chaff, he meant not, that the jews had not true Faith and Religion, but only that they had not true Charity and Obedience.  
Even so if M. jewel would consider, that the Bishop of Bitonto goeth not from Italy to Geneva, nor to Germany, nor to England, but both abideth still in his bishopric, and hath so much preached against these present Heresies of Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin, that now three whole Volumes of his eloquent Italian Sermons are extant in print: if he would have considered this, he might have been ashamed with such a great bravarie and so oft to have alleged a Catholic man's words against Rome the mother Church of all Catholics.  
S. Augustine calleth it an incredible blindness so to do, and such as no man would believe, except he saw it used. But by whom? Verily by Heretics, who having no truth for them, do still make vain brags and shows of words, when the very deeds of them, whose words they bring, are against them. Which thing I stand the longer upon, because M. jewel hath used this practice above a thousand times in his pretenced Defence. 
M. jewel every where allegeth their words for him, whom by their deeds he well knoweth to be against him.  Above a thousand times I say, he hath alleged the words of Schoolmen, Gloss, summists, and canonists for his purpose, whereas he well knoweth, they believed all such, as he is, to be detestable Heretics, and for such condemned them. Yet must they be brought in, and that so often, so seriously, and with such Preambles, as though he would bear the world in hand, they were clear of his side.  
Neither did Cornelius the bishop of Bitonto speak of the bishops of Rome specially, as M. jewel would bear the Readers in hand, 
Bitontinus in oratione habita in Concil. Tridentino  but generally of the Christians, saying, that they have wandered like sheep in hills, and fields, and that the chief of them are turned from authority, unto lordliness, from right, unto wrong, and would God (saith he) they were not utterly as it were with one consent, bowed from Religion, to superstition, from faith to infidelity, from Christ to Antichrist.  
Neither doth he say, they are all gone, as M. jewel englisheth the words. 
How M. jewel falsifieth his allegation.  The word (all) is not there. Again he saith not, they are gone by consent altogether, but, velut prorsus vnanimes, as it were utterly of one mind. The word velut, as it were, doth temper his words: but M. jewel hath left out velut, and hath put in this word all, lest if the sentence of that Bishop should be thus tempered, it should not seem grievous enough.  
His meaning was to complain, as every good man daily doth, upon the vices of men, who live as if they had neither Faith, nor Religion. And that would have appeared most plain, if M. jewel had not cut of the later words of Cornelius, uncourteously stopping him from telling out his whole tale. For in the very same sentence it followeth, A Christo ad Antichristum, quin à Deo ad Epicurum, vel ad Pythagoram, velut prorsus vnanimes declinassent. Would God they had not as it were utterly with one consent gone a side, from Christ, to antichrist, yea rather from God to Epicure, or to Pythagoras. These last words, which made all plain, were omitted by M. jewel, as his custom is, and the authors tale is falsified, and his words abused. For any man would soon judge, that they go not to Epicure, or Pythagoras, to the end to maintain the doctrine and opinions, that those Philosophers held.  
Pardonne me good Reader, if herein I seem to long. For at this time I do but as it were give thee a show, what and how much might be said in every other Article of the Book, if I thought it labour worth to discuss them particularly. For I assure thee, in my conscience, there is not any thing in this pretenced Defence, which might not be well and easily answered, were not that it seemeth to me a thing both superfluous so to answer such heaps of lies, and gloss, and also an unprofitable bestowing of good time.   
jewel. 
They are gone from Faith to infidelity, from Christ to antichrist's.  
Harding.  
Which they M. jewel? Did he speak of the Pope●… of Rome? 
M. jewel odiously layeth that to the Bishops of Rome, which was spoken generally by way of complaint of all evil Christians.  You say, touching the Church of Rome, etc. And yet now you bring forth that, which was generally spoken, and that by way of complaint, of all evil Christians, and not namely of the Bishops of Rome.  
Again how are they gone from faith to infidelity, and from Christ to Antichrist? Verily because they are gone from God to Epicure, that is to say, because many of them live, as if they had neither faith, nor Christ, nor God. Last of all, he saith not, they are gone as you falsify his words: but with a moderation, would God they were not gone: He showeth himself to fear, lest they be gone: he taketh not upon him boldly to affirm it, as you do.   
jewel. 
And yet all other things failing, they must hold only by Succession: and only because they sit in Moses' Chair, they must claim the possession of the whole. This is the right, and virtue of their Succession.  
Harding.  
Is it not reason, if secular men hold their kingdoms, lands, goods, and rights by Succession, yea when all other rights, forces, and virtues fail, that God's Ministers, if they had nothing else left, should hold still their own also by Succession? It is well known, that the Bishops of Rome have more than only Succession. For they make good Decrees, they give answer to great consultations, they call General, and Provincial Councils, they execute the Canons of them, and send forth Preachers, as of late they have done even unto the new found Indies, beside many other godly and virtuous acts, which they exercise for the salvation of their own souls, and of the people.  
But what if they had nothing, but Succession? Would you then have men forsake their fold, and Church? Did Isaias so? did Esdras so? did judas Machabeus so? did Zacharias so? did S. john Baptist so? Can you devise the Popes to be worse than Caiphas, or the Pharisees? 
Math. 23.  And yet Christ willed them to be obeyed, albeit they had little else beside Succession. It is this Succession M. jewel, which shall lie in your, and in your companions way at the dreadful day of account. It shall not be demanded of every man, why he studied not the Scriptures, which most men have not learned to read: But it shallbe demanded, why they have no faith, nor charity. No faith, by forsaking the open, and known Succession: no charity, by breaking unity. Every man seeth Succession, ignorance can not be pretended, and every man shallbe judged by it concerning his Faith.   
jewel. 
The words of Tertullian M. Harding, which you have here alleged, were spoken of certain your ancient fathers, that had raised up a new religion of themselves, as you have also done, without either word of God, or example of the Apostles, and holy fathers.  
Harding.  
It is happy that at the length, 
Here at length M. jewel beginneth to answer my words: but how, consider.  you begin to answer my words. We shall now see, how well you touch Tertullians' meaning. You say his words were spoken of certain my ancient Fathers. That can not be so. For none are in this behalf my fathers, but those, who love well the Succession of Bishops. But Tertullian spoke of those, 
De Prascription. adversus Haret.  that esteemed the Succession of Bishops, as little as you do. And therefore they are your fathers, of whom he speaketh: that is to say, they are Heretics, of whom he speaketh. For in deed no heretic can abide Succession, because they would feign justle out the old Succession, to schuffle in their new Intrusion.  
You say the men, of whom Tertullian speaketh, raised up a new Religion of themselves, and therein you say truth. You add, as I also have done: but therein you belie me, for ye are not able to lay any one point of doctrine to my charge, wherein I follow not that old Succession, which abhorreth all new Religion. Let all the world judge, who raiseth up a new Religion, you, or I. You say the Heretics, of who Tertullian spoke, raised up a new Religion without the word of God, example of the Apostles, or of holy Fathers. If you mean without the true meaning of God's word, you say truth: and then you also are without God's word, because you are without the Church, whereunto God's word with the true interpretation thereof was given: and we are not without it, because we contain ourselves within the Church. But if you mean, that these heretics did not sound the words of the Scriptures in their lips, as falsely, and withal, as fast, as you do, than you say not truly. For Tertullian in that book doth show, that the Heretics also appealed to the Scriptures, 
Tertullian in Prascript adversus haeret.  and he answered, that to strive with heretics upon the scriptures, was a thing of uncertain victory, because one saith, it is not holy Scripture, an other saith, it is holy Scripture, one saith, it is meant thus, an other saith, it is ●●●●t otherwise. But (saith Tertullian) the interpretation of the Scriptures belongeth to them, 
It booteth not to strive with heretics about the Scriptures.  who have the true faith, and he concludeth, that they have the true faith, who have the perpetual Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time till their own days.  
Scripturas obtendunt, & hac sua audacia statim quosdam movent. The Heretics pretend to bring Scriptures for themselves, and with that their impudency forthwith they shake some. And afterward. 
Ibidem.  Ergo non ad scripturas provocandum est, nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est, aut parum certa.  
Therefore we must not always appeal unto the Scriptures, neither must we strive about them, in which either no victory at all, or an uncertain, or verily not very certain victory is obtained.  
Then showeth he that heretics of right have not to do with the Scriptures, but only the Catholics, 
Heretics of right have not to do with the Scriptures. Tertullian. Ibidem.  to whom the Apostles delivered them: and not them only, but other things also, viva voce, by mouth, and word, without writing. Si hac ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis, matricibus, et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandam, reliquam verò omnem doctrinam de mendacio praeiudicandam, quae sapiat contra veritatem Ecclesiarum, & Apostolorum, & Christi, & Dei. If this be so, then is it evident, that all such doctrine, as agreeth with those, that are the Apostolic Churches, the mother Churches, and the original Churches of the faith, is to be taken for true, and that all other doctrine is to be adjudged to come of lying, as that which savoureth against the truth of the Churches, of the Apostles, of Christ, and of God.  

Our doctrine proved to be true by the Succession of the Apostolic Church.  Now concerning our Churches, it is evident, that we agree with the original, and mother Churches, which were planted by the Apostles. For we agree in faith with the Church of Rome, which was planted by the most blessed Apostles S. Peter, and S. Paul, and always kept her Succession till this present day: and therefore our doctrine is true. But you agree in faith with no Church at all now extant in the world, which came from the Apostles: and therefore your doctrine by the rule of Tertullian, is false, and lying.  
Whiles he then disputed with Heretics, as we do now with you, he said, either these Heretics confess, that they began since the Apostles time, and they are false teachers: or if any of them dare intrude themselves into the Apostles age, Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum, then let them bring forth the beginnings, or show the original evidences of their Churches, let them unfold the order of their Bishops, so ronning along from the beginning by Succession, that he who is the first Bishop, had for his founder and predecessor, one of the Apostles, or of the Apostolic men, who continued till the end with the Apostles in the same faith. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt. For by this way the Apostolic churches do show forth along their public registers.  
At length having brought forth the examples of the Church of Smyrna, and of the Church of Rome, and of other like Churches, he concludeth thus confidenly, Consingant tale aliquid Haeretic●; let the Heretics feign some such matter. He bade them feme, For he well knew in truth, they could show no such Succession.  
I have then showed that Tertullian spoke not of Heretics, who lacked the pretence of God's word, 
M. jewels Doctrine is proved by Tertullian erroneus for lack of Succession proved.  but of them, who had no Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time till their own age. And one such Succession of Bishops in any one Church of all the world seeing M. jewel can not bring forth, it remaineth that he is an Heretic, and that his Doctrine is erroneus, false, and heretical.   
jewel. 
Tertullian saith not unto us, but unto you, and such as you be, let them show forth the Originals of their Churches.  
Harding.  
Is that all he saith M. jewel? Why went you not forth to the next words? 
The Scrolls or rolls of Bishop's names.  Let them unfold the order of their Bishops. He calleth it unfolding, because the bishops names were used to be kept, and written in order in long Rolls, the which Rolls must be unfolded, when they are to be read. He meant not therefore such Originals M. jewel as you imagine: to wit, particular examples of this, or that fact: but he meant the Original copies, or instruments, and evidences of founding, and planting of their Church, who it was that preached the Faith first unto them, and who was their first Bishop, who the second, who the third, and so forth until the present time.   
jewel. 
Even so we say unto you, show us the Originals of your doctrine.  
Harding.  
You say not even right so as Tertullian said. For he called not for the Originals of Doctrine, but of Churches: 
Originals of Churches.  For by the Churches the Doctrine is known, to be good or evil, to be allowable, or reprovable.   
jewel. 
Show us any one of the Apostles of Christ, or of the learned Catholic Doctors of the Church, that ever said your private Mass. Show one at the jest, either Greek or Latin.  
Harding.  
It was not that, which Tertullian required. He demanded only for the Originals of Churches, and for the order and Succession of Bishops. But for that you durst not call, knowing, that we could show, how S. Augustine converted us, being sent into England from S. Gregory the Pope, which Pope S. Gregory succeeded S. Peter in his chair. Thus we can show the Originals of our Churches, bringing them from the Catholic Bishops, which are yet alive, 
M. jewslyly diverteth from the present matter, to an other matter impertinent touching private Mass.  upward until S. Peter.  
But you are fallen away from the matter of Succession, which only Tertullian presseth, and are now come to demand of a particular fact, whether any Apostle, or old Father ever said private Mass, or no. I say, all of them might have said private Mass, and that I prove by Tertullians' reason, and rule, because the use of saying private Mass came to us time out of mind by Succession, without any change or innovation noted therein by any story or Chronicle. And yet was there never any strange or new thing received and used in the Church, but that great trouble came thereof (as now there doth of your changing of Religion) the which trouble of Churches, and common Weals, is at no time omitted in the stories of that age, wherein it falleth. But now seeing the use of saying private Mass came so peaceably to us from hand to hand, and no first author thereof can be showed: it is out of all controversy, that it was ever accounted a Godly and a lawful thing.  
But what need I now to repeat that I have already written in that argument? Answer that part of my book better to the purpose then yet ye have done, which treateth of that point, where many plain evidences be brought forth of Sole Receiving 
Sole Receiving.  in the Primitive Church, 
In my answer, Art. 1. and likewise in my first rejoinder. Aug. Epi. 165.  which Sole Receiving is the only thing, for which you reprove private Mass, as you call it. It is clear, that S. Chrysostom and certain others said Mass, and yet had no man to receive with them, as I have other where declared. I think not good now to fall into that Disputation again, and therefore here I will call you home to the present Argument of Succession.   
jewel. Pag. 128. 129. 
S. Augustine saith of so many Bishops of Rome, there could not one be found, that had been a Donatiste: Even so in like sort say we to you, of all the same Bishops of Rome, there can not be one found, that ever agreed with M. Harding in saying Mass. Or if there were any such, show his name, with other Circumstances, when, and where, and who were witnesses of the doing. Show us your Originals M. Harding: Confess the Truth: deceive us no longer. It is a new devise: ye have it only of yourselves: and not by Succession from the Apostles.  
Harding.  
You pretend to reason like S. Augustine, as though he had reasoned upon a particular fact, and not upon the Doctrine. Even so in like sort, say you, and it is not even so, nor in like sort. S. Augustine concluded, that the Donatists were Heretics, 
S. Augustine's example cannot be fitly applied to M. jevels purpose. S. Augu. speaketh of doctrine, M. jew. of a particular fact.  because no Bishop of Rome taught that doctrine which they taught. And you turn all the matter of doctrine to a manner of doing. It were surely hard to prove, that ever any one Pope, not only of those 38. whom S. Augustine nameth, but also of all the rest till this hour, did say private Mass. For if M. jewel should put me to the proof, that Paulus tertius, or Pius quartus, Federicus Fregosius that noble and learned Bishop of Salerno, or Bellaius that worthy Bishop of Paris, or any the like, who lived in our time, had said Private Mass, and that in such wise, as if I were not able to show him, when they said it, where they said it, and who were witnesses thereof, I should not be credited for want of due proof: I were not able to prove it, either for that I lived not at Rome, and in the places where they made their abode, or else because, though I lived in those places, I was not so curious, nor careful to know, what they did therein. And so it would follow, by this fond collection of M. jewels Logic, that even yet to this day, no Pope, nor other Bishop, faith private Mass, because I can not prove it, and show the circumstance, where, when, and how it was done.  
Think you M. jewel, that the Religion of Christ dependeth upon any particular fact of men? Is that your Divinity? All the Popes, and all the Apostles agree with us in Doctrine, because we can show diverse Churches, which have been planted of them, and have kept from time to time the Religion, which they received from hand to hand of them. This is our demonstration of the Truth. This is that, which Christ allowed, when he commanded his disciples to do, and keep, that which the Scribes and Pharisees, who sat in Moses' chair, bade them to keep and do. Even so do we M. jewel, we say private Mass (so ye will needs call it) because the Popes, and other bishops, who sit in Peter's, and in the other Apostles chair, do tell us, that it is lawful to say private Mass. And we doubt not also, but that it hath been used for ever to be said, though the people, either were not present, or being present, would not receive with the priest, as it is plain in S. Chrysostom, 
Chrysost. homil. 61. ad Pop. Antiochen.  who stood at the Altar, and did that which belonged to priestly duty, that is to say, he said Mass, and looked for some communicantes, to come to receive the communion, but he stood in vain, for any that would come to him. Yet did he still come to the altar, when so either the feast, or his devotion required.   
jewel. Pag. 129. 
But wherefore telleth us M. Harding this long tale of Succession?  
Harding.  
Because it is a special mark of the true Church, as 
a Lib. 3. cap. 3.  Ireneus, 
b De Prescript.  Tertullian, 
c Lib. 2. contra Parmen.  Optatus, and S. 
d Ep. 165.  Augustine do teach: and your Church hath no Succession that is thirty years old, nor any Bishop at all lawfully planted. But ours hath a Succession of a thousand five hundred threescore and eight years, with a great number of Bishops in all countries, and times.   
jewel. 
Have these men their own Succession in so safe record? Who was then the bishop of Rome next by succession, unto Peter? Who was the second? who the third? who the fourth? Irenaeus reckoneth them together in this order: Petrus, Linus, Anacletus, Clemens: Epiphanius thus, Petrus, Linus, Cletus, Clemens: Optatus thus, Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Anacletus. Clemens, saith, that he himself was next unto Peter, and then must the reckoning go thus. Petrus, Clemens, Linus, Anacletus. Hereby it is clear, that of the first four bishops of Rome, M. Harding can not certainly tell us, who in order succeeded other. And thus talking so much of Succession, they are not well able to blaze their own Succession.  
Harding.  
Here is a deep consideration, I promise you. What if all writers being sure of these four Bishops of Rome, yet be not sure who was before other? Is therefore our Succession uncertain? We are well assured, that Peter was the first, and after him there was a Second, a Third, and a Fourth. We are also assured, that the same were Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus. And what skilleth it unto us, 
The true order of the first Popes succeeding one another. Damasus in pontificalt. Clemens epist. 1. Tertullian. De praescr.  who was Second, who Third, who Fourth? But now all this business is ended, if we make a distinction. And that is this.  
S. Peter being yet alive made two suffragans, Linus, and Cletus, who might do the outward business of his office, whiles himself did attend to prayer, and preaching. So saith Damasus in the life of S. Peter. Again when S. Peter saw his death to be at hand, he chose Clement to be his successor, as we read in S. Clementes epistle, and in Damasus. Yea Tertullian also confesseth, that the Church of Rome showeth Clement to have been ordained of Peter.  
Thus were there three Bishops in Rome, but not three Bishops of Rome, when S. Peter died, of the which S. Clement had most right to succeed. But he having seen before the good experience of Linus and Cletus, did yield the administration to them, one after the other, first to Linus, and then to Cletus, after whose death Clement himself governed the Apostolic See. And after him came Anacletus, whom some Greek Writers took to be one with Cletus.  
Thus are all matters reconciled. 
Discussion of all doubt touching thorder of the first Popes in Rome. Ruffin. in Praefat. ad lib. Recognit.  And that not by me only, but by Ruffinus eleven hundred years past, who also received it of his Forefathers. He saith, Quidam requirunt, quomodo, cùm Linus & Cletus in urbe Roma ante Clementem hunc fuerint episcopi, ipse Clemens ad jacobam scribens, sibi dicat a Petro docendi Cathedram tradit●m ●cuius rei hanc accepimus esse rationem. Quòd Linus, & Cletus fuerunt quidem ante Clementem episcopi in urbe Roma, sed superstite Petro, ut illi episcopatus curam gererent, ipse vero Apostolatus impleret officium. Sicut invenitur etiam apud Caesaream fuisse, ubi cùm ipse esset presence, Zachaeum tamen à se ordinatum habebat Episcopum. Et hoc modo utrumque verum videbitur, ut & illi ante Clementem numerentur Episcopi, & Clemens tamen post obitum Petri docendi susceperit sedem. Some ask this question, how Clement himself, writing to james, saith, that Peter left to him the Chair of teaching, whereas Linus, and Cletus were Bishops in the City of Rome before this Clement. Of which thing we have learned this to be the reason: That Linus, and Cletus were bishops in the City of Rome, but in the life time of Peter, to th'intent they should take upon them the charge of the bishop's duty, and he himself fulfil the office of an Apostle. We find that he did the like also at Caesarea, where, though he were present himself, yet he had Zachaeus, whom he ordered himself, to be the bishop. And thus both may seem true, to wit, that they were taken for bishops before Clement, and yet that Clement after the death of Peter took the place of teaching.  
Ruffinus invented not this solution of himself, but he took it of others. For he saith accepimus, asmuch to say, we have received, we have heard, we have learned this: so that it was a thing known, and taught from the beginning, which yet M. jewel either knew not, or willily dissembled: As though it were a great hindrance or prejudice to the emperors Majesty, if it were unknown now, whether Vitellius had been Emperor before Galba, or Galba before Vitellius: with such toys he stuffeth his book.   
jewel. Pag. 129. 
I might farther say, that Peter's See Apostolic was over the jews, and not at Rome over the Heathens. 
Gal. 2.  For so S. Paul saith: The Gospel of the Vncircuncision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision unto Peter: God that was mighty in Peter in the Apostleship of the circumcision, was mighty in me among the Heathens. Therefore if the Pope this day will claim only by Peter's title, and require no more than Peter had, then must he seek his Primacy amongst the jews, where Peter had his jurisdiction limited, and not at Rome among the heathen Christians, among whom, as S. Paul saith, he had not much to do.  
Harding.  
The lewdness of this licentious Minister passeth all reason. He excludeth not only the Pope from the government of the whole Church, but also from his own Chair at Rome: neither only the Pope, but even the blessed Apostle S. Peter. And he thinketh himself to have the Scripture agreeable unto his malicious, and fond conceit. 
Why S. Peter had to do at Rome with the Gentile Christians. Mar. 16.  S. Peter had to do with those Christians at Rome, which before had been Heathens, or Gentiles, for four special causes. First, because he was one of the twelve Apostles, all which had to do with any Christian, whether he had been jew, or heathen before. For Christ said to them all, Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature: that is to say, to men of all nations, were they jews, or Gentiles. So that who so ever denieth, that S. Matthew, S. Thomas, or who soever else of the Apostles had to do with the Christians being converted from their heathenish Idolatry, he denieth plainly God's word. If then every Apostle had right to exercise any Apostolic duty at Rome, in case he had come thither: what ignorance is it to say, that S. Peter could not do that in Rome, which any one of the twelve might lawfully have done?  
Secondly, Christ himself having said before, 
joan. 10.  that he had other sheep beside the jews, which he would bring into his Fold, said afterward to S. Peter, Feed my lambs, 
joan. 21.  Feed my sheep. Seeing then the Heathens, or Gentiles, that became faithful, were Christ's sheep, they were commended also unto S. Peter. And therefore he had to do with them above all other men.  
Thirdly, God chose, that is to say, purposely provided, that the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel by S. Peter's mouth, 
Actor. 10. & 15.  and believe. Therefore it was the special will, and choice of God, that S. Peter should have to do with the Heathens, that should be converted, which is directly against your saying M. jewel.  

When S. Peter came unto Rome. Euseb. Histor. eccles. lib 2. c. 14. Hierom. in Catalo. When came S. Paul unto Rome. Euseb. Ecclesiast. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 22.  Fourthly S. Peter came to Rome before S. Paul. For S. Peter came thither in the days of Claudius the Emperor, as Eusebius, and S. Jerome with divers others do witness: And there he preached the Gospel: & salutaris praedicationis verbo primus in urbe Romae evangelii sui clavibus ianuam regni coelestis aperuit: and first opened the gate of the heavenvly Kingdom in the City of Rome with the keys of his Gospel by the word of heathful preaching.  
But S. Paul came to Rome long after, in the days of Nero the Emperor, as Eusebius also recordeth. S. Peter therefore must needs have to do with those Christians, who were converted at Rome, no less then S. Paul. And thence also S. Peter wrote his first epistle, as Papias one of the Apostles scholars doth witness.  

Euseb. Histor. lib. 2. cap. 15.  Did not you know all this M. jewel, as well as I? How chanceth it then, you are so impudent, as to bring into doubt, whether S. Peter's See Apostolic was over the Heathens at Rome, or no? You answer, for so saith S. Paul. What, doth he say, that S. Peter was not over the faithful Heathens at Rome? He neither saith it, nor meaneth any such thing. His meaning is to show, that he was made an Apostle not by Peter, or john, or james, or by any other man, but only by jesus Christ. And therefore although three years after his conversion he went to jerusalem, 
Gal. 1. Gal. 2.  to see Peter, and fourteen years afterward he conferred with him, concerning the Faith, which he preached: yet neither Peter, nor John, nor james did give him any thing, or make him either the better learned, or endued him with more power, and authority. But rather they joined hands with S. Paul, and took him into their fellowship. Why so? In consideration that they saw, God had no less committed to him the preaching of the Gospel unto the Gentiles, than he had before committed to Peter the preaching of the gospel unto the jews. And how saw they either this, or that? Because the effect showed it so. For as God had wrought mightily among the jews in converting them by S. Peter's preaching, so they saw that he wrought mightily among the Gentiles by converting them at the preaching of S. Paul. So that by the very event of the matter, they saw that S. Paul was called in deed of God to the Apostleship.  
S. Paul then meant not in these words, that S. Peter by Christ's commission had to do only with the jews, and himself only with the Gentiles. 
Act. ca 13.  For S. Paul had also to do with the jews, and he preached to them in their Synagogs' through divers parts of Asia, and otherwhere: Yea at Rome itself, he preached to the jews. 
Act. 28.  Shame it is to you M. jewel, the shame of ignorance I mean, or, (which is more likely) the shame of impudency if you see not, that both S. Peter had to do with the Gentiles, and S. Paul with the jews, and each of them with both.  
But what saying of holy scripture, or of holy doctor did you ever allege against the truth, without some corruption? In S. Paul's words you left out a small word in appearance, but yet great of strength. The word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, enim, 
M. jew. corrupteth S. Paul.  which in english doth signify, for. This word (for) giveth great light to S. Paul's meaning. For when he had said, that the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles was committed unto him, even as the preaching of the Gospel to the jews was committed unto S. Peter: lest any man should think, that he meant of a special commission purposely reserved to him alone by God: he declareth, how that commission might be proved. Qui enim operatus est Petro, For he that hath wrought in Peter in the Apostleship of the circumcision, that is to say, of the jews, hath wrought in me also among the gentiles. That same, enim, for, doth make the place plain. They knew that God had no less committed the Gentiles to Paul, than the jews to Peter. How knew they it? For he wrought now as mightily with Paul among the Gentiles, as he had wrought before with Peter among the jews. So that S. Chrysostom well noteth, 
Chrysost. in 2. ca ad Galat.  non dixit, postquàm audissent, sed cognovissent, hoc est, ex ipsis didicissent factis. He said not, after they had heard, but after they had known: that is to say, after they had learned by the deeds themselves. Mark M. jewel, mark the deeds themselves. It was now the commission of the deeds, whereby God declared himself to have wrought in them both. But that not withstanding, S. Peter did, might and ought to preach unto the Gentiles, and to plant, and dispose their Churches, no less then S. Paul: And S. Paul might likewise plant, dispose, and order the jews Churches. For their right was one, concerning the Apostolic authority.   
jewel. 
Where you say, that according to the ecclesiastical Canons, ever from the Apostles time, Bishops have evermore been consecrated by three other bishops, with the confirmation of the bishop of Rome,  
Harding.  
I said, 
M. jew. falsifieth my saying.  with the consent of the Metropolitan (which you have here pared away) and Confirmation of the Bishop of Rome. I added also, thus Unity hath ever been kept, which you also have untruly left out.   
jewel. Pag. 129. 
As if without him no man might be allowed to be a Bishop, ye should not so unaduisely report so manifest Untruth. For I beseech you, where be these Ecclesiastical Canons? Who devised them? Who made them? Who gave the Pope that singular privilege, that no Bishop should be admitted in all the world, but only by him?  
Harding.  
Among the Canons of the Apostles, this is the first: Episcopus à duobus, aut tribus Episcopis ordinetur. Let a Bishop be ordered (or made Bishop) by two, or three Bishops. These Canons are allowed by the sixth General Council. Yet can you ask, where be these Ecclesiastical Canons? who devised them? who made them? By a Decree of Hilarius, no Bishop can be consecrated without the metropolitans consent. What Consecration could M. jewel, and his fellows have, who hath neither Metropolitan at all, nor lawful Bishop to Consecrate them? Howbeit touching this I need to say little: for in the very next side of the leaf M. jewel confuteth himself. Where, as one that had quite forgotten himself, he saith thus. Our Bishops are made in Form, and Order, as they have been ever, by free election of the Chapter, by the Consecration of the archbishop, and other three Bishops. If this be the Form and Order of making Bishops, that hath been ever, to be Consecrated by th'archbishop, and three other Bishops, why were you so hot against me, in calling for th'Ecclesiastical Canons: which you bind yourself now to show, or else you must confess, that you have made this new order, that hath not been ever.  

Anacletus In epist. Decret. The Pope's authority of confiming Bishops is of Christ. joan. 21.  But now concerning the Pope's authority to confirm Bishops, to omit for this present the old Canon of Pope Anacletus, which is afterward alleged, and to show the first author of this matter: Christ, who made Peter the chief Pastor of all, and who gave commission to him loving him more, than the other Apostles did, to feed accordingly as he loved, that is, to feed more than the o●her Apostles did: Christ who inspired Peter to go to Rome, and there to settle the Apostolic See and Chair of his Bishoply Primacy: Christ, who inspired Peter to make S. Clement, and the other Bishops of Rome his Successors, gave the Bishop of Rome Peter's Successor this Privilege, that no Bishop ought to be a Bishop without his consent. For what reason can suffer, that any man shall govern any part of those sheep, which are all committed to the Bishop of Rome, without the Bishop of Rome's consent, which consent is a Confirmation sufficient to any Bishop for the due government of his flock.  
Now this consent of the Bishop of Rome was many ways known. For when soever he consented to the general order of the catholic Church, to wit, that he should be a Bishop, whosoever were lawfully chosen by the Clergy, 
Optat●us lib. 2. communicatory letters.  than his consent was given generally. And when after the election made, communicatorie letters thereof came to Rome, as to be head place of the Christian Communion, than was the said Bishop specially confirmed, and so confirmed, that the Pope could not choose but confirm him, except he could make any just exception against him. For as no man ought to govern in the Church without the Pope's confirmation (when it may commodiously be had without impediment) even so the Pope must needs confirm those, who are lawfully chosen, except he will upon good ground change the gowernment of the Diocese to a more profitable order, as many times it hath been done. This matter would require a large Treatise. But it is in part handled already in my first book set forth against the Articles of your Challenge M. jew. where you might have seen what I alleged, why the Pope should confirm Bishops, so that now this thing should not have been so strange unto you.   
jewel. Pag. 129. 
I remember your canonists have said, 
Felin. D. constitut. ca Canonum statuta. col. 6. ver. fallit. M. jewel speaketh as if he had been a Canonist many years ago.  the Pope may make a Bishop only by his word, without any farther Consecration.  
Harding.  
Do you remember it M. jewel? It was clearkly spoken forsooth, and in such sort, as if you had been an old student of the Canon law many a winter past, and that now whiles you had been occupied in higher matters yet some of these former meditations had come again to your mind, and worthily. For it was a thing much to be mused upon of him that occupieth a Bishop's place, what Felinus, or Panormitan said concerning the Pope. The truth is M. jewel, you either had this stuff in some of your German gatherers, or else it was ministered to you by some of your Comministers, if not by your blind lawyer, whose help you have bought with a piece of an Archdeaconry. For you began not I suppose to study the canonists, and the gloss of the Law, before you occupied the place of a Bishop, if then at the least you did. But how soever that be, your memory might have been better bestowed, than in keeping in store such a toy. The canonists mean, that the Pope, as being the highest judge, is not bound to the observation of any thing in the law, which is only Ceremonial: so that he may dispense with those matters, when he seeth cause, and may with his only word promote a man to the authority of a Bishop, the omission of any Ceremony notwithstanding. But they speak only of rites and Ceremonies, such as I suppose you yourself would not, or should not stick upon, when either necessity, or universal profit should require a thing to be speedily done. As for any point necessary to the Sacrament of holy Orders, the Pope may not omit in any wise.   
jewel. Pag. 129. 

Panor. de constitution. translato.  And Abbate Panormitane moveth a doubt, whether the Pope by the fullness of his power may deprive all the Bishops of the world at one time. But thus they say, that care not greatly what they say.  
Harding.  
When you had only said that Panormitane moved the doubt, you conclude with, thus they say: as though he had said, that in deed the Pope might deprive all the Bishops in the world at once. Certainly the moving of the doubt showeth him not to say it. For many doubts be moved, you know pardy, not to the end men should think, that all may be done, whereof by learned men, a question is moved: but that they may the better carry away the answer. So question is moved among the Schoolmen, An Deus sit, whether God be? not that any man at all doubteth thereof, but to see, how the doubt might be resolved, if any man were so mad as to move it. Once it is certain, that the Pope can not deprive all Bishops. For although they be under him (specially if they do amiss, or need any help) yet they are as truly Bishops, as he is, and are the Successors of the Apostles, who knowing the Primacy to belong unto S. Peter, did yet make Bishops by God's ordinance, where so ever they thought it expedient. Aaron was the chief among all the Priests, and Levites, yet he could not therefore deprive all the Levites, and Priests. And even so your own Panormitane, whom you make to doubt, concludeth with these words. Quod si papa vellet, 
c. Translato ex. de Constitut.  non posset removere omnes Episcopos, cum repraesentent omnes Apostolos. If the Pope would, he could not remove all Bishops, for as much as they represent all the Apostles. Call you this a doubting, when he so plainly determineth against that, for which you allege his doubting?   
jewel. 
Verily Nilus a greek writer saith thus: 
Nilus' d● primatu Rom. Pontificie.  The Bishop of Constantinople doth order the Bishop of Caesarea, and Other Bishops under him, But the Bishop of Rome doth neither Order the Bishop of Constantinople, nor any other Metropolitan.  
Harding.  
It neither much skilleth, what Nilus doth say, 
Nilus' a late writer, and maintainer of the Greeks Schism.  whose authority, is so little worth, being a late maintainer of the Schism of the Grecians, and yet though his saying were true, it skilleth also as little, because it speaketh of a matter of fact, and not of power. For he saith not, that the Bishop of Rome is not able, or hath not power, to order some Metropolitan, but only that he doth not so, meaning that he useth not so to do. And if the not doing prove any impotency, or unableness to do it, than it may be said, Christ is not able to ordain a Deacon, because we read not that ever he did so, by his own mouth, 
Actor. 6.  or hands. For Deacons were ordained by his Apostles after his Ascension. But albeit the Pope useth not to Order metropolitans with his own hands, yet Nilus I trow meant not, but that he was of power to do it: or if he was so foolish as to think so, yet you M. jewel should not in that behalf bear the babble with him, as who confess, that he was ever as great a Patriarch, and much more ancient than the Bishop of Constantinople was: so that the Bishop of Constantinople can not be able to do that, which the Pope also can not do.  
To be short, you that can call so many gloss to your remembrance, could you not remember that, as Liberatus, 
Liberatus in breuiari●. ca 21.  recordeth, Anthenius the Bishop of Constantinople being yet alive, but deposed for heresy, Agapetus that good Bishop of Rome consecrated, and ordered with his own hands Mennas, who professed the Catholic faith, making him Bishop of Constantinople, in stead of the other heretical Bishop? Are you then so far to seek in your Logic, as not to know, that if the Bishop of Rome did lawfully once order the Bishop of Constantinople, that still he were of authority and power so to do, if need were?   
jewel. 
But hereof I have spoken more at large in my former Reply to M. Harding.  
Harding.  
But thereof you are confuted more at large by M. Stapleton in his Return of Untruths upon you, and yet could you dissemble the matter, as though your fourth Article, and namely that part, whereof here you speak, were not found as full of Untruths, as of Allegations.   
jewel. Pag. 129. 
Certainly S. Cyprian willeth, that Sabinus, being lawfully elected, 
Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 4.  and consecrate Bishop in Spain, should continue Bishop still, yea although Cornelius, being then Bishop of Rome, would not confirm him.  
Harding.  
By this a man may know, what a Dodger you are, and whence your great books proceed. Verily from certain heretical notebooks made by some Grammarians, or Schoolmasters of Germany. For always your allegations, and reports, come out after the same sort. If once they contained an open lie, being never so often repeated, they shall still contain it: and reason. For they were always written out of one lying fountain. 
In the Return Artic. 4. Fol. 127.  M. Stapleton had told you of this very matter before. He showed, that your note book is false. It was not Pope Cornelius, but Pope Steven, who would have restored Basilides to his bishopric against Sabinus, who was newly elected in Spain. But the stay, why Pope Steuens Decree stood not, was only for lack of true information in Basilides appeal made to Rome.  
Now reason, and law showeth, that when a thing is not done only upon a certain cause, that cause ceasing, the thing should be right well done. Sabinus might continue Bishop not withstanding that Pope Steven wrote, against him, only because Basilides, for whom the Pope wrote, had deceived the Pope by false suggestion.  
Therefore if a true suggestion had been made to the Pope, his Decree should have prevailed, although it extended itself as far as Spain, and that for the restitution of a Bishop against him, that was newly elected a Bishop, by the consent of all the Bishops of Spain. Therefore the Pope's authority over other Bishops, grounding itself upon a right and true information, was acknowledged in the Primitive Church.   
jewel. Pag. 129. 130. 

Dist. 64. cap. fin.  In deed touching every metropolitans several jurisdiction, Gratianus noteth thus: Illud generaliter clarum est, quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus, hunc magna synodus definivit Episcopum esse non oportere. This is generally clear, that if any man be made Bishop without the consent of his Metropolitan, the great council (of Nice) hath decreed, that such a one may not be Bishop. So likewise saith Socrates of the Bishop of Constantinople. Without the consent of the Bishop of Constantinople let no man be chosen Bishop. 
Socrates Lib. 7. cap. 28.  Here is a right, reserved specially to the Bishop of Constantinople and to every Metropolitan within his own province. But of the Bishop of Rome's universal right of Confirmation we hear nothing.  
Harding.  
You reason upon authority negatively, as though if the Council of Nice, and Socrates, speak not of that confirmation, which belongeth to the Bishop of Rome, therefore there could be no such. But it appeareth by S. Cyprian in divers Epistles, that it was the custom in his time for a Bishop newly made, to send letters to all the other Bishops, intimating his Election. Now as those letters came first, and specially to the Bishop of Rome, 
Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 3.  as fitting (by S. Cyprians own confession) in the principal chair, and succeeding S. Peter: even so if the Pope for just causes had not received the letters, and communion of the said new Bishop: he then for lack of the Pope's confirmation could not rightly have enjoyed his Bishopric, as it appeareth by many examples, which would require a discourse over long for this place, nor very needful, sith the confirmation of Bishops is not our principal matter, but only the Succession. Yet M. jewel who remembreth of old so much Canon Law, may call to his remembrance, what I have said in my Answer to the Articles of his Challenge: 
In my Answer Artic. 4.  where I have showed, that the Pope had three Legates in the east, 
a In epist. Simplicij ad Acatium.  one in Constantinople, 
b In epist. Bonifacij ad Eulalium.  the other in Alexandria, 
c Leo epistol. 82.  the third in Thessalonica. Whereunto M. jewel hath replied nothing, as also M. Stapleton hath noted in the Return.  
Now if those Bishops being not only metropolitans, but also two of them patriarchs, were never the less the Pope's Legates: it is easy to see, how the Pope's confirmation was given to the Bishops generally under those Primates, seeing the Primates themselves were confirmed by him, or else they were not accounted lawful Bishops, for lack of his confirmation, 
Zonara's in vita Constantis nepot. Heraclij.  as it is evident in the example of Pyrrhus the Bishop of Constantinople, who both was put into his bishopric by the bishop of Rome, when he had persuaded him, that he was Catholic, and again was put out by his authority, when it was perceived, that he had dissembled.   
jewel. Pag. 130. 
Neither doth M. hardings counterfeit Anacletus claim all the Bishops through the world, as belonging to his Admission, 
Epistol. 3. dist. 93. juxta Sanctorum.  but only a part. These be his words. Omnes episcopi qui huius Apostolicae sedis ordinationi subjacent. All the bishops that are under the ordering, or confirmation of this Apostolic See.  
Harding.  
If Anacletus be counterfeit, 
Anacletus not counterfeit.  it is far from our knowledge. For we found that Epistle in his name, registered among the epistles of other Popes above a thousand years past. And Isidorus, who gathered them, found them so entitled, as we read them. Therefore your slaunderours' tongue toucheth not us.  

Ordination, and Confirmation, are divers  Concerning that you account Ordering, and Confirmation to be all one, it is a gross error both in Grammar, and in knowledge of histories. Ordinatio is ordering, and Confirmatio is confirmation. The Ordering of bishops was done by the bishops of the same Province, with the consent of the Metropolitan: 
Nicen. Concil. ca 6.  But the confirmation was made by other Bishops also without the Province, and specially by the Bishop of Rome, who these many hundred years hath confirmed them alone, because the use of communicatory letters is left, and that is reputed don● by the whole body, which is done by the head thereof.   
jewel. Pag. 130. 

Sozom. li. 6. cap. 23.  So likewise writeth Damasus to the Bishops of Illyricum. Par est omnes qui sunt in orb Romano magistros consentire. It is meet, that all the teachers within the Roman jurisdiction should agree together.  
Harding.  

The old stuff of M jewels Reply here repeated.  Before you referred these matters to your Reply, as though you would have said no more thereof, and yet all this while you do but write out your Reply again. To what purpose you allege these words, I cannot tell, as the which make evidently against you, and nothing for you. The Roman world, or jurisdiction, was both East, and West, as far as the Romans had conquered, and they had conquered all the countries, wherein all the Patriarchal Sees were placed. If therefore by Damasus you will prove, that he confirmed all the bishops in the Roman circuit, surely you prove thereby, that he confirmed the three patriarchs, of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of jerusalem with all the bishops under them. So well your own tale is told. And in deed better it can not be told, seeing every thing that is true, is agreeable with the truth, and therefore what soever you falsify not, must needs prove against you, who sustain the false cause.   
jewel. Pag. 130. 
Again, that you say, a Bishop hath always been consecrated by other three Bishops, whether it be true, or no, it may well be called in question, a● being of your part hitherto very weakly affirmed.  
Harding.  
My affirmation therein is taken out of the fact of the three Apostles, S. Peter, S. john, and S. james, 
Euseb. histor. Eccl. lib. 2. ca 2  who as Eusebius witnesseth, did consecrate our lords brother the first bishop of jerusalem. And he again reciteth it out of Clemens Alexandrinus. So ancient was this tradition whereof now M. jewel doubteth. The same likewise is again witnessed in the fourth Council 
Concil.  holden at Carthage, 
Cartha. 4  where two bishops are prescribed to hold the book of the Gospels over the Bishop's head, 
Can. 2.  whiles the third blesseth him.   
jewel. Pag. 130. 
Surely Petrus de Palude, 
De potestate Apostolic.  one of your own Doctors, would have told you thus. In the Church one Bishop is sufficient to consecrate another. And it is nothing else but for the solemnity of the matter, that the Church hath devised, that three Bishops should join together.  
Harding.  
Surely you took great pains to find out somewhat for your excuse, when you forsook the example of the Apostles, and of the ancient Councils, and went from S. Peter the Apostle to Peter de Palude for your Defence. And yet he saith nothing, that maketh against us. For he saith not that any Catholic Bishop was ever consecrated of less than three: but that one sufficeth to consecrate a Bishop. I meant, that in all solemn consecrations it hath been so, and Petrus de Palude denieth it not, but he saith one sufficeth, and meaneth, that in a case of extremity one bishop alone may consecrate an other: and the same I deny not. But consider for what purpose I spoke it. My talk was directed to you M. jewel, and your fellows, who after fifteen hundred years in a realm, that hath not lacked Christian pastors, and bishops in it for the space of these thirteen hundred years together, ought not now to pretend any necessity, as though three Bishops either in that country, or in the next could not be found, who might solemnize your Ordering, and Consecration.   
jewel. Pag. 130. 
Likewise johannes Maior an other of your own Doctors would have said unto you, Quis ordinavit Petrum, etc. Who ordered Peter, 
In 4. sentent. dist. 24. q. 3.  and made him a bishop? They can not show me three Bishops that ordered him. Therefore I say, that a bishop be ordered of other three Bishops, it is an ordinance made by man. For Paul when he ordered Titus, and Timotheus, he sought not about for other two Bishops.  
Harding.  
See now again how far this man is gone from the Doctors of the first six hundred years. If you will stand to their judgement M. jewel whom you allege, 
M. jewel allegeth the schoolmen, who are well known to be altogether contrary to him.  they condemn you for an Heretic, and a Schismatic, because you have forsaken that Doctrine of faith, and that holy fellowship, wherein they lived, and died. They offered the external sacrifice of the Church, and taught it to be offered for the live and dead in Christ, who died for both, and least us his own body in a Sacrament to be made and consecrate by the priests of the new testament, for the application of Christ's merits to every particular faithful man, and for the whole body of the Church.  you say, this is Idolatry, why seek you for help at their hands, who have taught us this doctrine, for which you tell us, they be in hell? Again, admit, it be an ordinance of man, that a bishop should be consecrate of three other bishops. Is it therefore in your power to break every ordinance of man? It was the ordinance of men, that ye should pay this, or that tribute unto your prince. May ye therefore cease to pay it at your pleasure?  
That, which man ordained, 
By what man may the ordinance of man be changed.  may in deed be altered by an other man, but he must then be of the same power, that he was of, who ordained it. The Apostles ordained, that a Bishop be consecrate of three. An Apostle therefore is not bound to that ordinance. But are you, and your brethren Apostles, that ye take upon you to alter the Apostolic ordinances? If ye were but the scholars of the Apostles, ye would keep their Successions, and follow their steps. But now whereas they kept Christian men in one bond of peace, ye scatter the flock into so many sects, as there are proud and vainglorious men among you.   
jewel. 130. 
Whereas it farther pleaseth you to call for my letters of Orders, and to demand of me, as by some authority, whether I be a Priest, or no: what hands were laid over me, and by what order I was made: I answer you, I am a Priest, made long sithence, by the same Order and ordinance, and I think also by the same man, and the same hands, that you M. Harding were made Priest by, in the late time of that most virtuous prince King Edward the sixth. Therefore you can not well doubt of my Priesthood, without like doubting of your own.  
Harding.  
Neither by the same Ordinance M. jewel, nor by the same man, nor by the same hands, nor in the time of the same late King. How be it, you tell not half my tale. I laid for my foundation out of S. Jerome these words: 
Dialog. contra Luciferianos.  Ecclesia non est, quando non habet Sacerdotem. Church is there none, which hath not a Priest or Bishop, and such a Priest he there describeth, as may consecrate the Sacrament of the Altar, that is to say, that may offer External Sacrifice, and such a Bishop he describeth, who may order priests. For Sacerdos, as you know, doth signify both a Priest, and Bishop. 
Sacerdos, Bishop, or Priest.  Now S. Jerome there disputed against Hilarius a Deacon, whom being alone in his new sect, and not able to offer Sacrifice, nor to make Priests, it behoved needs to leave that his congregation without a Priest.  
I ask you then as well of your bishopply vocation, and of your Sending, as of your Priesthood. give me leave I pray you, here to put you in mind of my words once again. Thus I said, 
Confut. fol. 57 b. Hard questions proponed to M. jewel  and yet you have not answered me. Therefore to go from your Succession, which ye can not prove, and to come to your Vocation, how say you Sir? You bear yourself as though you were a Bishop of Sarisburie. 
But how can you prove your Vocation? By what authority usurp you the administration of Doctrine, and Sacraments? What can you allege for the right and proof of your ministery? Who hath called you? Who hath laid hands 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 upon you? Be you a Priest, or be you not? If you be not, how dare you usurp the name and office of a bishop? If you be, tell us who gave you Orders? The institution of a Priest, was never yet but in the power of a bishop. bishops have always after the Apostles time according to the Ecclesiastical Canons been consecrated by three other Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitan, 
Cut of by M. jewel.  and Confirmation of the B. of Rome. * Thus unity hath hitherto been kept, thus schisms have been stayed. And this S. Cyprian calleth, Legitimam Ordinationem, 
Cyprian. lib. 1. epistol. 6.  Lawful Ordering. For lack of which he denied Novatus to be a Bishop, or to have any authority or power in the Church.  
Hereto neither you, nor your fellows, who have unlawfully invaded the administration of the Sacraments, can make any just and right answer I am sure. *   
These being my questions M. jewel, you answer, neither by what example hands were laid on you, nor who sent you, but only you say, he made you priest, that made me in king Edward's days. Verily I never had any name, or title of Priesthood given to me during the reign of King Edward. I only took the Order of Deaconshippe, as it was then ministered: farther I went not. So that if you have none other Priesthood, than I had in King Edward's time, you are yet but a Deacon, and that also not after the Catholic manner, but in a Schismatical sort. Truly after that I had well considered with myself those questions, which in my Confutation I moved unto you, I took myself neither for a Priest, nor yet for a lawful Deacon in all respects, by those orders, 
Rom. 13.  which were taken in king Edward's days. For I considered, that, whereas all power cometh from God, most specially the power, whereby the Church is governed, cometh from him by Christ. And seeing all men know and see, how the power, whereby temporal kingdoms are governed, is, and aught to be well witnessed by lineal descent of blood, or else by election, and such other vocations, as are among men: and seeing that external witness, whereby their titles are proved, is both good and necessary: I thought, that it was much more convenient to grant, that the power, whereby Christ's Church is governed, ougtht to be well witnessed even outwardly, 
●. Timo. 3.  sithence S. Paul requireth also, that a bishop, or Priest, should be of a good name among the Infidels, if he live with them. And seeing Christ came into the world to be seen, and to minister, and to institute visible Sacraments, and to send visible Preachers: 
johan. 02  I considered, what an absurdity it was, after his Ascension for man to challenge an Invisible Church, or Succession to himself.  
Furthermore when I viewed the state of the Primitive Church, and saw that Bishops evermore succeeded lineally one after an other, even from the Apostles time: and had read that same order of Succession to be urged, and pressed upon by S. Irenaeus, S. Cyprian, Optatus, and S. Augustine (as is afore noted): And perceived, that who soever forsook the open and known Succession of Bishops, he was condemned for an Heretic, as well in the Latin, as in the Greek Church: all these things being set before mine eyes through God's grace, who showed me them: I esteemed not the title of any ministery, which I might seem to have received in King Edward's time, so much as I should have done, if I had received it of a Catholic Bishop, and after the order of the Catholic Church, being well assured that those, who took upon them to give Orders, were altogether out of Order themselves, and ministered them not according to the rite and manner of the Catholic Church, as who had forsaken the whole Succession of Bishops in all Christendom, and had erected a new Congregation of their own planting, the form whereof was imagined only in their own brains, and had not been seen, nor practised in the world before. Now the same reasons, which with many other moved me, I proponed to M. jewel, not being wholly without hope, but that through God's grace they might have moved him also. And yet he not unwitting, that I had returned to the universal and only true Church, and that I had taken a better ground of Priesthood, than his Sect hath, among whom all external Priesthood is utterly denied: he dissembling all this, will seem to be a Priest by my knowledge, and confession, as if he, and I had been made priests by the same man.  
No, no M. jewel. We were in part together, but I thank God of it, we were not wholly together. For I was with you with fear of God, and with misliking of many your deeds, and opinions, and with desire to serve God in that Truth, Religion, and Church, wherein I might safely rest, and quiet myself. In your fellowship I sought that safe quietness, but I never found it, because my feet were not stayed upon the Rock, nor upon any sure ground, sith I saw, what ye misliked, but I saw not, what ye would have: I saw, what ye pulled down, but I saw not, what ye set up: I saw, from what ancient Church ye were departed, but I saw you not to go to any elder society of faithful men, than yourselves were. And yet I knew, and at the length considered, that Christ's Church must be above fifteen hundred years old, whereas your Church (place it at Wittenberg, at Zuriche, or in what other corner so ever ye will) is not yet full fifty years old, and your first Preacher can show no commission, either ordinary, or miraculous for himself.  
These reasons with divers other moved me: the same also ought to have moved you. And because you can not answer them, you dissemble them, and therefore of your lawful Commission, Vocation, and Sending you speak never a word.   
jewel. 130. 
Father, as if you were my Metropolitan, ye demand of me, whether I be a Bishop, or no. I answer you, I am a Bishop, and that by the free, and accustomed Canonical Election of the whole Chapter of Sarisburie, assembled solemnly together for that purpose.  
Harding.  
It was no free Election M. jewel, 
M. jewels canonical election to the See of Sarisburie.  when the Chapter, which chose you, saw, that except it chose you, itself should be in danger of the law, and of the Prince's displeasure. It was no Canonical Election, when he was chosen, whom the old Canons have judged unable for that Vocation.  
For how can he be chosen Bishop, that is to say, high Priest, who teacheth, that there is not at all any external Priesthood in the Church? How can he be chosen Bishop, that is to say, high priest, who teacheth with the old condemned Heretic Aerius, 
Epiphan. Haeres. 75.  that by God's law there is no difference between a bishop, and a priest? How can he be lawfully chosen Bishop in Sarisburie, according to the old Canons, who teacheth all the old Canons to be superstitious, wherein from the Apostles time Prayers for the dead were commanded and prescribed? What Canon can allow his Election, who breaketh the Unity of the Church, and divideth himself, and his flock, 〈…〉 queens Chapel, let M. Richard Chandler prebendary there, and archdeacon of Sarisburie, let your own friend and faithfelowe M. Parry Chancellor of that Church be demanded, whether I was present at your Election, and gave free, and open consent unto it, or no. I marvel that you, who can remember so many sayings of Glosers, and canonists, could not remember to call for the Registers book, or for the witness of those of that Church there with you daily present, to understand the truth hereof before you wrote this much. You knew it, you knew it right well M. jewel, that both I, and M. Richard Dominike, that Reverend and virtuous Priest, Prebendary also there (whom in your visitation for the queens highness, ye appointed to be a prisoner, as also myself in mine own house at Sarisburie) utterly, and with express words refused to give our voices, and consent to your pretésed Election. Truly we accounted it no less crime to have chosen you Bishop of Sarisburie, then to have chosen Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Aerius, Pelagius, or any other the like Heretic. Wherefore revoke so many Untruths, you have here uttered with one breath. Your Election was neither free, nor Canonical, the whole Chapter was not present, I was not one of that company, I gave not my consent. Now that you have so impudently affirmed all this notwithstanding, take heed, (that I may use your own words) your own breath blow not against you, all good and true men blow not against you, your own conscience (which is more to be feared) blow not against you, and before God the true and just judge, blow not you upside down.   
jewel. Pag. 130. 
As touching the impertinent tales of Ischyras, and Zacchaeus, they touch us nothing, they were none of ours, we know them not. Our Bishops are made in form, and order, as they have been ever, by free Election of the Chapter, by Consecration of the Archbishop, and other three Bishops.  
Harding.  
These true Histories, not tales, M. jewel, touch you in this behalf, because Priests are not so consecrated with you, that they may stand to offer the Sacrifice at the Altar, as it was reported of Ischyras, that he had done. As for breaking of a Chalice, 
Athanas. in apollo. 2.  which was laid to Macarius' charge Athanasius Priest, who pulled Ischyras from the Altar, for that he took upon him to celebrate the mysteries, being made no Priest by laying on of hands of a Bishop, with you this is a small fault. For your fellows have broken certain hundreds of holy chalices in these low countries, without making any conscience thereof at al.  
Moreover Epiphanius writeth of Zacchaeus, 
Contra haeret. to. 2. lib. 3.  ludenter sancta Mysteria contrectabat, & sacrificia cùm laicus esset, impudenter tractabat. He boldly handled the holy Mysteries, and whereas he was a Say man, he impudently handled the Sacrifices. What Sacrifices (I pray you) hath your Religion, which a Say man may not handle, as well as a Priest? But because you have abandoned all external Sacrifice, and Priesthood, therefore you judge the example of Zacchaeus belongeth nothing unto you. Certainly by those examples it is proved, that ye are no Bishops, and so far they be not impertinent.  
Your Bishops are made (you say) in form and order. What form and order mean you? 
The form and order of these new Bishops.  Mean you the old, which was used in the first five hundred years, or the new? In the old form after the Election notice was given to the Bishop of Rome, and to all the Bishops of the Church, that such a man was lawfully chosen Bishop within the Church, and not schismatically. And so all the other Bishops knew by the communicatory letters, 
Cyprian. li. 3. ep. 13.  to whom they should send, or of whom they should receive such letters. But so ye were not made Bishops: If ye were, show us to what Bishops out of England ye wrote any such letters. After that the custom of those letters became to be out of use, the only Bishop of Rome's Confirmation was in steed of the said notice, and by him surely you were not confirmed. And yet seeing he is a Bishop, if ye will not grant him the Confirmation, ye ought at the jest, to put him to knowledge of your Election, that he may know you to be men, with whom he may Communicate. But for as much as you wrote not to him in that matter, ye show, that ye be no Catholic Bishops. Fot never was there any Catholic Bishop in the Church, which did not one way, or other, show himself to communicate with S. Peter's Successor, from the beginning till this day.  

How was M. jew. consecrated by an Archbishop, and how the Archbishop himself.  But ye were made (you say) by the Consecration of the archbishop, and other three Bishops. And how I pray you was your archbishop himself Consecrated? What three Bishops in the Realm were there to lay hands upon him? You have now uttered a worse case for yourselves, than was by me before named. For your Metropolitan, who should give authority to all your Consecrations, himself had no lawful Consecration. If you had been Consecrated after the form and order, which hath ever been used, ye might have had Bishops out of France to have consecrated you, in case there had lacked in England. But now there were ancient Bishops enough in England, who either were not required, or refused to consecrate you, which is an evident sign, that ye sought not such a Consecration as had been ever used, but such a one whereof all the former Bishops were ashamed.   
jewel. Pag. 130. 
Our Bishops are made by the admission of the prince: And in this sort not long sithence the Pope himself was admitted, 
Platina in Severino Papa.  and as Platina saith, without the emperors letters patents was no Pope, as hereafter it shallbe showed more at large. Therefore we neither have Bishops without Church, nor Church without Bishops.  
Harding.  
The admission of the Prince is not reproved of us, 
The admission of a man by the Prince to a Bishopric.  when it is done in his place. For it is convenient, that as in the old time, beside the Clergy, which of right did chose the bishop, the people were called to see, who was chosen, and to show, whether they liked, or misliked him: so much more the Prince, who beareth the people's person, should have his place of assent, and consent in naming the Bishop, and in commending him, to the end he may govern his sheep with the more love, and quiet, when no man withstandeth his Election. And in that sort it was in deed the custom, that every Bishop of Rome should expect the emperors consent, until the Emperors themselves partly being content to remit that custom, did commit all to the Clergy, and partly left it by prescription.  
Neither was it of late, that this custom ceased, but well near seven hundred years ago, 
In Hadriano. 3.  as it may be seen in Platina. But seeing your Bishops were neither consecrated by those, who lineally succeeded the Apostles, nor have by your own confession more power by God's law then a Priest: you both have false Bishops without the true Church, and a false Church without true Bishops. For the true Church hath Bishops, 
That a Bishop is above a Priest.  which by God's law ought to be above Priests, because S. Paul writing to Timothee a Bishop, 
1. Timo. 5.  biddeth him not to admit an accusation against Priests without two witnesses, licensing him to admit such accusations, when there are two witnesses. It is his part only to admit accusations against Priests, who is the judge of Priests: and every judge is above him, over whom he sitteth in judgement. Therefore a Bishop by God's law is above a priest, whose judge he is allowed to be. 
Epiphanius har. 75.  Which argument Epiphanius bringeth against Aerius the heretic, who said (as now M. jewel saith) that Priests and Bishops were equal.  

Hieron. ad Euagrium.  Again S. Jerome, who defended that the names of Bishops, and of Priests were confounded in the beginning, and that the order of priesthood in them was one (both which things are true): yet he made an evident difference between the power of them, granting that a Priest could do all that a Bishop can, 
Hieronymus adversus Luciferianos.  excepta ordinatione, the ordering, or giving of holy orders excepted. In that point than he believed a Bishop to be above a Priest. Now say I, such a Bishop, as by God's law is above a Priest, as who may only make Priests, and give them power to consecrate, and in Christ's person to make, and offer unto God his body and blood: such a Bishop, or such a Priest you have not in all your Church, unless they be Apostates, and Renegates, who being once made priests with us, have now denied the faith wherein they were Christened, and are run out of the Church unto your false Congregations, and scattered troops.   
jewel. 
Neiter doth the Church of England this day depend of them, whom you so often call Apostates, as if our Church were no Church without them.  
Harding.  
S. Jerome said, no Priest, no Church: 
Aduersus. Lucifer Epistola ad Heliodorum.  and by a priest he meant him, that maketh Christ's body with h●● holy mouth, and offereth the same. For these are his own words: but such a priest is made only of a Bishop, who is by God's law above him. And such Priests have you none besides Apostates. Therefore your Church either is none, or dependeth of Apostates, and Renegates.   
jewel. Pag. 131. 
They are no Apostates M. Harding, that is rather your own name, and of good right belongeth unto you.  
Harding.  
He is an Apostata, who forsaketh the good profession, 
Who are Apostates.  which he once had. But the profession either of Monks, or of the Catholics (whom you call Papists) is good and godly. For concerning Monks, they are the men, who after the counsel of our Saviour, 
Matt. 19  profess to give away their goods to the poor, or forsake the hope of goods which may be had in the world, and follow Christ, gelding themselves, or making themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven This must needs be a good profession. And as for the Catholics, they are the only true members of Christ's Church, and none other can be Catholics beside those, whom you call Papists: Because none others have been always in all places, and all times sith Christ's Ascension. And we have been so, as our predecessors, and pastors in the See of Rome, with all other pastors agreeing therewith, do evidently show even to the eye. Therefore who so have forsaken their profession and rule, as Renegade monks, and Friars have, or our Church, as those priests have, who being rightly ordered in the catholic Church, communicate now with you they are Apostates, and Renegates.  
And whereas you say, that to be my name, and of good right to belong unto me: there can be no just cause to call me an Apostata, except it be for departing from you. But ye are all Apostates yourselves. For it can be named but of what Catholic fellowship ye are departed, whom ye left behind you (all Italy, France, and Spain &c.) who went out with you (a piece of Germany, Suitzerland, England, and Scotland) and after whom ye went, some after Luther, some after Zuinglius, some after Calvin: Therefore ye are all Apostates. Now when I departed from you, with whom notwithstanding I never remained wholly, I departed from Apostates, and came to that fellowship, which never forsook their former faith, nor went out, nor left any behind them, who might complain of their departure, nor had any peculiar Captains, but only the Apostles, and their Successors, that followed them lineally from age to age. Therefore the name of Apostata belongeth not to me, but to you, and to your fellows.  
If the Reader say, that we do but slander one the other, let him consider the reason, and not the words. An Apostata is one, 
The Protestants be Apostates.  who faileth and depareth from some certain lawful head. We depart from none, but keep God, Christ, and his Ministerial heads, Bishops, Priests, Kings, and Magistrates. But the Protestants have denied all the Bishops alive in the whole earth, who lived before, and in Luther's time. They have, and do, rebel, in all countries for the pretence of Religion. And so they forsake both the obedience of spiritual, and temporal governors: therefore they are by all means Apostates.   
jewel. Pag. 131. 
They are for a great part learned, and grave, and godly men: and are much ashamed to see your solies.  
Harding.  
There is no learning against faith. What learning call you it, when a man learneth to deny this to be Christ's body, which he said to be his body? Or to hold, 
Matt. 26.  that the Church is sometimes hid, 
Matt. 5.  which Christ said to be a City built upon a hill, that can not be hid? What gravity is this, to be moved and carried out of the Church, and to be tossed, hither and thither, with every puff of new doctrine? Now to be a Hussite, than a Lutheran, now a Brentian, afterward a Zwinglian, and last of all a Caluinist? Yea what gravity is it, to defend, that all these sects may be saved, seeing they te●●● contradictory doctrine, and will come to no agreement? Concerning our follies, which you say they see, they are follies to worldings, and to men wise in their own eyes: as a man to shut up himself in a Cloister, to watch, to fast, to pray, to live chaste, to bewail his sins, to give away all his goods for God's sake, to honour God's friends with a due reverence and worship, to believe Christ rather than our eyes, and to trust the wit of our Predecessors, rather than our own: These are in deed our follies, in 〈…〉, we glory, through God's grace leaving the pride o●●o●… new translations of the Scriptures, your Sects, and worldly wisdom, the breaking of vows, the living in incest, and open filthiness, with impudent maintenance thereof, to your great learning, gravity, holiness, and wisdom.   
jewel. Pag. 131. 
Notwithstanding if there were not one, neither of them, nor of us left alive, yet would not therefore the whole Church of England flee to Louvain.  
Harding.  
Who ever said, that the whole Church of England must flee, or was fled to Louvain? You keep some part of it fast enough from fleeing to Louvain, or any whither else, if the Tower, the Fleet, the Marshalsea, the Counters, the kings Beanch, and other prisons in London be able to keep men fast. But if you speak of your own Church, surely you had Apostates, and renegade priests in it, 
Aduersus Luciferiam.  or you had no Church at all, as out of S. Jerome I showed before, who saith, no Priest, no Church. And verily no true Church ever was there without an External and public Sacrifice, which it might offer to God to acknowledge, that he is the beginning and end of all grace and goodness. But where no external Priesthood is (as you now believe there is none) there is no external Sacrifice, and consequently no true Church. And seeing renegade priests can not make a true Church, nor their Sacrifice can be acceptable unto God, yea rather seeing they are of the mind and belief, that it is not lawful to honour God with the external Sacrifice of Christ's own body and blood left to us for that intent: it doth still follow, that although ye have true Priests which run from us, yet have ye neither true Sacrifice by them, nor true Church.   
jewel. Pag. 131. 
T●rtullian saith, Nun & laici sacerdotes sumus? scriptum est &c. And we being lay men, are we not priests? it is written, 
In exhortatione ad Castitatem.  Christ hath made us both a kingdom, and priests unto God his father. The authority of the Church, and the honour by the assembly, or Council of Order sanctified of God hath made a difference between the lay, and the clergy, whereas there is no assembly of ecclesiastical Order, the priest being there alone (without the company of other priests) doth both minister the oblation, and also baptise. Yea, and be there but three together, and, though they be lay men, yet is there a Church. For every man liveth of his own faith.  
Harding.  
Wonder not M. jewel (as you confess that once you did) at your misfortune, and evil luck, in that by us a thousand faults are sooner found in your books, than you could well without blushing (if any shame were in you) note two hundred in mine. For who so ever writeth against the truth, can not possibly bring one word, which for maintenance of an untruth may be altogether truly applied after the writer's mind, out of whom the same is alleged, unless that writer were himself an Heretic, or in that behalf by better judgement noted of some error. Therefore it is easier to find many thousand Lies in your books, than any few in mine. And as that hath been showed in many other examples heretofore, so shall it now appear most evidently in this, which you bring out of Tertullian. 
Tertullian. in exhort. ad castitatem. Montanus, and Tertullian condemned the second Marriages.   
First, the book and work, that you allege, is one of those which Tertullian wrote against the Church, after that he became an Heretic, and was one of the disciples of Montanus. For as Montanus did condemn the second Marriages, so did his scholar Tertullian: Who having corruptly interpreted many places of S. Paul, cometh at the length to prove his heresy by conferring the old Testament with the new. Ecce in veteri lege, etc. Behold (saith he) in the old law, I find the licence of marrying oft to be inhibited. It is enacted in the book of Leviticus, Sacerdotes mei non plus nubent, my Priests shall not marry any more. But the fullness of the law, as in other points, so in this, was reserved to Christ alone. Whereupon it was more fully and more straightly prescribed, that those aught bo be of one matrimony, who are chosen in the Priestly order. In so much that I myself remember certain men for having had two wives, to have been removed from their place (of Priesthood). 
An objection of Tertullian against himself.  But thou wilt say: Then is it lawful for other men (to marry twice) for so much as exception is made against them (to wit against Priests) to whom it is not lawful (to have been twice married). Hitherto Tertullian hath gone about by the example of the Priests of the old and new Testament to show, that Say men also may not marry but once. For in the new Testament S. Paul would have them only chosen to Priesthood, 
Tit. 1. The husband of one wife  who are, or have been the husbands of one wife, that is to say, have neither had two wives at once, nor have married a widow, nor have had two wives one after an other. For all this doth the Apostle mean, and the ancient Fathers do so witness.  
Now Tertullian saw evidently, that there was a difference between Priests, and lay men, whereupon he made the former objection to himself, that the second marriages, which only do stay a man from being Priest, are absolutely lawful for him, who will be no Priest, but will remain still in the degree and state of lay men. To the which objection being to strong for Tertullian, it behoved him so to answer, as yet his heresy against the second marriages might be maintained. So that now M. jewel bringeth forth his heretical answer made unto a Catholics argument. Thus than Tertullian goeth forward. Vani erimus si putaverimus, quòd Sacerdotibus non liceat, laicis licere, nun & laici Sacerdotes sumus? We shall be deceived (or we shallbe vain men) if we shall think that to be lawful for Say men, which is not lawful for Priests. We that are Say men, are we not Priests also? And so he goeth forward with that which M. jewel did allege for his purpose. 
Double priesthood  For whereas there is a double Priesthood, one public and external, which is only common to those, that receive power to consecrate Christ's Body and Blood at the Altar, the other private, and internal, which is indifferently common to the Priests, and to lay men, whereby they all receive power in Baptism to offer spiritual Sacrifices unto God, 
1. Pet. 2.  as S. Peter saith: Tertullian would have the argument to be good, that as none are made public and external Priests, which have had two wives, so none who are internal priests, might have two wives. But Tertullian is deceived in his heretical argument, as well as M. jewel is in alleging an heretical authority.  
Whereupon S. Jerome saith. Montanus, 
Tertullian enemy ●o s●cond marriages.  & qui Novati schisma sectantur, putant secunda matrimonia ab Ecclesiae communione prohibenda, cùm Apostolus de Episcopis & Praesbyteris hoc praecipiens, utique in caeteris relaxârit, non quòd hortetur ad secunda matrimonia, sed quòd necessitati carnis indulgeat. Montanus, and those who follow the schism of Novatus, think that the second Marriages ought to be forbidden from the Communion of the Church, whereas the Apostle giving that commandment unto Bishops, and priests, hath doubtless released it in other men. Not that he exhorteth them to second marriages, but bicuase he yieldeth to the necessity of the flesh. So that S. Jerome reproveth that very argument of Tertullian, which now M. jewel setteth forth. And in that very place, S. Jerome nameth Tertullian, as an enemy of second marriages.  
But verily the case is not like in Bishops, and Priests. For every man of necessity is borne a lay man, therefore it were not reason to force him, who could not chose but be a lay man, to mary but once, whereas none are made Priests, but those that know before hand, that the Apostle willed such only to be chosen Priests, as are the husbands of one wife, that is to say, as have not had two wives, but either none, or but one. This law being foreseen, causeth it to be no injury, to forbid the second marriage, if any man willbe an external and public Priest. For he needeth not to be such a Priest, except he himself be willing thereunto.  
Again the internal Priest needeth no more, but an internal sanctity, which may be kept in the second marriage, and whereby God is specially pleased, and that because he is only his own Priest. But the external Priest, must also profess an external sanctity, because he beareth the person of the whole Church, and by his order witnesseth, 
2. Cor. 11.  that the Church (as S. Paul saith) is despoused, or married to one husband alone, verily to Christ: so that in the internal Priesthood it is enough to have inward holiness without any outward sign peculiarly belonging thereunto, because it is a Priesthood, which is given in Baptism, where the soul is inwardly washed, and prepared to receive other sacraments. But in the external Priesthood there must be also an external sign of holiness, because that external priesthood is of itself a Sacrament, that is a visible sign of a holy thing wrought inwardly. 
Internal priest, and external do differ. ad Heb. 5.   
Thirdly the internal Priest hath only to offer his own spiritual Sacrifices upon the Aultare of his heart: but the external Priest hath to offer gifts, and external Sacrifices upon the outward Altar also, for the sins of the whole people, as S. Paul saith. Therefore both Tertullian in this point the Montanist, and M. jewel the Caluinist are in like sort deceived. The Montanist in making it no more lawful for a lay man to be twice married, then for him to be made a Priest, who had been twice married: The Caluinist in making the internal, and external Priest to be all one. For whereas I reasoned out of S. Jerome, no Priest (or Bishop) and no Church (and S. Jerome meant of such a Priest, as is above a Deacon) M. jewel would prove out of Tertullian, that where three Christian lay men are, there is a Church. I confess where but one Catholic layeman is, there is one of the Church, in which Church there are many external Priests: but if there be a thousand lay-men belonging to such a congregation, as doth not acknowledge any external Sacrifice, and Priesthood (as the protestants do not): there those thousand neither are the Church, nor of the Church, because no Church is without an external Priest, or Bishop, who may offer public Sacrifice, and also consecrate an external priest.  
Tertullian was not of this mind, that there was no external Priesthood: but his error was, 
Tertullians' error.  in that he would have the internal, and external Priests to be in like case concerning the second marriages. But otherwise his words confess, that not only the authority of the Church, but also the honour sanctified of God by the assembly of priests, 
Tertullian. Ibidem.  hath made a difference between the Order (of priests) and the lay people. His words are, differentiam inter ordinem, & plebem constituit Ecclesiae authoritas, & honour per ordinis consessum sanctificatus à Deo. The authority of the Church, and the honour sanctified of God by the assembly of the Order (to wit, of priests) hath made a difference between Order (that is priesthood) and the laity.  
Two things have made this difference between priests, and lay-men, the one is the authority of the Church: the other is Christ himself: Who beside the authority of the Church, by the Sacrament of holy Orders hath instituted this difference of priests, and of lay-men. The sacrament of holy order is given, 
Consecration of a Bishop.  whiles God sanctifieth the honour, that is the preferment of him, upon whom the bishop in an assembly with many priests about him layeth his hand.  
This Consecration of the bishop, with other bishops, or priests, Tertullian calleth Consessum ordinis, the assembly of Order: and the Sanctification of God, is that which is given by the Sacrament of Priesthood. For every Sacrament doth sanctify the worthy receiver, as S. Paul namely saith of the Sacrament of external priesthood unto his disciple Timothee. 
1. Tim. 4.  Despise not the grace which is in thee, 
False translation, to minister the oblation, for to offer up Sacrifice.  which hath been given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of priesthood. Now a priest thus made might baptise, and offer Sacrifice, albeit he were alone. But the word offer, to offer, M. jewel turneth, to minister the oblation. But what perverting of words is this? What corruption of the sense? What licentious translation? Speaketh not Tertullian of the action of a Priest? You mean by your ministering of your oblation, that the Priest ministereth to the people that thing, which the people offered to the priest. and so you make the people to offer bread unto the priest, but the priest to offer nothing unto God. But Tertullian saith the priest doth baptise, and doth offer, meaning that he offereth to God. But if your sense be true, the people doth offer to the Priest, and not the priest unto God, and consequently the priest doth not offer at al.   
jewel. Pag. 131. 
Again ye demand of me, what Bishop of Sarisburie ever since Augustine's time maintained this doctrine. I might likewise, and by as good authority demand of you, what Bishop of Rome before the same English Augustine's time maintained your doctrine? Or, as I said before, what Bishop of Rome ever before that time, either said, or knew your private Mass?  
Harding.  
The questions are not like M. jewel, there is a thousand years distance between them. I demand of your Predecessors from this day upward till S. Augustine's time, who first brought the faith unto the English nation. But you demand not from our time to S. Augustine's, and so upward: but only from S. Augustine's time upward. Many things have been, or might have been lawfully concluded between this and S. Augustine's time, which is the space of a thousand years, albeit the same had not been used before, or, not thoroughly known, 
The Eucharist ministered to children at their Baptism.  and decided. As for example, the use hath been these later thousand years, to minister baptism unto children rather without giving them the Sacrament of the Altar, than otherwise, and that even in those Churches, in some of which within the first five hundred years, the Sacrament of the Aultare was given to children at their baptism. And yet M. jewel can not say, that this later custom is worse than the first was, but rather that it is better, as the council of Trent hath declared.  
I demand then of any M. jewels Predecessors in Sarisburie, even till our Apostle S. Augustine's time: but he skippeth over these last thousand years, and asketh me of that which was before. Which inequality not withstanding, I answer to his question, and say, that all the Bishops of Rome, as well before S. Augustine's time, as sithence, maintained our Religion. And that I prove, because the B. of Rome that now is, Pius the fifth, doth allow our Religion. For we communicate with him, and he with us. And this present Bishop agreed with his predecessor Pius the fourth, and he again with Paulus the fourth. And so if we go upward from man to man, from Pope, to Pope, even unto S. Gregory's time: we shall find, that concerning any question which is between the Protestants, and us, there was never Pope yet, which disagreed with his predecessors, or aftercomers. For every one of them doth praise, and follow. S. Gregory. Now S Gregory sent S. Augustine into England, who turned our English nation to the faith: and S. Gregory himself agreed in saith with his predecessors, even till we come to S. Peter. Neither can it be showed, which Pope did ever break, or change the universal faith, which was in Rome, or any where else before, concerning either private Mass, as you term it, or any other Article.  
If then Pius the fifth, or any Pope else do allow private Mass, as it is evident he doth, and the General Council of Trent with him: certainly every Pope before him did allow the same. For this Pope agreeth with his predecessors. Or else if until S. Gregory's time private Mass (in such sense as we now dispute of it) had not been heard of, being so heinous an offence against God, as that whereby the Institution of Christ's supper is broken, which Pope so ever had begun it, he should have been noted for his new Invention, as they have been, who have begun any change, as in certain ceremonies some have done. 
Platina in vitis Pontifi.  For pope Sergius is noted to have been the first, that changed his former name: Leo the third was the first, that placed the empire in France and Germany: and Hadrianus the third was the first, that challenged to be pope without the emperors authority, and so forth in many like matters.  
But seeing M. jewel can name no man who began to say, or allow private Mass, and yet seeing it is said and allowed throughout all Christendom, it is S. Augustine's own rule, that the said use of private Mass came from the Apostles themselves. For thus he writeth. 
August. ad januarium. Epist. 118.  Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nee Concilijs institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur. What thing the whole Church keepeth, and hath not been instituted in Counsels, but hath been always retained: the same is most rightly believed to have been delivered none otherwise, then by Apostolic authority. Neither M. jewel, nor any man else can show us, which Council instituted first Private mass: and the Church from age to age is found to have had private mass, neither can any one man be named, that first said it: therefore private Mass, and also the other necessary points of our religion, are most rightly believed to have proceeded only from the Apostolic authority. Thus I have answered M. jewels question. Now let him answer mine.   
jewel. 
Touching the Bishops of Sarisburie, you yourself have named two, Bishop Shaxton, and Bishop Capon, both learned, and grave fathers, and both preachers, and professors of the gospel.  
Harding.  

Bishop Shaxton not to be accounted of M. jew else side.  Among the wise, a man is accounted to be such, as that is, be it good, or evil, wherein he maketh abode, and what thing is done by a man but once, or seldom, and wherein he maketh no continuance, thereof he hath not his name. For example: he is not accounted virtuous and just, who once or very seldom doth virtuously, or justly, 
Aristotel. in Ethicis. una Hirundo non facit ver. Math. 10.  but he that doth often so, and still desireth so to do. This much M. jewel you should have learned of Aristotle, who teacheth you, that it is not one Swallow, that maketh the Springtide. After this sense Christ himself said, they are blessed, that continue until the end. But Bishop Shaxton, although he sometime preached certain parts of your doctrine, as a man being deceived by Luther's, and the Lutherans books, before he had well examined them: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  yet he continued not in your congregation, but repented him earnestly of it, and revoked his former unadvised doings. If then his judgement with you be of some account, his last judgement must stand. It is said (you know) by the wise, and reason so giveth, that the second thoughts are better advised, and of more wisdom. To say few, it is well known in all therealme, that he died a Catholic, and could by no means be brought to revolt to you again in all King Edward's time. And so you have no help by B. Shaxton.  
Touching bishop Capon, he was never in his life wholly of your belief, 
Bishop Capon ●o Protestant.  none otherwise but as every man most loveth himself, and the things of the world, so he is the more inclined to your side, and hath the more liking of your lewd, fleshly, and licentious Doctrine. And who, that is more carried away with the lusts of the flesh, then is ruled by the advises of the Spirit, would not be glad to hearken unto such a fleshly Gospel, and as it were upon a soft coishon, to lean the elbows of his lose conscience? Whereby I mean not to accuse that Bishop of any unknown crime, but only to show, that whiles he was loath to displease the Prince, and glad to please himself, and for fear conformed himself to the world: he seemed to favour sundry points of your proceedings, and in some part rather did like unto you, then believed as you do: as it is well known by the order of his life, and specially by his end, which trieth a man best, at what time he showed himself thoroughly Catholic, and heartily repent, that he had ever gone so far with you. And because he was known not to have been of your side in heart, he was suffered to keep his state, and bishopric in Queen Mary's time, when all the Protestants were removed from such rooms.  
Thus have you neither Shaxton, nor Capon for your predecessor, and consequently you are (as S. Cyprian said of Novatian) Nemini succedens, à teipso ordinatus, 
Cypria. li. 1. epist. 6.  a Bishop succeeding no man, but ordained of yourself. Which thing would yet have been more plain, if you M. jewel had not practised your old false sleight in cutting of my words. For when I had asked whether D. Capon, Shaxton, Campegius, or Audley, or any other bishops of Sarisburie taught your doctrine, I answered thereunto, it is most certain they did not. How be it I stayed not there, but went forward to remove that your objection of Capon, and Shaxton, which I foresaw you would make: And thereunto I said thus. How so ever those two first named (Capon, 
M. jewel left out all these words, because they answered him fully.  and Shaxton) only in some part of their life taught amiss, how afterward they repented, abhorred your heresies, and died Catholics, it is well known. Now beside these, whom else can you name?  
All these words of mine, you left out M. jewel, as if I had never printed them. You left them out, not only by not answering them, but also you did not suffer them to be printed in your book among mine own words, least you should have been answered, before you had replied, as most times you are, as it should appear, if it would please the Reader, but to view and peruse my words over again, and diligently to confer them with yours. Which I wish him to do not only for trial of this point, but also all others, whereof so ever both we have treated. And he shall say, you were answered before you made the Reply, confuted before you made your pretenced Defence.  
But what conscience have you, that live, at least maintain the life of your estimation among them of your Sect, by lying, by dissembling, by cutting of, by adding unto, by mangling your Doctors, briefly by deceiving the reader one way, or other? You were ashamed to have no predecessor at all in the See of Sarisburie, and to be like Novatian, or Donatus, and such other the like Heretics. And therefore you name two Predecessors, both which protested at their death, that you, and all your fellows are Heretics, and repent, that ever they communicated with you so far as they did. Thus you come of yourself, as the Devil doth, and shall come in his chief member Antichrist. And you come not holding by lineal Succession, nor by lawful Sending, as Christ came, being sent of his father, and being borne of the seed of David, and of Abraham: But you are without Predecessors, and I am sure, if God for our great sins forsake not our Country, you shall not long have Successors.   
jewel. 
For the rest of the bishops that were before them, what faith they held, and what they either liked, or misliked, by their writings, or sermons, it doth not greatly appear.  
Harding.  
What need words, when deeds speak? It is evident, they kept that, which they received of S. Augustine our Apostle, and that, which was before, and afterward believed in all Christendom. They said Mass, they adored Christ's body in the blessed Sacrament, who doubteth of it? They asked their confirmation of the bishop of Rome, and acknowledged him to be the Apostle S. Peter's Successor. Therefore they were not your Predecessors, in faith and doctrine, you may be assured M. jewel.   
jewel. 
I trust they held the foundation, and lived, and died in the faith of Christ.  
Harding.  
Now, now M. jewel you have bewrayed, 
M. jewel be wraith himself.  what you teach in corners, now that lurking heresy is cropen out, whereof I spoke in my Preface to you before my last Reiondre touching the Sacrifice of the Mass. There I showed, that the Catholic Church must be believed in all points of Religion, and that they were Heretics, who persuaded themselves, that it was enough to believe certain Articles of the faith, and to let the rest alone, not regarding whether this, or that be true. But what call you the Foundation of the true faith? You know, that all your Predecessors acknowledged the Pope's Supremacy, said Mass, and believed the doctrine of the seven Sacraments, and taught so. Otherwise they had been noted for Heretics of others, who lived together with them, as you are of them, who live with you. Seeing then you know they did so, what can you mean by the foundation, but only the belief of the Trinity, and of Christ's birth, death, and Ascension? As though it were enough to believe those things, what so ever become of the rest.  

Math. 12. Math. 18. Luc. 10.  But Christ saith, he that is not with me, is against me. He that heareth not the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen, and a publican. He that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me, and him that hath sent me. And S. Paul saith, 
1. Tim. 3. jacob. 2. Agust. epistol. 29. ad Hieron.  The Church is the pillar, and sure stay of truth. And S. james, he that faileth in one, is made guilty of all, that is, as S. Augustine expoundeth it, he that faileth or sinneth against Charity, is guilty of all other faults. Now charity is broken, if unity be broken: and unity is broken, if the bishops believe not every Article of the faith expressly, which the Church teacheth to be expressly believed. Therefore either your predecessors were with you, or against you. There is no middle, or mean. With you they were not, because they taught seven Sacraments, and the Pope's supremacy, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc. Therefore they were against you. And then ye are the first of that faith and doctrine, which now ye teach. You therefore came of yourself, and are without Predecessors.   
jewel. 131. 
If they had lived in these days, and seen that you see, they would not have been partakers of yours wilfulness.  
Harding.  
These are the words of an Antichrist, who seeking to make himself equal with Christ, doth use such Phrases by his wicked members, as Christ did use concerning his own person. In deed Christ and only Christ might say such words, because he only showed such miraculous works, that were able to have turned Sidon, and Tyrus, 
joan. 2. & 10.  or any other hard hearted people.  
But what have we seen in these days M. jewel, which would have been able to have made all your Predecessors to have yielded unto your new faith? Have ye spoken with all tongues, as the Apostles did? Nay ye have confounded, and dispersed them, as it was done at the building up of the tour of Babylon. For whereas in holy matters, and specially in the Church Service, we seemed to be delivered from the curse of the Division of tongues, because many nations of divers languages were united and knit together in one Latin, or Greek Church Service, you go about to set the world again as far a part by divers vulgar tongues, as ever it was before Christ's coming. Have ye built us new Churches, or schools, or hospitals, or colleges? Nay ye have pulled down the old, and defaced them to the uttermost of your power. Have ye made peace in the earth, and reconciled all dissensions? Ye have rather divided the subject from his Prince, the child from his father, and the wife from her husband. What is it then, wherein your Predecessors, if they had now lived, and had seen it, would not have been so wilful, as we are? They should have seen in you Divisions, sects, factions, pride, wantonness, fleshly liberty, cruelty, murders, treasons, rebellions, Church robbinges and to be short all impiety, and contempt of God. Pride accompanied with malice, covetise, and lechery, was the foundation. A foul mouthed Friar, as ever lived on the earth, and a nun incestuously coupled together, was the building that rose up of your doctrine, which to this day goeth forward, with like increase. And yet if your Predecessors had seen that which we see, they would forsooth have been astoned to see the heavenly fruits, which these men bring forth.   
jewel. 
To be short, we succeed the bishops that have been before our days, we are elected, consecrated, confirmed and admitted as they were.  
Harding.  
Here is no lie at al. That I may speak of no other difference, the Bishops, whom you succeed, were all confirmed by the bishop of Rome, and so is none of you.   
jewel .. 
If they were deceived in any thing, we succeed them in the place, but not in error.  
Harding.  
By their place is meant specially their doctrine and belief, which seeing you have not, you are not their successor, no more than Paulus Samosatenus the heretic, was the Successor in S. Peter's chair in Antioch, no more than Gregorius the Arian was S. Marks successor in Alexandria, no more than all the Bishops of Christendom are to be accounted the successors of the Heathenish Priests, which in the same Cities before worshipped Idols. It is the Doctrine, and place together which maketh the Succession, and not the walls of the town, Church, or house alone.   
jewel. 
They were our Predecessors, but not the rules, and standards of our faith.  
Harding.  
As long as they remained in that unity of Doctrine, which they received of the Apostles, or of the Apostolic Churches, as Tertullian doth well show, so long they are presidents, and their continual Succession is a good rule, and standard of our faith. For they are pillars of the Church, the Successors of the Apostles, 
Luc. 10.  whom he that heareth, heareth Christ. Now when those that break the Unity, which was in the Church before, come to sit in any bishop's Chair, they in deed are no presidents, no rules, nor standards of our Faith, because the Apostle biddeth us observe, and beware of them, 
2. Thess. 3.  that walk inordinately, and make dissensions. For the Church of God hath no such custom to strive, 
1. Cor. 11.  and to resist at once all the Bishops of the whole Church, as Martin Luther did.   
jewel. 131. 
Or rather, to set apart all comparison of persons, the doctrine of Christ this day, M. Harding, succeedeth your doctrine, as the day succeedeth the night: as the light succeedeth darkness, and as the truth succeedeth error.  
Harding.  

What is the day, what is the night in M. jewels judgement.  That is to say, your doings, and proceedings are the day, the light, and the truth: but the Catholic faith which we teach, and all our predecessors in all the world have ever taught, is the night, the darkness, and error. But sir, if your doctrine be day, or light, and ours night, or darkness: how chanceth it, that our doctrine was ever openly seen in the whole world from the Apostles time unto these days, in so many Bishops throughout all nations, teaching all one thing, and yours was not seen by your own confession for nine hundred years together? This was a long night pardy M. jewel. Is it the nature of the light not to be seen? Who saw not our Altars, our external Priests, and our Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ in the whole world from East to West, 
Malac. 1.  as Malachias prophesied, and the event showed?  
But your no Altars, your no external Priests, and your no sacrificing of Christ's body, briefly, the Imaginative face of your Negative Religion, or rather of your no Religion, who could see, before that now of late ye pulled down our Altars, to show how ye had no Altars, and before violently ye banished our Priests, and drove them out of their Churches, to show how ye had no Priests, and denied Christ's Real Presence, to show how ye had no Sacrifice? Our monks, and Friars from S. John Baptistes days, and from the time of those, that lived a very holy life in egypt, from the time of S. Mark the evangelist unto the time of S. Basil in the East, of S. Augustine, S. benedict, S. Francis and S. Dominike in the West, had replenished Christendom with Cloisters, and Monasteries: to those our Monks, I say, all the world beareth witness. But your no monks, Renegates, and Apostates, lived in Turkey, or in Hell: for in the lands of Christendom no such doctrine shined, none such was heard of, which should avouch, that it is not lawful by God's grace to make a vow, that a man will renounce the riches, and pleasures of the world, and live continently, under the obedience of a spiritual Father.  
If your doctrine be the light, and the day, how cometh it to pass, that not so much as one Church, or chapel in the whole earth can be named, where before these fifty years it was unlawful to occupy holy Chrism in bishopping of children, or to say Mass, or to teach the seven Sacraments, to pray for the dead, to celebrate the Church Service in the Latin tongue, to desire the Apostles, Martyrs, and the other Saints to pray for us, all which things now you account for unlawful? Can the light be so darkened, that it should be unknown unto you, whether ye had any ancestors at all, or no? We can, if need were, set forth a roll of our Pastors and Bishops, from this day upward unto S. Peter's time in such sort, as you shall name no one time, of which we are not able to say unto you, these many prelate's, and Pastors were known to preach Christ's gospel, at once in divers nations.  
Mark M. jewel, what I say to you, and consider of it well: For herein your utter Confusion appeareth, that ye are not able to bring the continuance of your doctrine up unto S. Peter's time without interruption, albeit you should be bound to name for every fifty years in Order, but one man in the whole world at once. Think of it with all your wit, and give me an instance. There are since Christ's time fifteen hundred years passed. give me for every hundred years two Catholic men, one living after the other, whom you may justify to have been of your faith, holding that doctrine which you hold, and so give me in all but thirty men, living, and known to have lived, each of them about fifty years one after the other, and for my part I will release you of your bond of subscription.  
Such a lightsome Church ye have, that ye must go into the pit of Hell to fetch out Aêrius, Pelagius, Vigilantius, jovinian, helvidius, Manichaeus, and such others of condemned memory, to give light unto your Church, or else you can bring forth none at al. For whereas all the Greeks, 
Epiphan. Haeres. 75  as it may appear by Epiphanius, and all the Latins, as it may appear by S. Augustine, condemned him for an heretic, who said the prayers of the liue could not help the dead, what catholic is it possible to bring forth, for the year of our Lord three hundred and fifty, or four hundred, who taught as ye now teach, that it is not lawful, nor profitable to pray for the dead?  
Well, ye are not the light, nor the day. Is your doctrine at the least the truth? Nay, that is the truth, which is also the light. For the true doctrine is taught in that Church which is built upon an hill, and can not be hid.  
The truth is uniform, 
Math. 5.  but among you Luther and Zuinglius, Caluine and Westphalus, Bullinger and Brentius, Illyricus and Beza, and sundry other couples and parts agree so well, that a man may easily know them to be false Prophets. For whereas they all disagree, yet they are all without that Church, where unity is preserved in the perpetual Succession of many Bishops always agreeing in one saith. Therefore your doctrine is neither the light, nor the day, nor the truth: but darkness, but night, but error.   
jewel. 131. 
Now, for as much as ye have thought it so good, to examine the petite degree of Bishops of Sarisburie, I trust you will not think it il, if I a little touch the l●ke in the Bishops of Rome, that we may thereby the better be able to see some of the branches of your Succession.  
Harding.  
In deed they of whom you speak, are but some of the branches of our Succession. For you touch of two hundred and thirty Bishops of Rome not thirteen, and yet our Succession consisteth also of all the Bishops in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Sicily, Polonia, Hungary, Denmark, Suethen, and England even till king Henry the eights time. But go too on God's name: touch whom you can. I am well assured, you will play the Spider, to espy if any poison can be found any where. Let us see, with what truth and honesty you blaze their faults.  
The worst that can be said of all the Pope's touching doctrine by the Protestants, is here gathered together, and laid forth by M. jewel, and the same is truly answered.   
jewel. Pag. 131. 
Therefore shortly to say: you know that Pope Marcellinus committed Idolatry.  
Harding.  

Of S. Marcellinus Martyr and Pope.  I know that after his Idolatry, whereto he yielded for fear of death, he repented, and shed his blood for Christ, and died a glorious Martyr, even as S. Paul, after that he had persecuted the Church, through grace repent, and died for Christ's name. Who ought now to be more ashamed of S. Marcellinus, you, that challenge him for an idolater, or I, that challenge him for a Martyr? The Idolatry, you speak of, is gone and pardoned: the martyrdom, whereof I speak, is everlastingly crowned in heaven. The end M. jewel trieth all, whereof you should have taken your judgement. And yet this very Idolatoure, because he was S. Peter's Successor, and sat in the first See, was in case for the room he occupied, to be judged of no man in the earth, as t●e Council of three hundred and thirty Bishops assembled at Sinuessa pronounced above twelve hundred years past. 
Tom 1. Concil.  Primasedes non iudicabitur à quoquam. The first seat shall not be judged of any man. What have you won now by this example, but that you do the world to understand, what malicious stomach ye bear against the Popes of Rome, whose faults ye are right glad to espy, and blaze abroad, although they repented of them. Verily it would have become a son of the Church, to conceele such acts of frailty, and not to see such spots that were with so abundant fountains of tears clean washed away, and with the blood of so glorious Martyrdom quite blotted out.   
jewel. 131. 
Pope Sylvester the second was a conjuror, and gave himself whole, body and soul to the Devil, and by the devils procurement was made Pope.  
Harding.  
That Sylvester the second came to be Pope, malis artibus, by evil means, it is not so clear a matter, as you make it. Platina the chief author we have for credit of that Story, uttereth it doubtfully by his Parenthesis (ut aiunt) as they say. Whereby he giveth us to understand, that he was not able to avouch it for a certain truth, but referreth himself to the vulgar rumour of the people, which most commonly bruteth abroad more lies, and vanities, than truths and certainties. Howbeit Platina, 
Platinae in vitis Pontificum. Pope Sylvester 2. his repentance at the end.  who told you all this, added also, Poenitentia motus, & errorem suum coram populo fassus, etc. being moved with repentance, and confessing his error before the people, he first exhorted them all, that ambition and the devils deceits laid aside, they should live well. And afterward his body was miraculously drawn by horses to the chief Church of Rome, and there was buried. If you believe the one, you must believe the other, sithence it is but one Story, whereof you told the first part, and I the last. Whereupon I attribute so much to that holy Succession, that I doubt not, as evil a man as he once was, but God dealt the more mercifully with him for his good predecessors sakes, who I doubt not, prayed for him, that he might die penitently, and be a saved soul.   
jewel. 131. 
Pope Zosimus for ambition, and claim of government, corrupted the holy Council of Nice.  
Harding.  
You say it, 
Pope Zosimus slandered by M. jew.  but never did any honest man say it from the beginning of the world, till this time, neither was the same yet ever proved. For albeit he alleged such words of a certain Canon, as the other copies had not, yet did no man lay to his charge, that he had corrupted the Council. For he alleged that which he found in his own copies. I say to you M. jewel, there is nothing showed by this your tale, but that you are a man of ill disposition, who gladly report evil, and besides that you find reported of others, invent yourself that, which utterly is false, to diminish the estimation of a holy man, that died eleven hundred years past. Mark the point, I say, if it be said of any man that ever wrote in the old time, that Pope Zosimus corrupted the Council of Nice, than you, or your fellows did not feign it: but if no man said it but bawdy Bale, or Illyricus, and such others the like: then your part is with liars, and slanderers, and thereafter shall your judgement be without you repent, which God grant you. 
M. Stapleton in the Return Article. 4. fol. 30. & sequentib.  I think it not good, to stand about it here, because the matter is well handled already by M. Dorman, M. Cope, and M. Stapleton. But you dissembling what they say, go on to maintain the Succession of lies in your own generation.   
jewel. 
Pope Liberius was an Arian Heretic.  
Harding.  
Or else you are an errant slanderous liar. The truth witnessed by all sorts of writers, is, that he suffered banishment by Constantius the Arian Emperor, for the true Catholic faith, 
Hieron. in Chronicis & in Catalogo.  and (as S. Jerome reporteth, being overcome with the tediousness of his banishment, subscribed to the Heresy after a sort, to wit, by setting his hand to the banishment of Athanasius. For the Pope's power was then known to be so great, that the Emperor knew the Patriarch Athanasius could not seem justly to be deposed, unless both other Bishops, and specially the Bishop of Rome had agreed unto it. But when Liberius would not agree to the emperors unjust request, he was banished, 
Theodorit. lib. 5 hist. Tripart. cap. 18.  and as Theodoritus witnesseth, he returned home to his See at the request of the virtuous Matrons of Rome, who knew him to be far from the Arians heresy, and judged so well of him for it, that they would not communicate with Felix, whom the Emperor had placed in Liberius room. For somuch as no man knew the cause, and state of Liberius better than Athanasius, of all otherlie is chief to be heard. His words are these. 
Athanasius in Epist. ad Solitariam vitam agentes. What Athanasius judged of Liberius.  Liberius deinde post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est, minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus est. Verùm illud ipsum quoque, & eorum violentiam, & Liberij in haeresim odium, & suum pro Athanasio suffragium, cùm liberos affectus habebat, satis coarguit. Afterward, Liberius having passed over two years in bamnishement, stooped, and by threats of death was brought to subscribe. But that very self same fact of his is a sufficient argument, both of their Violence, and of the hatred, that Liberius bore to the heresy (of the Arians) and what his consent, and opinion was concerning Athanasius, at what time he had his desires free, that is, when he might both speak, and do freely, what seemed to him most meet and expedient in that cause. How plain are these words against you M. jewel? Athanasius, who lived together with Liberius, and knew his whole state, saw right well, that the Subscription, which he made, proved him not an Arian heretic, but rather a Catholic, because he subscribed not voluntarily, but violently constrained, and that not with a vain fear only, but also with the present banishment of two years, and farther with the threatenings of death. Therefore although Liberius sinned grievously in yielding for fear, yet he neither was an Arian, nor preached he their heresy in his Church at Rome after his return: but rather repented his deed of subscription, and amended it by preaching, and doing all that he was able against the Arians, and therefore after his death, Epiphanius calleth him beatum, 
Epiphan. Haeres. 75 Tripart. lib. 7. c. 23 In Apolog. 2.  blessed: and Theodoritus calleth him sanctissimum, most holy.  
In an other place Athanasius writeth of him thus. Eximiarum urbium Episcopi, & capita tantarum Ecclesiarum, et verbis mihi patrocinati sunt, & exilia sustinuerunt, in quorum numero est & Liberius Romanus praesul, qui, quanquam non usque ad finem exilij maela perpessus est, biennium tamen in ea transmigratione perduravit, non ignarus sycophantiarum quas patiebamur. The Bishops of famous cities, and the heads of great Churches favoured me both in words, and (for my sake also) sustained banishment. Among whom was Liberius the Bishop of Rome: who although he suffered not the miseries of banishment until the end, yet he continued in that place which he was carried unto, two years, not unwitting what were the slanders that we suffered.  
This Liberius then, although perhaps he subscribed at the length, yet was there never good, or honest man, that ever would call him an Arian, who in deed never loved the Arians, but abhorred their opinion. But perhaps (perhaps I say) he was weary of his long banishment, and after terrible threats of death being otherwise weak subscribed. Well may such a forced subscription argue the lack of fortitude, certainly it proveth not heresy. For an Heretic doth stubbornly defend his opinion. But Liberius was so far from defending the Arian heresy, that he could hardly with terror of death after two years banishment be forced, to put his hand unto the book against Athanasius, which was in deed a derogation to the faith by a consequent, but directly it was not Arianisme.  
How seemeth not this wicked generation to spring of the Devil, sithence it maketh the worst of every thing, speaking evil of that, which may well, and ought charitably to be defended? And yet if he had been an Arian with all his heart, so long as he never decreed any thing according to the Arian heresy, nor did set it forth by public authority of the See of Rome: that should not hurt our matter of Succession.   
jewel. Pag. 131. 
Pope Leo, as appeareth by the legend, was likewise an Arian.  
Harding.  
Here are all things stoutly spoken, and nothing proved. There have been ten Popes, every of which was called Leo, but none of them all (for aught that can be proved) was an Arian. But it appeareth by the legend, say you. What an obscure proof is this? yet how clear is the slander? What legend mean you, M. jewel? Is it so notable, that it was enough to say, the legend, which manner of speech we use, when we speak of known things? Or were you a shamed to name the author? Verily unless you mean Leo the first, I dare boldly say, you can show us no legend written of any other Pope of that name. And doth it appear by his legend, that he was an Arian? Certainly the contrary appeareth. That holy and learned Pope both by his own learned works, 
Leo the first far from all suspicion of Arianisme.  wherein he speaketh much against the Arians, and by the witness of the fourth General Council, and of all the world beside, is so purged from the suspicion of that infamous name, that your slander in such a case must needs be most damnable unto yourself. Truly me thinketh I lack words to set forth in due colours the lewd licentious tongue of this slanderer, and yet he allegeth nothing at all for all those heinous crimes, which he imputeth unto so many innocent and worthy men.  

The worthy legend, by which it appeareth to M. jewel that pope Leo was an Arian. jacobus de Voragine.  But wilt thou know learned Reader, what a worthy piece of work it is, that M. jewel here calleth the legend, whereby he would prove, that Pope Leo was an Arian? Forsooth there is an old moth-eaten book, wherein Saints lives are said to be contained. Sometimes it is called Legenda Aurea, sometimes Speculum Sanctorum, sometimes Legenda Lombardica, or Historia Lombardica. Gesnerus of Zurich saith, one jacobus de Voragine a Black Friar was the author of it. It shall not greatly skill, who was the author of it: Certain it is, that among some true Stories, there be many vain Fables written. Among which this is one, that M. jewel here allegeth in great sadness. Neither is this reported of Pope Leo that he was an Arian, in a special legend written of Leo, but in a legend of S. Hilary of Poitiers in France, whose holy relics the huguenots in their late uproars in France villainously abused, burned to Ashes, and threw away, as likewise the bones, and Relics of S. Martin Bishop of Toures, and of that ancient and glorious Martyr S. Ireneus Bishop of Lions.  
That it may the better be known, what a worthy Doctor the writer of this legend was, 
Historia Lombardica De sancto Hilario. Legendae. 17. Hilarius dicitur ab Altus, & ears.  let the beginning of the same legend be taken as it were for a taste, where full Clerckely discussing the Etymology, and first original of S. Hilaries name, thus he saith. Dicitur Hilarius, quasi Alarius, ab Altus, & Ares, virtus: quia fuit alius in scientia, & virtuosus in vita. Vel Hilarius dicitur ab isle, quod est quasi primordialis materia, quae obscura fuit. Et ipse in dictis suis magnam habet obscuritatem, & profunditatem. Of such gear the Reader may find great store there, when so ever he is disposed to lawgh.  
Now let us hear the legend, or rather the Fable, by which it appeareth to M. jewel, that Pope Leo was an Arian. Thus it is told word by word. Eo tempore Leo Papa haereticorum perfidia depravatus, etc. At that time Pope Leo corrupted with the false belief of Heretics, assembled a Council of all the bishops. They being called together, Hilarius came in amongst them not sent for. Which thing when the Pope (Leo) heard of, he commanded, that no man should rise up unto him, nor give him place. When he was come in, the Pope said unto him. Art thou Hilarius the French man? I am not a French man, quoth he, but one of France. that is to say, I am not borne in France, I am a Bishop of France. Then said the Pope, If thou be Hilary of France, I am the Bishop of the Roman See, and judge. Then said Hilarius: Although thou be Leo (that is to say, Lion) yet thou art not the Lion of the tribe of juda. And though thou sit as judge, yet thou sittest not in the Seat of Majesty. At that the Pope (Leo) arose with disdain, saying, Abide a while, till I come again, and pay thee that thou deservest. To whom Hilarius answered. If thou come not again, who shall make answer unto me in thy steed? I will come again by and by, quoth he, and will bring down thy pride.  
When the Pope was gone to do the secret business of nature, he died of a dysentery, and avoiding forth at the privy all his entrails, he ended his life miserably. In the mean season Hilary seeing, that none would rise up unto him, took patience, and setting himself down on the ground, said: Domini est terra. Our Lords is the earth. And therewith the earth by the will of God, whereon he sat, lifted itself up, and stood up equal with the seats of the other Bishops. Hereupon when tidings came that the Pope was dead miserably, Hilary arose, and confirmed all the Bishops in the Catholic Faith, and so sent them home. This is the wise legend, by which it appeareth to M. jewel, that Pope Leo was an Arian Heretic.  
To let pass the other follies of this Fable, what a vanity is it to make Leo the Pope, and S. Hilary the Bishop of Poitiers, thus to brawl together at an assembly of Bishops, whereas it is most certain, that S. Hilary died at least one hundred years, before Leo was borne? M. jewel should not so falsely have conceeled, what followeth immediately in the same legend, whereby this tale is discredited. For thus saith the author himself. Hoc autem miraculum de morte Leonis Papae dubitationem habet, tum quia historia Ecclesiastica, vel Tripartita nihil de hoc loquitur: tum quia aliquem Papam talis nominis tunc fuisse, Chronica non testatur: tum quia Hieronymus dicit, quòd Sancta Romana Ecclesia semper immaculata permansit, & in futuro manebit sine Haereticorum in sultatione. But of this miracle of Leos death it is doubted, partly because neither the Ecclesiastical, nor the Tripartite story speaketh of it: partly because the Chronicle witnesseth not, that there was any Pope then of that name: 
S. Hieromes testimony for the Church of Rome out of his own Doctor.  also because S. Jerome saith, that the holy Roman Church hath ever continued unspotted, and so shall continue for time to come, that Heretics shall have no cause to insult at here. Mark M. jewel, if your legend be aught worth, with how clear testimony of S. Jerome, your imputing of Heresy unto the See of Rome is confuted.  
After this by way of guess, the Author saith, to make a bad defence of the fables vanity, wherein he showeth also his own folly, and vanity, that it might be said (that is to wit, if a man would lie) that at that time there was some Pope so called, not canonically chosen, but set in by tyrannical intrusion. Whereas he feared this would not serve, he addeth an other guess, Vel fortè Liberius etc. Or else perhaps (saith he) Pope Liberius, who favoured Constantius the Heretic Emperor, was after an other name called Leo. Which all are very poor, and peevish shifts to soothe the vain fable of this legend.  
Such Donghilles, and broken hays M. jewel is feign to rake, and skrape, to find some Rags, wherewith to cover the fowl nakedness of his wretched cause. Yet the Story set out in the name of Amphilochius, touching S. Basiles miracles, is much more probable, and may bear the name of the text, where this legend shall not be thought worthy the name of the Gloze.   
jewel. 131. 
Pope Coelestinus was a Nestorian heretic.  
Harding.  

coelestinus Pope falsely charged with the heresy of Nestorius Photius in epist. ad Michaelem Bulgariae principem. Prosper in Chronic.  Who ever heard such an impudent man? It was Coelestinus, who condemned Nestorius, and all his heresies. It was Coelestinus, in whose place Cyrillus the archbishop of Alexandria sat precedent in the third General Council at Ephesus, where Nestorius was accursed, and condemned. Of this Coelestinus the learned Bishop Prosper, who then lived, writeth: Nestorianae impietati praecipua Alexandrini Episcopi industria, & Papae Coelestini repugnat authoritas. The special diligence of the Bishop of Alexandria, and the authority of Pope Coelestinus, resisteth the impiety of Nestorius. And yet is Pope Coelestinus a Nestorian? No truly, but M. jewel proveth himself a most impudent Liar, and a wicked slanderer.   
jewel. 
Pope Honorius was a Monothelite heretic.  
Harding.  

Of Pope Honorius.  Now at length M. jewel you say that, which hath some face of truth. For Honorius in deed fell into the heresy of the Monothelites. But he fell into it, when as yet it was not evidently condemned by the Church in any general Council. He fell into it, but he defended it not: and yet the crime of heresy is not properly incurred, without a stubborn defence of falsehood.  
Again, he did not only not make any heretical Decree, touching the defence of that heresy, by the authority of the See Apostolic, but rather as a public person, he did resist that heresy. 
Platina in Honorio.  For he induced Heraclius the Emperor to banish Pyrrhus the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Cyrus the Patriarch of Alexandria, who were guilty of the Monothelite heresy. How then standeth it together, that Honorius did both favour, and hate the self same heresy?  
Some men considering what he did, say, that he was falsely accused of the heresy, but others think rather, that in his heart he favoured the heresy, yet because the Roman Church, to wit, the bishops of Ostia, of Porto, of Preneste, of Velitro, of Sabini, and such others, that having their bishoprics near there about, are most commonly resident in Rome, or are most easily assembled thither to every Consistory with a great number of Priests, of Deacons, and of other learned men, who are the Council, 
Cypria. in epist. ad Clerum vib. Rom.  and Senate of the Pope: because I say, they are and ever have been even from the beginning, men of great experience (as it may appear in S. Cyprians works) and of constancy in the faith, as who lived with diverse Popes one after the other: because then this reverend company were known to resist, as well the Monothelite heresy, as all other heresies: it standeth well together, that, Pope Honorius, albeit in his own person he favoured that heresy, 
Pope Honorius only burdened with the crime of heresy among the Popes  yet durst not to publish it in the common assembly, but contrariwise did there, as they gave him Council. Whereby it came to pass, that he both deposed Monothelites openly, and yet favoured their opinion privily. And this is the only Pope, who may justly be burdened with heresy.  
But now consider good Reader the work of God, when he should come to confirm his brothers, that is to say, to do any open thing, whereby the other bishops might be established in their faith: then was he constrained to do that, which might edify, and not hinder the true faith, that God might be justified in his words, 
Math. 16.  who said to S. Peter, upon this rock I will build my Church, and Hell gates shall not prevail against it, 
Luc. 22.  and thou being once converted confirm thy brothers: feed my sheep, 
joan. 21.  feed my lambs.  
For when Honorius came to this point, whether in public Consistory the Monothelite heresy (which taught, that there was but one will in Christ) should be allowed or no! then, as Platina recordeth, the Pope informed the Emperor, as well by letters, as by messengers, that Christ had two wills: and that was done by the common assembly, and the letters went, as the deed of the See, and Church of Rome: whereas in the mean time Honorius was of an other mind within himself. And they that are about great personages know right well, that they do many times send many messages, and letters, through the advise of their Council, which the great personages themselves would not have to take place. Thus we see a double person in him that governeth: one, which he hath in respect of his own private mind, and judgement, the other, which he hath, or rather taketh as put upon him, by the public office, which he beareth.  
Now concerning the matter of Succession, the public person is only to be regarded, which in Pope Honorius was Catholic. For that is the parsonage, which may hurt, or hinder the Church. Of that public parsonage Pope Agatho, who followed not long after Honorius, doubted not to write, as it is recited in the sixth general Council Act. 4. 
Concil. 6. General. Act. 4.  concerning this very heresy of the Monothelites. Apostolicae memoriae meae paruitatis praedecessores dominicis doctrinis instructi, ex quo novitatem haereticam in Christi immaculatam Ecclesiam Constantinopolitanae Ecclesia praesules introducere conabantur, nunquam neglexerunt eos hortari, atque obsecrando commonere, ut a pravi dogmatis haeretico errore, saltem tacendo desisterent, ne ex hoc exordium dissidij in unitate Ecclesiae facerent, unam voluntatem, unámque operationem duarum naturarum asserentes in uno Domino nostro jesu Christo. The predecessors that were before me, seely man that I am, men of Apostolic memory, and instructed in the Doctrine of our Lord, since that the Bishops of Constantinople endeavoured to bring an heretical novelty into the unspotted Church of Christ, never ceased to exhort them, and with earnest mean to admonish them, that they would, at the least wise by forebearing talk, surcease from the heretical error of their wicked opinion, least affirming, that there was in our Lord jesus Christ but one will, and one operation of two natures, hereby they should cause strife to begin in the unity of the Church. Thus the predecessors of Agatho, among whom Honorius was one, did, as he reporteth, always openly defend the Catholic faith against the Monothelites.  
It is to men known perhaps sometimes, that the Pope, or prince leadeth an evil life, as for example, in fornication, or in advowtry. Yet so long as their laws forbidden them both, the men are of evil example, but the laws are good and wholesome, and the common Weal is well provided for. But if once advowtry, or Fornication should be made lawful by Law (as some men say that usury somewhere is) then is the common Weal damaged. 
No heresy ever decreed openly by any of the Popes  But sithence the time that S. Peter sat first at Rome, God hath wrought this miraculous, yea thrice miraculous work, that there was never yet any open Assembly or Synod kept, wherein any Heresy, by any one of so many as have been S. Peter's Successors, was ever decreed. The public sentence, and judgement of the See Apostolic, in matters of faith, was never to this day defiled, or defaced with false doctrine. That is the Succession which we hold of, and whereof S. Augustine said so long time past: 
August. in Psalmo contra partem Donati.  Numerate etc. Reckon up by tale the priests even from the very seat of Peter, and in that rew of Fathers, see who succeeded other: that is the Rock, which the proud gates of Hell do not overcome.   
jewel. 
Pope John 22. was reproved by Gerson, and by the school of Paris for an Heretic.  
Harding.  

Of Pope john. 22. his error, see my Answer to M. jewels View of his untruths, before fol. 64.  He was reproved for an opinion M. jewel, which he held before he was Pope many years, what the opinion was, I have declared before at large, to which place I refer the reader for a full answer. But when being Pope he would have confirmed that his wrong opinion (that the souls of the just lacked the sight of God face to face until the day of judgement) God took him out of this life, that all the world might know, come who shall to sit in Peter's chair, he shall never decree any Heresy, to be maintained as the Faith. How be it it was not to be accounted heresy at that time, as yet not being determined by the Church, and seemed to have been holden of certain old doctors of the Church, as is before said. The miracle of God, in staying that man from confirming that error by authentic decree in open Synod, aught more to move you (if you were a man whom God's works could move) than his private erroneous opinion, which hurteth no man but himself.   
jewel. 132. 
Petrarcha saith, Rome is a sanctuary of all heresies.  
Harding.  
I neither believe you, nor him. I am sure that men of greater authority, than ever that rhyming Poet was of, hath said the contrary. But it may be right well, that your slanderous pen belieth Petrarcha. 
Ambrose in Epist. ad papam Siricium. Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 3. In Math. cap. 16.  Once you name not where he saith it. But what so ever Petracha say, S. Ambrose, whom we more regard, said, that the Church of Rome keepeth always the Apostolic belief whole and undiminished. And S. Cyprian saith, that infidelity can not have access unto the Romans.   
jewel. 
Lyra saith, that many Popes have fallen into heresies.  
Harding.  
He saith, many, as well princes, as chief priests have fallen from the faith, but not that many have decreed heresies, as to be followed, and embraced of others. But how truly he saith, that many have fallen from the faith, let him answer to it: For I find not those many, nor yet M. jew. himself, as diligent as he is about it. Wherein Lyra may help us for opening the text of holy Scriptures, we gladly use him: as for his authority, specially touching antiquity, being so late a writer, you know how little weight his word beareth in the judgement of the learned. And how is it come to pass, that Nicolaus de Lyra is now so good an author with you M. jewel, who being a professed Friar in his life time followed the faith of the Roman Church, and believed the Bishop of Rome to be the chief Bishop of Christendom, and the Roman Church to be the head of all Churches?   
jewel. 132. 
You know, that Pope Hildebrand, as he was charged by the Council of Brixta, was an adulterer, a Church robber, a perjured man, a mankiller, a Sorcerer and a renegade of the faith.  
Harding.  
I know that you lie, I may say it, saving my charity, rather than your worship. For Pope Gregory the seventh, otherwise (before he was Pope) called Hildebrandus, was a very holy man, as Marianus Scotus doth witness, who lived in the same time, 
Marianus Srotus in Chronicis. Pope Hildebrandus persecuted, and accused by Henry the Emperor. Marianus Scotus of Pohe Hildebrand.  and knew, that Henry the Emperor being enemy to Pope Hildebrand (because the good Pope warned him of his faults) did procure a false conventicle at Brixia, and caused false accusations there to be laid in against him: as he did the like also in Rome itself, whence the Pope was constrained to flee. Videns autem (saith Marianus Scotus) Henricus papam aufugisse, congregatis 30. Episcopis, fautoribuss suis, in ipsa Romanae urbis obsidione jussit haberisynodun, in qua Gregorius papafalsis & inauditis criminationibus à fautoribus Henrici fictè compositis absens accusatur. Denique dicebant cum prophanum, scelestum, amatorem discordiae, virum sanguinum, sedem Apostolicam usurpare per necromantiam. Conspirantes ergo qui convenerunt in unum adversus Dominum, & adversus Vicarium eius Papam Gregorium, damnaverunt eum. But Henry seeing that the Pope was fled, assembling together 30. Bishops, who favoured his part, commanded a synod to be kept, even as he was at the siege of the city of Rome: in which Synod Gregory the Pope being absent, is accused of false crimes, and such as were never heard of, the which Henry's fautors had purposely forged. To be short, they said he was a profane man, a wicked man, a lover of discord, a bloody man, and that he had usurped the See Apostolic by Necromancy. They therefore who had thus assembled themselves together, conspiring against our Lord, and against his Vicar Pope Gregory, condemned him.  
If you were but a civil honest man M. jewel, you would not take that for a Truth, which one enemy saith of an other. 
Hildebrand acquitted by true and indifferent historiographers.  It may please you to read those Historiographers which wrote without partiality, as Marianus Scotus, Platina, Lambertus Schafnaburgensis, and Nauclerus, with such like. By perusing them you shall find yourself a Liar, and Pope Hildebrand a virtuous man, and one that was zealously bend to correct such faults, as were in the clergy, at that time, specially Simony. But though he had been otherwise, it hindereth not our cause, as long as he kept the same Faith, which he received of his forefathers.   
jewel. Pag. 132. 
Platina calleth the Popes sometimes in scorn, Pontificulos, 
Platina in Romano. 2  little petite Popes, sometimes monstra, & portenta, monsters, and unnatural, and ilshapen creatures.  
Harding.  
If Platina speak so of some Popes, it is the more sign, that he either hated the Popes, or else that he spoke as he thought, and that he wrote not for flattery, as sometimes you say of him. I pray you what cause had Platina to flatter with them (as with Hildebrand) who were so long dead before he was borne? And as for those with whom he lived, he flattered them never a whit, as may appear by the life of Pope Paulus the second. 
Platina cannot seem to have flattered the Popes in writing their lives  Well, were then some Pope's monsters? Verily I think so with Platina concerning some few of their lives. But even those, that were worst, made no breach in the rule of the faith. God so provided always, that although Hell gates, to wit, all vices, and all the power of the Devil were bend against the Popes, and the Church of Rome, yet all should not prevail against the Rock, and true Confession of the Faith, which ever hath been, and shallbe in the Succession of Peter's Chair. Whereupon, S. Jerome doubted not to say, 
Hieron. epist. ad Damasun.  Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior, super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiamscio. I am joined in communion to the Chair of Peter, upon that Rock I know the Church is built.   
jewel. 
Pope Adrian the fourth was wont to say, we succeed not Peter in feeding, but Romulus in killing.  
Harding.  
Were it true, you would have named your author. Now your saying seemeth to proceed out of your own Forge. But what if it were true, that Pope Adrian said so by way of complaint? This proveth, that as some of his predecessors were evil men, so always God gave his grace to some other Popes to disallow their faults, and yet to continue their Faith, Doctrine, and Succession.   
jewel. Pag. 132. 
And to lean Dame joan the woman Pope, with many others me of like virtue, and holiness, as having no pleasure in this rehearsal.  
Harding.  
There was no such woman Pope: and yet God knoweth, you take still great pleasure in the rehearsal of a vain dream (as you do of many other false tales) dreamt first by Martinus Polonus.   
jewel. 
For as much as M. Harding began this matter with Sarisburie, to end it with the same, joannes Sarisburiensis saith, 
In Polya cratico.  in Romana Ecclesia sedent Scribae & Pharisaei, In the Church of Rome (by Succession) sit the Scribes, and Pharisees.  
Harding.  
The matter that I began here to treat of, was not of Sarisburie, but of your Succession in Sarisburie, for which notwithstanding the huge stuff you bring, you show yourself to have nothing to say. Touching joannes Sarisburiensis, if it were so that Scribes, and Pharisees sat in the Church of Rome, yet you should be damned for departing from them, 
3. Reg. 12.  even as jeroboam was for departing from the Chair of Moses. You are bound to communicate in Doctrine with the chief chair, what soever they be, that sit in it. For Christ bade us keep that, 
Matt. 23.  which they command. Now as the Scribes, and Pharisees sitting in the Chair of Moses, did exactly keep his Succession, and witnessed the continuance of that Temple, whereunto all the jews were bound: So the Popes of Rome sitting in S. Peter's Chair, do exactly maintain his Succession, and witness that to be the true Rock, and Church, whereunto all we are bound to be obedient, as sheep to the chief Pastor.  
But sith you are desirous to end this matter, begun, as you say, of Sarisburie, with Sarisburie, whereby you mean the authority of joannes Saresburiensis: therewith I am right well content. For your part, that is to say, against the Church of Rome (whose faith we profess, whatsoever be the manners of some great persons in that Church) you allege john of Sarisburie, saying, that Scribes, and Pharisees sit in the Church of Rome. True it is, these words be in john of Sarisburie in deed. As for the Addition (by Succession) it is your own, it is not his. But you must understand, they be not his own words, as spoken by himself, but reported by him, as words of the common people. For being required of Pope Adrian the fourth, who was an Englishman, in familiar talk, whereto for his learning and wisdom he was admitted, to declare freely, what was commonly said abroad of the Pope, and of the Church of Rome: among other things bruited abroad by way of complaint, specially against the Bribery, and covetousness of great personages of that Church, he rehearsed those words out of the Gospel. 
Matt. 23.  At the end of his tale thus he concluded, 
johannes Sarisburiensis in Polycratico de curialium nugis. lib. 6. cap. ●4.  signifying whose tale he told. Haec inquam Pater loquitur populus, quandoquidem vis, ut illius tibi sententias proferam. These things, Father the people speaketh, for as much as you will have me to utter unto you, what they say. Thus M. jewel by testimony of your John of Sarisburie, you prove nothing against our Doctrine of Succession, but only put us in mind, what the common people in those days said of the governors of the Church.  
If you would with as good sincerity have alleged on the other side, what good he in the same book, and Chapter reporteth of them, as with malice you rehearse the evil: you should have laid forth a very good tale for them. For immediately after the words before rehearsed, thus it followeth there. Et tu, inquit, quid sentis? And what is your opinion, quoth the Pope. Thereto answereth john of Sarisburie. Angustiae (inquam) sunt undique. Vereor enim ne mendacij, vel adulationis cortraham notam, si solus populo contradixero. Sin autem, reatum vereor Maiestatis, ne tanquam qui os in coelum posuerim, crucem videar meruisse. I am driven (quoth he) to straights on every side. For I fear me, I shallbe noted for a Liar, or a flatterer, if I alone be in my tale contrary to the people.  (if I should say as they say) I fear the guilt of treason, lest I seem to have deserved the punishment of death, being as it were one that have set my mouth up against heaven. This Preface seemeth to contain the words of one, that intendeth to utter the truth plainly, and discreetly.  
And although there in deed he touch the Popes, and the Roman Clergies faults freely, yet on the other side he confesseth himself moved in conscience to speak much also in the praise of many. These be his words. unum tamen audacter conscientia teste profiteor, 
Ibidem.  quia nusquàm honestiores Clericos vidi, quàm in Ecclesia Romana, aut qui magis avaritiam detestentur. Albeit some be faulty, yet one thing, my conscience bearing me witness, I dare be bold to say: that no where I have seen Clerks of more honesty, then in the Church of Rome, or that do more detest covetousness. Of such good and virtuous Clerks, there he reckoneth up some by name. At length speaking of the number of the good in general, he saith, Plurium tanta modestia, tanta gravitas est, ut Fabrici● non inveniantur inferiores, quem agnita salutis via modis omnibus antecedunt. The modesty, and gravity of the more part of them, is so great, that they are found nothing inferior to Fabricius (the noble Roman of famous memory for his virtue) whom in respect of that they acknowledge the way of Salvation (which he knew not being an Infidel) by all means they pass and excel.  
Then follow these words immediately, which are most to our purpose, and most worthy of consideration. Quia verò instas, urges, praecipis, cùm certum sit, quòd Spiritui sancto mentiri non licet: fateor quia quod praecipis faciendum est, & si non sitis omnes operibus imitandi. Nam qui a doctrina vestra dissentit, aut haereticus, aut schismaticus est. For asmuch as you are instant upon me, and will have no nay, and command (me to say what I think) sith it is certain, that I may not lie unto the holy Ghost: I grant, that what you command us to do, we must do, although ye be not all to be followed in your deeds. For he that dissenteth from you Doctrine, is either an Heretic, or a schismatic. These words being well and duly considered of, I report me to thine indifferent judgement discrete Reader, what M. jewel can seem to any wise man to have won by johannes Sarisburiensis. He accuseth the vices of the Roman Clergy, and of some Popes themselves. We also accuse the same. Their evil deeds be not to be followed, saith he. We say the same, and pray God to amend them. Scribes, and Pharisees sat in the Church of Rome, said the people in his time. Were it true, yet were they to be obeyed touching doctrine, and to be believed, because they sat in the Chair of Peter, as Christ commanded the Scribes, and Pharisees of the jews to be obeyed, and things to be done and kept, which they said, because they succeeded Moses, and sat in Moses' Chair.  
Howbeit what the people of Rome, of Italy, and of Germany said of the Pope at that time, it ought the less to be regarded, because they spoke upon grudge conceived against him: the Romans, 
Platina, in vita Hadriani. ●.  for that (as Platina witnesseth) he denied them their earnest request, which was, that they might live freely under the government of the consuls, and be exempted from their subjection to the Church: the Italians, and Germans, for that they were much vexed with wars by William the King of Sicilia, and Fredrick the first, Emperor, from which vexation and troubles they saw they should have been delivered, if the Pope would have been content to suffer the Lands of the Church to be invaded, and taken away by those Princes. Even so in these days the Popes be the worse spoken of, and find the less good will at many men's hands in some parts of Christendom, because they can not be induced to allow and confirm the possession of certain ecclesiastical Lands, which have been taken from the Church by unlawful means, in such wise, as they themselves would have it allowed, and confirmed.  
To be short, agree with us M. jewel unto the doctrine, which the Church of Rome teacheth, where the Succession is certain, whereunto your own doctor joannes Sarisburiensis leadeth you: and we will agree with you in reproving the vices and faults of that See, the proof of which for a great part of them, for ought ye can show, is uncertain. Would God, ye would once consider, how slender and weak the Arguments, ye make against the catholic Faith are, which always ye deduce, à moribus ad doctrinam, that is, from reproof of manners, to the reproof of doctrine.   
jewel. Pag. 132. 
This is M. Harding'S holy succession: though faith fail, yet Succession must hold.  
Harding.  
Nay sir, Succession doth hold, that faith may not fail. For you have not proved by any one example, that faith did ever fail in the Church of Rome. In the Church, I say, which consisteth of the Pope, and of a college, and an assembly of grave Bishops and priests professing themselves the faith, and teaching it others. In that open assembly never was there false religion decreed, or taught, whereas so many heresies have been (not fewer than a hundred) and so many arch-heretics, of whom some have been in the other Patriarchal Sees, but in Rome never was there an arch-heretic, or any Pope, who in Council, or Consistory decreed, or confirmed any heresy to be admitted.  
To him that knoweth the ecclesiastical histories, and conferreth the See of Rome with all other Churches, it is such a miracle, as thereby God hath witnessed that Succession to be the Rock of the faith. In so much that the Bishops of the province of Tarracon in Spain wrote thus unto Pope Hilarius. 
In Tom. 1. Concil. epist. 2.  Ad fidem recurrimus Apostolico orè laudatam, inde responsa quaerentes, unde nihil errore, nihil praesumptione, sed pontificali totum deliberatione praecipitur. We resort unto the faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle, seeking answers from thence, whence nothing is commanded by error, nothing by presumption, but all by bishoply deliberation.   
jewel. 
For unto the succession, God hath bound the holy Ghost.  
Harding.  
No, but unto the holy Ghost, 
The holy Ghost causeth the Succession to abide faithful.  God hath bound the Succession. For he causeth the Succession to abide faithful, because he causeth it to follow the inspiration of the holy Ghost: that it may so be known for ever certainly true in the chief Apostles Chair, and in the fellowship abiding with him. Christ saith, he that heareth you, 
Luc. 10.  heareth me. I am with you all days until the worlds end. 
Math. 28.  I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, 
Luc. 22.  and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren, feed my sheep, 
joan. 21.  feed my lambs. I will beseech my father, 
joan. 14.  and he shall give you an other comforter, that he remain with you for ever, 
& 16.  the spirit of truth, he shall teach you all things, and all truth. The Roman faith is preached in the whole world. 
Roma. 1.    
jewel. 
For lack of this Succession, for that in our Sees in the Churches of England, we find not so many idolaters, Necromancers, Heretics, adulterers, church-robbers, Perjured persons, Mankillers, Renegates, Monsters, Scribes, and Pharisees, as we may easily find in the Church of Rome, therefore I trow M. Harding saith, we have no Succession: we are no Bishops: we have no Church at al.  
Harding.  
Your Church of England hath yet scant continued so many weeks, as the Church of Rome hath continued years. But if it had passed over such times of persecution, as Rome hath, if it had been so assaulted by all sorts of enemies, as well within, as without, as well with prosperity, as adversity: I trow your Church would have had before this, as many idolaters, Necromancers, Heretics, adulterers, and such others by you named, as the Church of Rome hath had Bishops. And certainly already it hath had more sorts of Heretics, and that within these xx. years, than Rome hath had even by your own account evil men, within these fourteen hundred years. 
Idolatry annexed unto Heresy.  For your beginning, progress, and the whole profession of your life is nothing but heresy, whereunto Idolatry is evermore annexed. For an heretic doth always worship his own conceit, and fantasy for truth, and whereas God is truth, he worshippeth his fantasy for God, which is Idolatry.  
If the pope committed any fault by frailty, he defended it not, as you maintain in open pulpits the breach of laudable, and godly vows, and the marriages of consecrated persons, who have abstained from marriage ever since the Apostles time, whose marriages saith S. Jerome be not so much Aduouteries, 
Aduersus jovin. li. 1.  as incest. But in the number of more than two hundred Popes, within fourteen hundred years, you have falsely numbered six, or seven, as Heretics: whereas you can not deny, but there have been in the same Succession above thirty martyrs, who died for Christ's sake, and as many confessors, or more, whom all the good men in the Church have accounted for holy and blessed men. There was never general Council holden by catholic Bishops, which did not communicate with that See, and rejoiced to be honoured, and confirmed by it, From S. Peter's time to our age you cannot name any one day, or hour (mark well M. jewel, you can not name one day, or hour, I say) in which any known Catholic Bishop in all the world, did, or might ever say with the approbation of good men: I defy, or I despise, or I do not communicate with the Church of Rome, how soever some one Pope might seem not commendable, yet the Church, the faith, the Doctrine, the Succession was ever commended of all Catholic men.  
To that See appealed, and resorted, as to the chief Light of the Church, 
a Li. 3. c. 3.  Irenaeus, 
b De Praes.  Tertullian, 
c Lib. 2.  Optatus, 
d Ad Siricium. ep. 81  S. Ambrose, 
e Ad. Damasum.  S. Jerome, 
f Epi. 165.  S. Augustine, 
g De vocat. gent. li. 2. c. 16.  Prosper, with all the fathers beside. That See promoted the Gospel into the ends of the world, into England, Scotland, Ireland, Denmarcke, the low Country, Germany, Polonia, Lituania, Prussia, Livonia, Hungaria, Bohemia, Bulgaria, and presently into the new found Lands.  
That See conquered all heresies, confounded them, and all their authors, and maintainers, from Simon Magus to Martin Luther, and John Calvin, who now beginneth to be brought very low, and by God's will shallbe brought lower shortly, the folly, and rebellious spirit, which his Doctrine breedeth in his adherentes, breaking out, and showing itself daily to the world more and more. See M. jewel, you, and your fellows are as sore a afraid, as ever was the guilty thief of his judge, or the naughty boy of his master. But do I say (trow you) that ye therefore have no Succession, or that ye are no Bishops, and have no Church, because in your Churches of England there are not to be found so many idolaters, so many Necromancers, so many Heretics, Aduouteres, church-robbers, Perjured persons, Mankillers, Renegates, Monsters, Scribes, and Pharisees, as many easily be found in the Church of Rome? Nay I trow M. jewel you take your mark amiss. For if I thought so, as it pleaseth you to think of me, I would not have denied you, neither Succession, such as it is, nor Bishops, nor Churches, or rather Congregations, nor Ministers, nor Minstrels neither, for the better furnishing of them withal, if these so many worthy qualities, could work so great an effect. For, that I speak not here of Heretics, 
The clergy of these new congregations whereby Succession is claimed.  and so consequently of idolaters, which fault is common to you all: what adulterers, whoremasters, Incestuous persons, Church robbers, Church breakers, Perjured persons, Mankillers, Renegates, Abjured men, Friars, Apostates, Lecherous monks, Tapsters, Ostlers, peddlers, Tinkers, Cobblers, Summoners, Viceplayers, Devil Players, Felons, Horse stealers, Newgate men, briefly what vile, and rascal rabble want ye to furnish up your Succession, your bishoprics, your Synagogues, and Ministering rooms withal? Verily if this gear could make a Succession, it shall soon be made good, that ye have also a Succession such, as it is. And ye need not to mistrust any whit at all, having so many of every sort, as shallbe more then enough for you. Marry put these away out of your congregations (I would call them Churches, were not that name to good for you) I fear me you would leave but a poor silly clergy behind. 
See how M. jewel will prove his so many idolaters etc. In the Church of Rome.   
But how easy is it (trow you M. jewel) to find so many idolaters in the Church of Rome, as you bear us in hand there may be found? Doth one poor fact of S. Marcellinus alone, for the which he repented forthwith, and died a glorious Martyr of God, make up with you so many idolaters? I am well assured, that if you could have found but one Pope more that had done the like, you would not have spared him (your modesty is such) but he should have been scored up also, to make up your number of so many idolaters.  
Be it that Sylvester was a Necromancer, 
So many Necromancers.  and Hildebrand too, who was of that crime (as of many other) untruly slandered by his enemies, that could not abide to hear of any correction for their enormous faults, and therefore spited that good Pope, as you do all the Popes: will yet those two make such a number of Necromancers in that See, that it were a very easy matter to find so many, as you would gladly make your Readers believe there were?  
Be it that Liberius, Leo, Coelestinus, Honorius, 
So many heretics.  and John the 22. holding private opinions without open maintenance of them had been Heretics, as you most slanderously report them out of bawdy Bale, and brainsick Illyricus: yet these five make not so great a number pardy, that it should be an easy thing for you to find so many Heretics in the See of Rome, as full rhetorically you set the matter forth. Now with what face pretend you unto the world, that it is an easy matter, to find so many Heretics among the Bishops of Rome, whereas with long prying, and pouring in all your brethren's books, you could find but five, to whom you durst to impute that crime, of which yet three are unjustly slandered, and the other two, only misliked for their private assertions, and never denounced Heretics for stubborn maintenance, or making any open Decree touching that, whereof once they erroneously judged.  
But yet you will say, that among the Bishops of Rome there were many adulterers, 
So many adulterers, etc.  many Church Robbers, many Perjured persons, many Mankillers, many Renegates. It is happy M. jewel, that your word is no slander. But I pray you good sir, how many can you truly name of all these? For of so great a number as you speak of, it is well likely, you can name some: and your malice is such against the Popes, that you will spare none, how small a surmise soever you have inducing you to think so evil of any Pope. Go to then M. jewel, of your so many, name us some one infamous in each of these great crimes, which indifferently you lay to the charge of the Bishops of Rome, leaving an evil suspicion in your Readers head, that for the most part, all the Bishops of Rome were guilty of the one, or the other. How many Aduoutrers than can you name to us? Pope Hildebrand (say you) was an adulterer, that is a stark slanderous lie. But were it true, how many more can you name? let us hear them. Is there no more but Pope Hildebrand? Is one now become many with you, and many but one?  

So many Church robbers.  Perchance yet of your Church Robbers you have greater store. And who were they I pray you among the Popes, that committed that heinous fact? Hildebrand you tell us again was a Church Robber. doubtless this poor Pope hath offended you very much, which argueth he was a good Pope. And were there no more Church Robbers among the Popes, but Hildebrand? Cough up M. jewel, void the malicious humour of your stomach. Of so many Church robbers as are in that rewe of Bishops, name us but one more. For upon so great a vaunt, your Reader may happily think, that you could name some other besides Hildebrand. But suppose that this Hildebrand had been no Church Robber (as in deed he was none, and you could not justly have charged him therewith, had you not put your felicity in sclaundering good and virtuous men) where then might a man so easily have found, I say not so many church-robbers, as you tell us of, but only one among all the Bishops of Rome?  
Well yet of Perjured persons, we shall find great numbers, that you might not be found a slanderer in that point, 
So many Perjured persons.  how well soever you have acquitted yourself of the former. Go to then, tell us how many Perjured persons occupied that room, and who they were. You tell us once again, that Hildebrand was a Perjured person. Verily you are much beholden to Hildebrand, but specially to that wicked conventicle of naughty Bishops assembled by the Emperor at Brixia, who most unjustly sclaunderd that godly Pope. For had they not been, you had lost a fair rhetorical lie, I should have said a foul conclusion.  
But yet perhaps there were among the Pope's many Mankillers, and many Renegates, 
So many mankillers and Renegates.  whom if you can name to your Reader, you may peradventure seem to him at the lest in this, a true reporter, and not a malicious slanderer. Who then were these so many Mankillers? so many Renegates? Of likelihood you know many such, or else you would not so stoutly avouch it. Tell on, Perge mentiri, name us them. Yet once again you tell us, that Hildebrand was a Mankiller, Hildebrand was a Renegade. But what, was there none but Hildebrand M. jewel? Among two hundred Popes, and upward can you find none that was an adulterer, a Churchrobber, a Perjured person, a Mankiller, a Renegade, but only Pope Hildebrand? And yet you tell us, that of men of these qualities there have been such a number in that rewe of Bishops, that of every sort it were (or else you lie, saving other men's honesty) an easy matter to find many. Are they now so suddenly vanished out of sight, that, to save your poor honesty, you can bring us forth none, but only Hildebrand? And how can Pope Hildebrand, whom most unjustly, and upon the manifest slander of his enemies, you have here accused, make up the number of your so many adulterers, so many Church robbers, so many Perjured persons, so many Mankillers, so many Renegates? Are you not ashamed thus notoriously, and withal most slanderously to belie that blessed Succession of Bishops, which hath through the miraculous working of God continued without interruption from S. Peter's time until these our days?  
Leave, leave M. jewel these vain, Rhetorical, lying, and slanderous conclusions. Go simply, and plainly to the matter, tell no more than you are well able to prove. Learn rather to speak well of your forefathers, then with such impudency to diffame, and speak ill of them, who are departed this world in the unity of the Church, and peace of Christ.  
And whereas you charge me with saying that ye have no Succession, no Bishops, no Church, because ye have no idolaters, Necromancers, Heretics, and such like, and then would seem to salve the matter again with an (I trow): I trow it be no good manner, and less honesty, to say that of your adversary, which by no colour possibly, you can pike out of his words. How be it I forgive it you, for that every man may easily perceive it, to be but a pretty sleight of your art (which as I trow) most men call the art of lying.   
jewel. 
But S. Paul saith, 
Rom. 10.  faith cometh (not by succession, but) by hearing, and hearing cometh (not of legacy, or inheritance from Bishop to Bishop, but) of the word of God.  
Harding.  
If faith come of hearing, and hearing come of God's word, I ask you, whether the hearing shall endure for ever, or no? I say it shall, because it is written, 
Math. 28. Luc. 1.  I am with you all days to the worlds end, and all generations shall call me blessed, and Christ the son of David shall reign in the house of jacob for ever. This can not be but where that hearing is. Now if hearing endure for ever, seeing hearing was at the first by the preaching of Bishops: I say, that the Succession of Bishops endureth for ever. 
Ephes. 4.  For God hath given pastors, and doctors unto his Church (saith S. Paul) until we shall all meet in unity of faith, which shallbe at the second coming of Christ. Therefore it is not only not true, that the hearing of the faith preached doth any thing withstand the perpetual Succession of Bishops, but rather the Succession is proved thereby. For as Christ instituted first the preaching of the faith by the Apostles, who were also Bishops, and as after the Apostles, they were Bishops, who chiefly continued the preaching of the same faith: even so unto the worlds end, there must lack no Bishops, by whom the same may still be preached. For isaiah saith, 
Isai. 62.  Upon thy walls o jerusalem I have set watchmen, no day, nor night shall they hold their peace. Such watchmen have been always in the Church of Rome: such M. jewel can not reckon to have been always in his Church. Therefore the preaching of the faith hath been in the Roman Church, and not in his.   
jewel. 
They are not always godly, that succeed the godly.  
Harding.  
Much less are they godly, who forsake the godly. But our question is not of godliness, but of true faith, which may be where godliness is not. For they that preached the true faith for envy against S. Paul, 
Philip. cap. 1.  had the true faith, yet were they not godly.   
jewel. 
Manasses succeeded Ezechias.  
Harding.  
And therefore Christ was as well borne of Manasses line, as of Ezechias. For albeit the godliness were not like in the men, yet Christ wrought then the mystery of his Birth, and now he worketh the preservation of his faith, as well by the evil, as by the good.   
jewel. 
Hieroboam succeeded David.  
Harding.  

3. Reg. 12.  There you were deceived M. jewel. Roboam succeeded David. Hieroboam divided the kingdom, and the inheritance of the Succession of David. But God saith often times, that he kept some of David's line in his throne, 
3. Reg. 11. et 15. et 4. Reg. 8.  that a candle might remain to his servant David for ever. God surely accounted the line of Hieroboam no succession of David's, but rather the undoing of it, as much as lay in Hieroboam. For Hieroboam was of an other tribe than David was.   
jewel. 
By Succession the Turk this day possesseth, and holdeth the four Patriarchal Sees, of the Church of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and jerusalem.  
Harding.  
No M. jewel, it is by violence, by force, 
The Turk cometh not as a Successor, but as an invader.  by power of arms, by tyranny, and not by Succession, as you hold the Church of Sarisburie by force of the Prince's sword, and by none other right. Succession, is when a man cometh in the same place, which his predecessor had, by the same order, and law, by which his lawful predecessor came to it. The son succeedeth his Father in his lands, but the thief, and robber, or he that by force invadeth, and keepeth them, is no Successor. The old patriarchs of whom you speak, came to their place by Election, and Confirmation: the Turk by neither of both, but only by tyranny and violence. Your Predecessors, I mean the true Bishops, came to the Church of Sarisburie orderly, by professing themselves to communicate, and by taking Confirmation of the Bishop of Rome. So came not you in: therefore you came in by the window, and not by the door.  
But now how blind are you, 
The Turk by God's special providence kept from Rome  as not able to consider, why God permitteth the Turk to possess Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and jerusalem, whereas he keepeth him yet from possessing Rome? When the Turk had gotten Constantinople, and had so far entered into Croatia, and Hungary, as it is well known: Rome was both nearer to him, than Alexandria, and easier to come by, as it might well have appeared. For the Sultan Lord of Egypt, and Syria, and the Sophy joined with him, were thought far stronger to resist him, than the power of Italy. But the truth is, it was the scourge of God, to revenge all Rebels that would not obey the Church of Rome, where the chief pastor was placed by Christ, whose voice all the sheep ought to hear. 
In Epist. Nicolas. 1 ad Michaelem Imper. Bessarion in Epist. ad Graecos  But when the Grecians of pride and disdain began to make a schism, and to divide themselves from the See of Rome, and being oft warned, and terribly threatened, yet would not reconcile themselves, but, though at certain meetings they were confounded, as at Lions, and Florence, yet would still return to their wilfulness, and disobey the chief Bishop: God at the length, who made them, that would not obey Samuel his Prophet, to obey Saul, and to feel his heavy hand: suffered them utterly to be overthrown and vanquished, and to lie under the yoke of most miserable bondage and slavery, which the cruel Turk layeth upon them. The particular declaration of which story would require a long Treaty. But sure it is, that for the withdrawing of their obedience from the Succession of Peter, the Grecians are compelled to obey the Succession of Mahomet.   
jewel. 

Math. 24  By Succession, Christ saith, desolation shall sit in the holy place, and antichrist shall press into the room of Christ.  
Harding.  

M. jewel falsifieth the Scripture.  Doth Christ say, it shallbe so by Succession? You falsify the words of God, and man, and that verily by Succession: For so have all Heretics, your forefather's done before you. And I pray you, behold, how well your words hang together. Desolation shall fit in the holy place by Succession, and yet antichrist shall press in. That which is by Succession, is without pressing: and that which cometh in by pressing, cometh not in by Succession. Nay contrariwise, Succession is the chief way for any Christian man to avoid Antichrist. For he that remaineth in that faith, which came lineally, and by Bishop after Bishop from the Apostles, he is sure of his inheritance, and needeth not to fear, lest he obey Antichrist. For Antichrist (as S. Paul saith) cometh not, 
2. Thess. 2.  except defection (and Apostasy) go before. He that forsaketh succession, may right well fall upon antichrist. But he that keepeth himself in the chief Succession, shallbe sure not to fall from faith. And good reason why. For Antichrist cometh in to break order: yea rather the Devil breaketh the order of Christ's Church, to prepare a way for Antichrist. For if all men keep themselves in one faith, and Doctrine, when soever Antichrist should preach against that, he should be detected, and known unto all men. But now when there are so many beliefs in the world, why may not antichrist get a company to follow him, as well as other Archeheretiques do? He therefore that once changeth his faith, except he return from whence he went, can not tell in what Church he is, and whether it be Antichristes' Church, or no. But he that keepeth that, which was from the beginning, he is sure to hold that faith, against which antichrist must strive, and fight.  
Wherefore S. john speaking of Antichrist, saith thus: Vos quod audistis ab initio, in vobis permaneat. 
1. johan. 2  Let that abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. Not that which ye began to hear of late, but that which ye heard from the beginning, let that abide in you, let it abide, and not be changed. Hac scripsi vobis de ijs qui seducunt vos, 
Who are leaders out of the way.  I have written these things to you, concerning them, who lead you out of the way. Mark the words, who lead you out of the way, which from the beginning you were set in. Did not Luther lead us from the way, wherein we were? Did not Caluine lead both us, and some Lutherans too out of the former way? There S. john also saith of heretics, Exierunt ex nobis, they are gone out of us. Nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt, Now many Antichristes' are made. It is the going out that maketh an Antichrist, and not the abiding within the tents of the Church. And therefore when Christ forewarned his Disciples of the desolation to come, 
Math. 24  he said among other things, Nolite exire, go not out, leave not your old inheritance, and your Succession, for a vain promise of a new land.   
jewel. 
It is not sufficient to claim succession of place: it behovet us rather to have regard to succession of Doctrine.  
Harding.  
Therefore you are no Successor in the Bishopric of Sarisburie by your own confession. For you keep not the Succession of Doctrine. And we join both together. For we know who succeedeth in the same Doctrine, by his quiet Succession in the place. If there be no change in the Church, no tumult no dissension, or contradiction: then is it certain, that it is a perfect Succession as well in place, as in Doctrine. But if a dissension arise, and one say, this is true, and the other say, this is not true, or if the new Bishop accuse his Catholic Predecessors Doctrine: then is it sure, that there is no succession in doctrine. Now I say, run over all the Bishops of Rome, and you can say of never a one, this man coming into his Predecessors See, did oppugn his doctrine, or preached with the Church of Rome's contentation against that, which was in use before. So that in Rome all things are even at this day concerning faith as S. Peter left them. For every man hath agreed in outward Decree, sentence, and profession, with all the predecessors, and successors.   
jewel. Pag. 132. 
S. Bernard saith, Quid prodest si canonicè eligantur, 
In council. Remen.  & non canonicè vivant? What availeth it if they be chosen in order, and live out of order?  
Harding.  
It availeth nothing to the evil liver: but yet it availeth much to him, that obeyeth the good, and true doctrine of the evil teacher.   
jewel. 
So saith S. Augustine, Ipsum characterem multi & lupi, 
Cont. Donatist. lib. 6. 1. q. 3. vocantur ca●es. Character what it signifieth in the Sacraments  & lupis imprimunt. The outward mark, or right of a bishop, many give to wolves, and be wolves themselves.  
Harding.  
By Character is not meant an outward mark, but rather an inward mark and print, which through the receiving of certain Sacraments is imprinted in the souls of them, who receive them, of which sort are Baptism, Confirmation, and holy Orders. And those sacraments being once received, can not be repeated, or be again received of the same person. For the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, although it be an outward sign yet it leaveth not any Character, or such inward print in the soul, as may be no more repeated.  
But letting that error pass of the true interpretation of this word Character, I grant that Heretics may baptise heretics even without the Church: and the Baptism shall stand, although it be unlawfully ministered. What maketh that against the Suceession of Bishops? It rather proveth, that seeing the Sacraments may be ministered, if not to salvation of them that are of discretion, yet truly, and really without the true Church: there must be an other rule taken to know the true Church by, besides the administration of Sacraments. And that true and certain rule is, the perpetual Succession of the See Apostolic.   
jewel. Pag. 132. 
Therefore the ancient father Irenaus giveth us this good counsel, Eyes 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 becometh us to obey those Priests in the Church, which have their succession from the Apostles, and together with the Succession of their bishoprics according to the good will of God the Father, have received the undoubted gift of the truth.  
Harding.  
All this maketh against you M. jewel. For seeing you can show no such Priests, having their Succession from the Apostles, and having received the undoubted gift of the truth, whom ye do obey it is certain, that ye have not the gift of the truth among you. On the other side, seeing we have Priests, that is to say, Bishops of Rome, who are also Priests, which have their Succession from the chief and most glorious Apostles Peter, and Paul, and seeing such Priests, and Bishops, keeping still the same faith and doctrine, from man to man, have received the undoubted gift of the truth according to the good will of God the Father: doubtless the undoubted mark of the truth is with us only, and not with you at all, who have no Succession at all of any Priests, and much less of any such Priests, that succeed lineally from the Apostles themselves.   
jewel. 132. 
S. Cyprian being likewise charged for dissenting from his predecessors, 
Lib. 2. epist. 3.  answereth thus: Si quis de antecessoribus meis, etc. If any of my predecessors have not observed, and kept the same, that our Lord hath taught us both by his example, and also by his commandment, his simplicity may be pardoned, but we (if we do the like) can hope for no pardon, being now admonished, and instructed of our Lord.  
Harding.  
Cough up man it will choke you, 
Phy. what a fowl corruption is this? Lib. 2. epist. 3.  if you let it tarry within your throat. Here is but half the bone, there is yet in S. Cyprian no full point, it followeth in the same sentence,  calicem Dominicum vino mixtum secundùm quod Dominus obtulit, offeramus. We can hope for no pardon, who are now admonished, and instructed of our Lord, that we should offer our lords chalice mixed with wine, accordingly as our Lord offered the same. Either M. jewel took this saying of S. Cyprian upon the German credit, as he found it noted in their books, and then his false brethren deceived him: or else he wrote it out of S. Cyprian himself, and then his study and will was to deceive us. He would full gladly have given us an authority, that we might forsake the example of our Predecessors, but he was loath we should see the thing, wherewith the authority was exemplified. For if at any time he say all, he is sure to speak against himself, and no wonder, because he speaketh against the truth: and every good saying evermore agreeth with the trtuh.  
First, he corrupteth S. Cyprian, in putting in, meis, for nostra, my predecessors, in stead of our predecessors. For S. Cyprian speaketh not of his own Succession, but of what soever Priest, or Bishop, that lived before his time. Again, S. Cyprian spoke not of any such custom, as had been generally used of all Bishops, for than it had been of full authority: but of that, which some one man used privately, and without keeping the law of Succession. And therefore S. Cyprian said, Si quis, if any man. Thirdly, the thing he spoke of, was, that some were said to offer water alone in our lords supper, and not wine withal. Now saith he, if any before our time have used to offer water, and not wine mingled with water, well he may be pardoned by our lords mercy: but we that are admonished, and instructed to offer our lords chalice mingled with wine, that is to say, consisting not of water alone, but of water and wine mingled together: we can not be pardoned, except we mingle water with wine, and so do offer our lords Chalice, as he himself did offer it.  
Now apply this gear Christian Reader to our new brethren's deeds. Do they offer our lords Chalice at all? Or do they grant, 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 folly, yea what madness was it for M. jewel, to bring forth these words of S. Cyprian, thereby to accuse himself, and his own Communion, as not observing that, which our Lord commanded to be observed?  
It is a world to see, how these men apply the witnesses of the Scriptures, or of the ancient Fathers. M. jewel meant to show, that by God's word we might forsake our Predecessors examples. But S. Cyprian rather showeth, that if our predecessors be taken, as they ought to be taken, that is to say, for those that keep the tradition, and doctrine of the Apostles: that then their Tradition is God's word. 
God's Word not written.  For he putteth it to be Gods own word, that Christ offered his Chalice mingled of water and wine. Yet of water there is no mention in the story of the Supper. In what word then is it written, that Christ had water in his Chalice? Verily in the word of Apostolic Tradition, 
Tradition.  in the unwritten word, in the word of General Succession. For in all Churches he saw water mingled with wine: and being assured that the Apostles, who saw Christ to do it, taught it so: doubted not to say, that our Lord taught us by his example, and word, to mingle water with wine, and so to offer the Chalice. Verily you were far overseen M. jewel, when you alleged this example, as being such, whereby yourself, and all them of your side are utterly condemned. And what should ye do? Except ye would repent (which God grant, if it be his will) ye must needs add lie unto lie, without end or measure, or give over the enterprise, whereof you made your boasting Challenge.   
jewel. 
Compare the use of our Churches M. Harding, with the Primitive Church of God, and ye shall easily see the right of our Succession.  
Harding.  

Diversity between the primitive Church, and the Churches of this new Gospel. Rom. 10. joan. 20. Tit. 1. Damasus in pontifi. Who sendeth you M. jewel, who sent your fellows? joan. 10.  If I should compare your Churches with the Primitive Church of God so narrowly, as I might, from the beginning to the ending, we should find scant any shadow in your Churches of the Primitive Church. There no man preached, but he that was lawfully sent, as S. Paul saith. And sent he was, either of Christ visibly, and sensibly speaking unto him, as when he said to the Apostles, as my Father sent me, I send you: or else by the Apostles, as when S. Paul sent Titus, and Timotheus, and S. Peter sent S. Clement, and so S. Clement afterward sent others, and so from man to man. Now tell us, who sendeth you to preach? Not the Bishops, which are the Successors of the Apostles, whom ye despise. Who then? Forsooth one is sent of the common Weal, which never had power to send him: an other of the Civil Magistrate, who also had no such power: An other runneth before he be sent, and therefore cometh of himself, and is an antichrist.  
Moreover the Apostles, and their scholars preached that, 
Irenaus lib. 4. c. 3.  which they had heard preached, whether it were written, or no, as S. Irenaeus witnesseth. But you will have nothing preached, except it be written: and nevertheless ye preach that, which is neither written, nor delivered you by Apostolic Tradition, but as every vain, 
justin. in Apolog. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 32.  light, and idle brain imagineth of itself. They mingled water with wine, so do not you. They taught the Supper of our Lord to be the new oblation of the new Testament, as saith S. Irenaeus. You say, there is no external Oblation of the new Testament, beside Christ's death. In the Primitive Church, he that had been twice married, 
Tit. 1.  could not be Priest, according to S. Paul's doctrine. You teach it to be lawful to make him Priest, that hath been ten times married: and unless every Priest, 
1. Timo. 5.  and Minister among you be married, ye judge not well of him. S. Paul speaketh of old Widows, who might marry no more: you have none such.  
But what end shall there be of words? If I would go through an hundred articles together, it should appear, that ye have nothing like the Apostles, or like the Primitive Church. There, were Exorcisms, Insufflations, holy Oil, holy Chrism, Incense, Altars, 
De Eccles. Hierarchia.  as we read in S. Dionysius: of all which ye have not one, and condemn the having of them. They fasted a certain number of days, as they who keeping the example of Christ, fasted the forty days, 
Ignatius. Epist. ad Philippens. Actor. 2. &, 4. et. 5 Math. 19  which we call the Lenten Fast. They prayed, watched, gave away all their goods, and vowed so to do: they vowed chastity, and most exactly performed the same, they commended the Dead to God with prayers, almose, and Sacrifices: which things ye for the most part despise, and account superstitious.   
jewel. 133. 
S. Cyprian saith, Si canalis aquae etc. If the pipes of the conduit, 
Ad Pompeium contra Epist. Stephani.  which before ran with abundance, happen to fail, do we not use to search to the head? The priests of God keeping Gods commandments, must do the same, that if the truth hath fainted, or failed in any point, we return to the very original of our Lord, and to the Tradition of the Gospel, and of the Apostles, that there hence we may take the discretion of our doings, from whence the order itself, and original first began.  
Harding.  

S. Cyprian alleged by M. jewel in an ill cause. The error of S. Cyprian  It is to be known M. jewel, that S. Cyprian used this saying in an evil cause, as yourself can not deny. And therefore he defending a falsehood, was driven to the very same shifts, whereunto all Heretics are driven. He in deed was no Heretic. For although he falsely believed an untruth, and earnestly taught, that those, who had been baptised of Heretics, if they came to the unity of the Catholic Church, should be baptised, as having before no true sacrament of Baptism, yet he protested many times, that he judged no man, that thought, or taught the contrary. 
Cyprianus In epist. ad jubatanun. & contra Epist. Stephani.  For he would not deny unity, neither for that, nor for any thing else, but lived a true Catholic, and died a blessed Martyr.  
Notwithstanding, whiles he defended his error, he was deceived in that Principle, which now you allow. For whereas Pope Stephanus, knowing, that by Succession the use of the only laying of hands upon them that had been baptised of heretics, without baptizing them a new, was derived from the Apostles, and received generally even in Africa itself, until Agrippinus a Bishop of Carthage before S. Cyprian broke it: whereas Pope Stephanus, I say, knowing this, decreed, that nothing should be changed, or be taken up a new: S. Cyprian not being able to deny the tradition, whereof Pope Steven spoke, and which S. Cyprians predecessor Agrippinus first began to change, fled to this common place, that the word of God was against the custom, and therefore the custom ought to be broken.  
The Pope defended with divers other Bishops, th●t the custom, and Tradition was not against God's word. Then said S. Cyprian, seeing we are at variance, let us resort to the very beginning, and to the Original, which is our lords word, and the Apostolic Tradition. This was well said. But the Apostolic Tradition was so, as Pope Steven defended, and not so as S. Cyprian would have had it. And this M. jewel neither do you, nor can you deny. For yourself I trow, will not allow, that they should be baptised again in your own Church, that have been before baptised in an other Church, which ye account for false, heretical, or schismatical. What meant you then to consecrate S. Cyprians error, and to allege his authority therein, where it ought not to be admitted and allowed? But with you the oversights of the Fathers, the errors of the Greeks, the sayings of heretics, the examples of Schismatics, the objections of Schoolmen, and canonists, and the pelf of Gloss is always good stuff.   
jewel. 
S. Cyprian saith, If the Pipes of the conduit, which before ran with abundance, happen to fail, do we not use to search to the head?  
Harding.  
yes, if they could fail. But in Christ's Church the Pipes can not fail, 
The Pipes of the Conduit of Christ's Church can never fail. Math. 28.  because Christ promised to be with his Apostles (and thereby with their Successors) all days until the worlds end. If the Pipes of Christ's grace, and of his Church fail to run any one day, then is not Christ that day with his Pastors and teachers, and consequently he is not all days, or every day with them. But if his word can not be false, than the Pipes never failed, ne shall not fail: and that was well seen in S. Cyprians question. For although they in Africa had cut of the Pipes by force, in changing the former custom, and Tradition: yet in Rome the Pipes ran still, and therefore Christ was still with the Bishops of Rome, and with the other Bishops, who remained in his Communion.  

Example of agreeing in communion, where is disagreeing in opinion.  Yea Christ was also with S. Cyprian, because S. Cyprian departed not from Pope Steuens Communion. But he was with S. Cyprian, not in that question, wherein he dissented from the Pope, but in that he consented and agreed with the Pope. For he both dissented concerning the particular case, and consented concerning the general bond of unity: wishing to have his own sentence followed, but if it were not followed (as it was not) content to yield to his brethren, rather than to break of, and to make a Schism. For thus he endeth that epistle which he wrote in that argument to jubaianus. 
Cyprianus Ad Iubaianum de Haereticis baptizand.  Si quis putatur contentiosus esse, nos talem consuetudinem non habemus, neque Ecclesia Dei. servatur à nobis patienter & firmiter charitas animi, collegij honour, vinculum fidei, et concordia Sacerdotij. If any man be thought to be given to strife and debate, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God. The Charity of mind, the honour of the society, the bond of faith, and the concord of Priesthood is both patiently and firmly keeped of us.  
If M. jewel, if before him Luther, and Caluine, if all the rest of these Gospelers had none otherwise dissented from the Pope, and the whole college of Bishops, then S. Cyprian did: they might have been saved, as he undoubtedly is, a glorious Martyr in heaven. But they imagined the Pipes, whereby grace, faith, and all other gifts are derived from Christ unto us, to have been broken of for the space of these nine hundred years past, devised with themselves, how they might repair to the head, and so might fetch the water of life unto us by new Conduits, and Pipes. But they were deceived. For after Christ did once set the Pipes a running, they never ceased, nor shall cease to run, till the day of judgement. For the holy Ghost is promised to abide with the Apostles, 
joan. 14. isaiah. 59 The B. of Rome is the successor of Peter. Cyprian. lib. 4. epi. 2 ad ant●nianum. Luc. 22.  and their Successors, in aeternum, for ever. And their Successors are the Bishops. And as the Chief of the Apostles was S. Peter, so S. Cyprian saith of Fabianus, who was Bishop of Rome two hundred years after S. Peter: Cùm Fabiani locus, id est, cùm locus Petri, & gradus Cathedrae sacerdotalis vacaret, when the place of Fabian, that is to say, when the place of Peter, and the step or degree of the Priestly Chair was void. So that as Peter's faith was most specially prayed for, and that not only for his own sake, but to the end he should strengthen, and confirm his brethren: even so was every Bishop of Rome's Faith prayed for, to the end every one might strengthen, and confirm his brethren, which are all Bishops, in the truth of the Faith, and in the Government of the flock.  
That Succession of the Bishop of Rome, 
Augu. in in psalmum cont. part Donati.  and of the See of Peter is the Rock, which as S. Augustine saith, the proud gates of Hell do not overcome. So he said eleven hundred years past, so until this hour the thing itself proveth, so do we believe, that it shall be performed by him that promised it, until the worlds end: because it is the Rock which shall ever confess the true Faith, and feed the sheep of Christ, and stay up the house of God, and confirm all the faithful that lean unto it.  
Thus have I confuted (M. jewel) your treatise of Succession, 
The Pipe of Christ's doctrine hath continued in the catholic Church only.  which I took in hand specially to treat of, because it showeth most evidently, that ye have no true Church, because ye can show no Pipe, or Conduct, which from Christ until your Sects hath still continued running, or hath still derived his doctrine, and grace unto them of your side. It is the Catholic Church (which you call the Papistical Church) which hath that Pipe: and can evidently show, where the stream hath gone, and how it hath been maintained from age to age, from generation to generation, yea from man to man, without any interruption. 
Isai. 62. Matth. 5. Philipp. 2. Matt. 28. joan. 14. & 16. isaiah. 59 1. Timo. 3.   
Such should the state of the Church be, according to God's word, where watch men should never hold their peace, where the city built upon the hill can not be hid: where the children of light shine like stars in the midst of the infidels: where Christ is all days unto the worlds end: where the holy Ghost is for ever teaching all truth: where the pillar, and sure stay of truth is visibly seen, as with which men be conversant in this world, as S. Paul saith: where to be short, 
joan. 21.  Christ's sheep are fed of Peter, all abiding within the unity of his one Fold in this world, thence, and thence only, to be transferred unto the glorious Pasture of life everlasting, which God grant us al.  
Of many other questions, I have said somewhat: But herein is most profit, because in few it containeth all the rest. For where the Church is, there all the necessary treasure of God's wisdom, 
Isai. 59  there is the holy Ghost, there is the word of truth, and the incorporation with Christ, the spouse and husband thereof. Whosoever loveth his soul health, 
If thou wilt be ●u●d depart not out of the Church,  let him understand well which is the true Church, and keep himself therein. For it is ordained of God, as a mother, and a nurse, to contain, and keep all men safe within it, who do not wilfully departed out of it. The continuance of it is by Succession, Sheep succeed after Sheep, and Bishops who be the Shepherds, after Bishops, those to be fed, these to seed. If those can not fail at any time, neither can these lack, or fail. We show both. M. jewel showeth neither any Succession of Sheep, nor of Bishops. Therefore he that resteth with M. jewel, is out of the Fold. And he that willbe the saved Sheep of Christ, must abide in, or if he be out, return to the Fold of Peter, to whom alone, as loving more than others, it was said, 
joan. 21.  feed my lambs, feed my sheep.    

Of Auricular, or Sacramental Confession.  
jewel. Pag. 133. 
We say, that private Confession to be made unto the Minister, is neither commanded by Christ, 
Chrysost. ●d Hebr. homil. 30.  nor necessary to salvation: and therefore Chrysostom saith, I will thee not betray thyself openly, not to accuse thyself before others. But I counsel thee to obeys the Prophet saying, open thy way unto the Lord.  
Harding.  

Confession necessary private or public. johan. 20.  NEither do we say precisely, that Private Confession is necessary, but that either Private, or Public is necessarily to be made to a Priest, because he only hath power of Christ to forgive, and to retein● sins: And he can not judge, who are to be forgiven, or who are to be retained, except the sinners do particularly open their heart, and thought, where the fountain of sins is, 
Matt. 15.  accordingly as Christ said: Evil thoughts come forth from the heart.  
S. Chrysostom in this place speaketh not in deed of Sacramental Confession, but of that, which is daily to be made unto God alone. 
Of the confession that S. Chrystom speaketh of. Ad Heb. hom. 31.  He had said before, Poenitentem non oportet peccatum suum oblivioni tradere: peccatum Confessione minuitur, nullum invenitur delictorum tale remedium, sicut eorum continuata memoria. The penitent must not forget his sin. The sin is diminished by Confession. No such remedy of sins is found, as the continual remembrance of them. Nec tantum nos peccatores esse dicamus, sed etiam ipsa peccata specialiter singula computemus. Neither let us only say we are sinners (in general) but let us reckon up every sin in special. Upon which words immediately it followeth: I say not to thee, that thou shalt bewray thyself openly, but open thy way unto our Lord.  
Now put the whole tale of S. Chrysostom together: whereas he willed men to have continual remembrance of their sins, to confess them, and that in special, and particularly, and still to do it: a man might worthily have said unto him, why sir, shall I go every day to the Priest, and never leave confessing the self same sin? To this objection he maketh answer, saying: Ibid thee not bewray thyself openly, nor to accuse thyself before others. reveal thy ways to God. Here then we have, 
Particular and oft remembrance of sins.  that it is good to call the self same sins oftentimes particularly to remembrance, and to confess them oft unto God. But that they need not at all to be confessed to the priest, that S. Chrysostom saith not. For in other places he hath taught us, that the priest is in better case to purge sins now, than the priest in the law was to show, that the leprous were purged. His words are.  
Corporis lepram haud purgare quidem, 

Chrysost. Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio.  
priests have power to purge the Lepre of the soul.   sed purgatos probare, judaeorum sacerdotibus solis licebat. At vero nostris sacerdotibus non corporis lepram, verùm animae sordes, non dico purgatas probare, sed purgare prorsus concessum est. The priests only of the jews had power, not to purge the Lepre of the body, but to try them that were purged. But truly unto our Priests it is given utterly to cleanse, not the Lepre of the body, but the filth of the soul. Mark reader these words, To cleanse, and not to try who are clean.  
If our Priests do so far pass the Priests of the Law, and yet no Leprous man might be admitted into the Temple, and Communion of the jews, until the only Priests of Moses' law had declared him to be clean: much less can any mortal sinner (who in his soul is leprous) be ordinarily purged, but only by the Priests of Christ, who now, as S. Chrysostom saith, do not only show that men are purged, but have power thoroughly to purge the leper, that is to say, the mortal sin of the soul. But how can they discreetly purge that, which is not showed unto them? 
Math. 8.  When Christ sent away the leprous man, bidding him to show himself unto the priest, than he declared (as in a figure of the law) that in the time of the new testament a great sinner should not be purged, before that he had showed himself, that is to say, had revealed the sores of his heart, and conscience unto the priest. So have we, that it is good and necessary to confess all our sins unto God, and our lepers, or mortal sins also unto the Priest. Of these two truths neither impugneth other. That is a continual practice of Heretics, to reprove the one kind of Confession, because they find sometimes the other alone commended, or spoken of. A wise, and a good man will confer, and join all truths together, and not go about to destroy one truth by another.  
As for Gratian, and all your hotchepotte of gloss, I will leave for a more convenient place, where perhaps if it shallbe thought worth the labour, they shallbe answered all at ones.  
Against your heretical Proposition I will set S. Basils' catholic judgement. It was demanded of S. Basil, Qui vult confiteri peccata sua, 
Basil. In Quaest. Compeud. 288.  num omnibus confiteri debet, & quibuscunque, & quibus. He that will confess his sins, whether he ought to confess them to all men, and to what soever persons, or else to whom? Hereunto he maketh this answer. Necessarium est confiteri peccata ijs, quibus administratio mysteriorum Dei concredita est. Sic enim & qui olim poenitentiam egerunt, coram sanctis fecisse comperiuntur. Scriptum est enim, in evangelio quidem, quòd johanni Baptistae confite bantur peccata sua: in Actis verò, Apostolis ipsis, à quibus etiam omnes baptizabantur. It is necessary to confess sins unto them, to whom the dispensation of the mysteries is committed (those are the priests). For so they that in old time did penance are found to have done before the Saints. (He meaneth priests). For it is written in the Gospel, that they confessed their sins to John Baptist: In the Acts, that they confessed them to the Apostles, of whom also they were all baptised. By S. Basil then it is necessary to confess sins unto the priests, who are Christ's ministers: by M. jewel it is not necessary at al. Who is the likelier of these two to be a liar?   
jewel. Pag. 133. & 149. 
M. Harding himself is forced to confess, that the express term of Articular, or Secret Confession is seldom mentioned in the ancient fathers. His tale had been truer, if he had said it is never mentioned.  
Harding.  
True it is in deed, seldom we find the express name of Auricular, or Secret Confession, because the custom in old time was, rather to confess great sins openly. But what skilleth it, whether we find the express name of Secret Confession, seeing that is ordained only in favour of the penitent, whom if he do it not secrtely, it behoveth to do it openly. For done it must be, if he will enjoy the forgiveness of sins, which to impart unto penitentes, Christ gave power to his Apostles, 
joan. 20.  and by them to such Priests, as are lawfully sent by the Superior for that purpose.  
But yet to gratify M. jewel, I will bring forth one ancient witness for secret Confession. Leo the great, understanding that in some Churches of Italy the custom was the sins of men to be openly published, and read out of a paper: willeth the said custom to be abrogated, and taken away, 
Leo epist. 80.  cùm reatus conscientiarum sufficiat solis sacerdotibus indicari per confessionum secreta: forasmuch as it sufficeth, that the guilt of the consciences (that is to say, the faults where of men are guilty in their consciences) be showed unto the priests by the secret means of Confessions. How think you M. jewel, is not this the Secret Confession, which you required to be once showed in the Ancient fathers?  
Leo goeth forward in declaring the matter. Quamuis plenitudo fidei videatur esse laudabilis, quae propter Dei timorem apud homines erubescere non veretur, tamen quia non omnium huiusmodi sunt peccata, ut ea quae poenitentiam poscunt, non timeant publicare, removeatur tam improbabilis consuetudo, ne multi a poenitentiae remedijs arceantur, dum aut erubescunt, aut metuunt inimicis suis sua facta reserare, à quibus possunt legum constitutione percelli. Sufficit enim illa Confessio, quae primùm Deo offertur, tunc etiam Sacerdoti, qui pro delictis poenitentium precator accedit. Although the fullness of faith seemeth praise worthy, which standing in awe of God, feareth not to blush before men: yet because all men's sins be not such, that they have no cause to fear the publication of those things which require penance: let so disallowable a custom be removed, lest many be withholden from the remedies of penance, whiles either they be ashamed, or afraid, to open their deeds unto their enemies, of whom they may be troubled (therefore) by the ordinance of the laws. 
Confession is to be made to God first, then to the Priest.  For that Confession sufficeth, which is first offered unto God, then afterward also unto the Priest, who cometh to make intercession for the sins of the penitent.  
Here M. jewel you see, it is both necessary to confess our sins unto God, and also unto the Priest. You see also, that it is laudable for a man to confess them openly: but it is to hard to bind him to it, seeing the Secret Confession may suffice. But one of them both must of necessity be made to the Priest, for great, and mortal sins, which need the priests Absolution. For thereof S. Augustine speaketh notably, declaring how a sinner is brought out of death, out of the grave, and as it were out of the bonds of sins by three degrees. 
Aug. in Psal. 101. conc. 2.  Cùm audis hominem poenitere peccatorum svorum, iam revixit. Cùm audis hominem confitendo proferre conscientiam svam, iam de sepulchro eductus est, sed nondum solutus est. Quando soluitur? 
Math. 18.  A quibus soluitur? Quae folueritis (inquit) in terra, erunt soluta & in coelo. When thou hearest, that a man repenteth him of his sins (that is by hearty sorrow and contrition) now he is brought again to life: When thou hearest, that a man by making his confession uttereth his conscience (that is by confession either open, or secret at the ) now he is brought forth of the grave, but he is not yet loosed. When is he loosed? Of whom is he loosed? What things ye lose in earth (saith he) they shallbe loosed also in heaven. This Absolution is made by the Priest. So that God calleth us to life again by inward contrition, and we prevented with his grace come ourselves to confess, yet if the Absolution of the Priest follow not, we remain still bound. I say not that we are dead, but we are bound.  
And verily as long as we are bound, we can not enter into heaven. For as Lazarus being called up by Christ, yet if he had either remained in the grave, or if his winding sheet had not yet been loosed (as it was by the Apostles) he should naturally have been stifled up a fresh, and have died again in his own grave and bands, that he was tied withal: even so after contrition, if confession, and absolution follow not, there is in deed a certain seed, beginning, and towardness of life, but the man is choked up in his own bonds, and can not enjoy the life, which is begun in him. For Christ will have some ministerial part of penance done by his ministers in earth, that his own ordinance be not void, and that the power he gave them to remit sins, be not frustrate and superfluous.  
This doctrine grounded upon the holy Scriptures, and so expounded by the learned Fathers, and so practised by the Catholic Church, is sound M. jewel. Knock and beat at it, as long as you will: you shall but cause it to be the better tried. As for the gewgaws of Schoolmen, and Gloss, which you bring in this matter, I utterly despise them. It is well known, whatsoever the Schoolmen, or canonists say, they taught not your sacrilegious Doctrine, but would have yielded to the holy general counsels of Florence, and of Trent, where this our faith was discussed to the great admiration of all sober wits in the world. There I say more Bishops, and Doctors concluded that, which we defend, than you can bring Gloss, or sophistical devices against it. 
Of the power of Priesthood  He that listeth to see more of the necessity of Confession, may resort to M. Allens learned book of the lawful power of Priesthood to remit sins.     

The fifth book containeth a Detection of M. jewels errors, lies, slanders, etc. touching the Marriages of Priests and Votaries, the Canonical Scriptures, the Sacraments, and other points of Doctrine.  

The words of the Apolagie. In the Defence 2. part. ca 8. Division. 1. Pag. 163.  
We say, that Matrimony is holy, and honourable in all sorts and states of persons: as in the patriarchs, in the Prophets, in the Apostles, in the holy Martyrs, in the Ministers of the Church, and in Bishops: and that it is an honest and lawful thing (as Chrysostom saith) for a man living in matrimony, to take upon him therewith the dignity of a Bishop.  

Confutation. fol. 73. b.  
Matrimony is holy and honourable in all persons and an undefiled bed, as saith S. Paul. 
Hebre. 13.  Yet is it not lawful for them to mary, which either have by deliberate vow dedicated almaner their chastity unto God, or have received holy order. For the vowed be forbidden marriage by express word of God. Those that have taken holy orders, by tradition of the Apostles and ancient ordinance of the Church.  
Touching the first, the Scripture is plain, because a vow is to be performed, 
Psal. 75.  Vovete & reddite Domino Deo vestro. Vow ye and pay (or render that ye vow) to your Lord God. Christ also sayeth in the gospel, 
Matt. 19  there be some eunuchs that have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. He that can take, let him take. 
Vowebreakers in what danger they stand. 1. Tim. 5.  Again S. Paul speaking of young widows, which have vowed and promised chastity, sayeth, that when they wax wanton against Christ, they will marry, having damnation, because they have broken their first faith. Whether these scriptures pertain hereto, and be thus to be understanded, we refer us to the primitive Church, and to all the holy Fathers. 
* From star to star left out of M jevels book What the Fathers have judged of marriages after vow of chastity. De bono viduitatis  Whosoever have thus vowed chastity, or by receiving holy orders have bound themselves to the bond of continency to the same by ancient constitution of the Church annexed, if afterward presuming to mary, excuse the satisfying of their carnal lust with the name of wedlock, be they men, be they women: they live in a damnable state, and be worse than adulterers. * such marriages, or rather slydinges, and falls from the holier Chastity that is vowed to God, S. Augustine doubteth not, but they be worse than advowtries. S. Cyprian calleth this case plain incest, S. Basile accounteth the marriages of veiled Virgins to be void, of no force, and facrilegious.  
She that hath dispoused herself to our Lord (sayeth S. Basile) is not free. 
lib. de virginitate  For her husband is not dead, that she may marry to whom she list. And whiles her immortal husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, which for lusts of the flesh hath brought a mortal man into our lords chamber. 
* Left out by M. jev.  The case is like in the man.  
And whereas such persons with deliberate vow purposed to consecrate themselves to our Lord only, maids by virginity, widows by chastity of widowehod, priests by single life and continency: they may not with good conscience mary, because the lust of the flesh followeth not that former purpose, but draweth the soul to her vices from that whereto it is bound. For what so ever is the work (sayeth S. Basile) before which reason, and law goeth not in the mind, the same is of the conscience noted for unlawful. Of all such after many words uttered in reproof of their lewdness, he concludeth, that they follow not wedlock, but adultery. But for proof that vowed persons may not mary, it were not hard to allege so much out of the fathers, as would fill a volume. 
* Clerks bound to continency Li. 1. c. 11 Paphutius. Li. 1. c. 23.   
Touching the second, the Apostles forbid those that come single to the Clergy, to mary, except such as remain in the inferior orders, and proceed not to the greater, as we find in their canons. Can. 25. Paphnutius as Socrates and Sozomenus record in their Ecclesiastical story, said at the Nicene Council, that it was an old tradition of the Church, that such as come to the degree or order of Priesthood single, should not mary wives. And this is that holy Bishop Paphnutius, whom these evangelical vowebreakers pretend to be their proctor for their unlawful marriages.  

* Left out by M. jev. Siritius and Innocentius were not the first ordeiners of clerks continency.  Neither Pope Siritius and Innocentius the first, who lived long above a thousand years past, were the first makers of the law that forbiddeth Priests to marry, but declaring that the same was of old time ordained and used of the Church, they condemn the disorders against the same committed. * Read who list the epistle of Siritius ad Himerium Tarraconensem. cap. 7. the second epistle of Innocentius to Victricius Bishop of Roen. cap. 9 and his third epistle to Exuperius B. of Tolouse. cap. 1. and weighing well these places he shall perceive, that these holy Popes forbade the ministers of the Church the use of wedlock by the same reason, by which the priests of Moses law were forbidden to come within their own houses, in the time when their course came to serve in the holy ministries. By the same reason also by which S. Paul required married folk for a time to forbear the use of their wives, 
1. Cor. 7.  that they might attend praying.  
The place of S. Chrysostom alleged by this Defender well considered, 
Answer to Chrysostoms' place.  disproveth no part of the Catholic doctrine in this hehalfe, but condemneth both the doctrine and common practice of his companions these new fleshly Gospelers. His words be these upon the saying of S. Paul, 
In 1. cap. ad Tit. homil. 2.  that a Bishop ought to be without crime, the husband of one wife. The Apostle (sayeth he) stoppeth the mouths of Heretics which condemn marriage, showing that it is not an unclean thing, but so reverent, that with the same a man may ascend to the holy throne or seat (he meant the state of a Bishop) and herewith he chastiseth and restraineth the unchaste persons, 
Twice married may not be Bishops, and why? Second marriages lawful, yet open to accusations Left out by M. jev,  not permitting them who have twice married, to attain such a room. For whereas he keepeth no benevolence toward his wife deceased, how can he be a good governor? Yea what grievous accusations shall not he be subject unto daily? For ye all know right well, that albeit by the laws the second marriages be permitted, yet that matter lieth open to many accusations. And therefore he would a Bishop to give no occasion (of evil) to those that be under him. * Thus Chrysostom. Where, with S. Paul, first he putteth to silence the Cerdonistes, Marcionistes, severians, Tatians, Manichees, and all other Heretics that condemned marriage, and said it was an impure thing. Secondly he alloweth matrimony so far, that he acknowledgeth a married man may ascend to a Bishop's seat. Thirdly 
* Left out by M. jev. Bigamy lawful rather then commendable. left out by M. jev. The Bigamy of the gospelers condemned by Chrysostom and Paule-strompets,  he putteth Bigamy, that it to wit, marrying an other after the first, or a widow, to be lawful, rather than commendable. *  
Now as we do not condemn marriage, neither deny, but that married men in the Primitive Church, and before the Ghospel was so generally received, as it was at length, were and might be called to the dignity of Bishopric, when scarcity, and lack of single men worthy of that room was found: * so we see the impure Bigamy of our holy gospelers condemned both by S. Chrysostom, and S. Paul, of whom many being Priests and (as they say) Bishops, at lest presuming to occupy that holy seat, for custody of their chastity after their former old yokefellowes decease, solace themselves with new strumpets. By a better name I would call them, if I witted I should not offend. For what woman soever coupleth herself in such damnable yoking, how can she appear either to be honest, or to have care of her soul health? As for the simple that be deceived by the importunity and craft of those lurdens, as they are not to be borne withal, so yet I think them to be pitied.  
But if this Defender press us with Chrysostom, we answer that though Chrysostom grant, that a married man may ascend to the holy seat, yet he sayeth not, that a man may descend from that holy seat to the Bride bed. For we deny utterly, 
After holy orders received marriage never counted lawful among catholics.  that any man after that he hath received holy orders, may mary. Neither can it be showed, that the marriage of such was ever accounted lawful in the catholic Church. In deed we know that in Germany, and in England, and certain other provinces, at dissolute times, when the discipline of the Church was shaken of, Priests have been married, as we read of the time, in which Anselmus was Bishop of Cantorbury. 
Priests married in England in the time of Anselmus.  But that disorder was always by due correction of bishops punished and redressed. So that what soever Bale, Poinet, or any other of that filthy railing rabble bring out of Huldrike of Auspurg, Huntingdonensis, Capgrave, Chronica Chronicarum, or such other obscure and barbarous stories for witness of priests marriages, seeing the same were by good rulers of the Church at all times controlled and resisted, as unlawful and wicked: it is of no force nor authority. How, why, and when married men were admitted to be priests, and where the profession of chastity and abstaining from company of their wives was required of them, and many other points touching the unlawful marriages of priests, who so ever is desirous to be amply instructed: the same I refer to a large treatise written hereof by a learned man in our own tongue. I think not good here to recite the things, that be so well treated already.    
jewel. Pag. 164. 
Here I grant M. Harding is like to find some good advantage, as having undoubtedly a great Number of the holy Fathers of his side. etc.  
That Priests, and Votaries may not marry. The first Chapter.  

Harding.  

The Fathers be on our side by M. jewels own confession.  THAN undoubtedly you have not the holy Scriptures on your side. For the holy Fathers have never in great number determined, or weighed against the Scriptures. For the same Christ that gave us the holy Scriptures, gave us also Pastors and Doctors (as S. Paul teacheth) to make perfit the Saints, that is, the Christians, by their ministerial working, and to build up the body of Christ, which is his Church. Seeing then M. jewel confesseth, that for this point we have a great number of the Fathers on our side, let him make his Moustre of Glosers, summists, all the canonists, Schoolmen, and of his other late petty Doctors, whom, when they serve us, he calleth the Black Guard, never so great: we will content ourselves with the great number of Ancient Fathers.  
And if the Fathers be on our side, what remaineth, but that the Reader make his choice, to which side to incline, to the old Fathers of the Ancient Church, of whose holiness we are well assured, or to these young Fathers of this new Church, whose Children do give us better witness, that they be fathers, then doth their life, that they be holy.  
Well, how great number of holy Fathers so ever we have on our side, certain it is, that M. jewel will not yield. Let it then be considered, how he defendeth this point, and what pith there is in all that number of the Doctors sayings, which he would seem to allege for his purpose.  
As concerning the words of my confutation of the Apology touching this point of the marriage of Priests, and Votaries, because I knew, these married Apostates do charge us, as having an evil judgement of Matrimony, directly answering the words of the Apology, first, I commend Matrimony, 
Heb. 13. To marry unlawful in two cases.  and approve the saying of S. Paul uttered in the Epistle to the Hebrews in praise of it. Nevertheless I say, that to marry it is unlawful in two cases. The one is, if any person have vowed continency: the other, if any man have taken holy Orders. The first I prove by Scripture, and the Fathers: the second, by the Ordinance of the Church, and also by testimony of the Fathers. Then I answer to the place alleged out of S. Chrysostom, who saith, that a married man may be promoted unto the dignity of a Bishop. In discoursing whereupon I show, that the Bigamy of the married Apostates of our time, is by sentence of S. Chrysostom utterly condemned. After this, granting that in the old Church married men upon good causes were made Bishops, I deny, that Bishops were ever made married men, after they were Bishops.  

The four things that in this matter M. jewel hath to defend.  These than be the things, that here M. jewel hath to defend. First, that is is lawful to marry after the Vow of Chastity. Secondly, that it is lawful after the taking of holy Orders. Thirdly, that Bigamy, or second marriage is lawful in Priests, monks, Friars, and nuns. Fourthly, that in old time Bishops were married after they had once been consecrate Bishops. These four if he do not defend, he performeth nothing touching this point, but showeth himself to all men overcome, though his Doctors allegations besides the purpose be never so many. 
What is that M. jewel. performeth in this matter of Priests and Votaries marriages.   
Now cometh me M. jewel in, and allegeth Doctors as thick as hail, old, and new, known, and unknown, allowed, and disallowed, Schoolmen, and summists, vea the very marginal Annotations upon the Gloze of Gratian are haled in to help at a pintche, and yet all helpeth not.  
Of his own in manner he saith nothing, but thus, Origen saith, Tertullian saith, such a one saith, and such an other saith, and he saith, and again he saith, etc. Then he layeth down their Latin, be it true, be it false, and putteth a translation unto it, such, as becometh shifters to use in a false matter, and thus furnisheth out a great book, that the world may think, he is a great Clerk.  
Were all that he allegeth to the purpose, than were it somewhat, yet were it no great commendation, to make books only out of notebooks already made, and gathered to his hands.  
First (to declare his order) keeping himself a luffe of, 
M jewels order in his treaty of this point, and his two principles.  and coming nothing near the point, wherein my Confutation consisteth, he bringeth the holy Fathers into suspicion of not dealing uprightly and indifferently herein, bearing the Reader in hand, they have swerved from truth, either in the advancing of Virginity, or else in the disgracing of lawful Matrimony. To make proof of this, he allegeth no small number of sentences out of certain Fathers, in which not being thoroughly examined, they seem to speak hardly of Marriage, specially of the second Marriage. For this point his Doctors be these, Tertullian in Exhortatione ad Castitatem: the author of the unperfit work upon S. Matthew, whom he calleth Chrysostom, whereas it is well known not to be his, as that, which containeth sundry heinous heresies: S. Jerome writing against jovinian, helvidius, and to Gerontia: Athenagoras in Apologia pro Christianis: Nazianzen in dictum evangelii, Cùm perfecisset jesus etc. Origen in Lucam, Homilia. 17. for which his cotation hath, Homil. 19  
next, he reckoneth up so many men, as he hath read of, that being Married, were afterwards made Bishops. Of whom he saith, that they used Marriage themselves in their own persons, which is more than he is liable to prove, if by use of Marriage, he mean the carnal copulation.  

M. jewels two Principles.  These two, that is to say, the Father's disgracing of Matrimony and their having of wives themselves, he calleth by the name of his two Principles, which being laid, he maketh his stout vaunt, that he is the better able to consider the substance of my reasons, for so he saith, and there at length he addresseth himself to shape an Answer to the part of my Confutation above set out.  
Now to say somewhat to his Principles, before I come to his Answer, were it true, that certain Fathers speaking of Matrimony, used immoderate, and extraordinary speeches, for so he termeth them: Again, that many of them had been married before they came to be Bishops: what pertaineth that to the defence of the marriage of Votaries, and Priests, which was the point presently treated of? What, will he make this fond and childish Argument, Certain Fathers spoke over vehemently concerning Matrimony, Item, some of them were called to the dignity of Bishops, from the state of married men: Ergo, Priests, Monks, Friars, and nuns, who have vowed Chastity, may lawfully marry wives, and take husbands? Truly either this is his reason, or else hitherto he hath no reason at al. And of what small substance this reason is, the veriest Cobblers of all their Ministers, if they can read any English besides their communion book, may easily perceive.  
Touching the Father's speeches in reproof of Matrimony, one answer M. jewel, 
Answer to M. jewels doctors.  in manner may serve to refute all that you would infer of their sayings. Only I except Tertullian, who being fallen into the fowl Heresy of Montanus, in his book entitled, Exhortatio ad castitatem, wrote otherwise of Marriage (specially in that he condemned second marriage) than the Catholic Church holdeth, or the truth beareth. And S. Jerome witnesseth (as Beatus Rhenanus noteth) that book to have been written against the Church. Now we think not ourselves bound to defend, what so ever they say, whom the Church condemneth for Heretics. As for Origen likewise, you know, of how little credit he is, in regard of sundry great errors: albeit touching the case of the second, and third Marriage, 
The Fathers call immoderate lust, an evil thing, for which they be thought of some unlearned, to reprove marriage De peccato originali contra Pelag. & Coelestium. lib. 2. c. 37 Lib 1. de Nuptiu et Concupiscent. c. 22  speaking where of you allege him: he may better be defended, than Tertullian may.  
As concerning the other Fathers by you alleged, the thing, for which they seem sometimes to speak of Matrimony not favourably, is the immoderate concupiscence or lust now after sin by our first parents committed, which is of the holy Fathers reported to be malum, as much to say, an evil thing, and to proceed not of God, but of sin, without which evil thing, the thing, that is good in Matrimony, that is to say, generation, can not be performed.  
This, besides other Father's S. Augustine calleth oftentimes, malum, an evil thing, as carnalis concupiscentiae malum, the evil of fleshly lust, and malum libidinis, the evil thing of carnal pleasure, etc. He saith that natural shamefastness showeth it so to be, by which it cometh to pass, that although married persons glory in Children, yet when they attend upon the work of begeting Children, they choose themselves secret places, and will all witnesses to be out of their way, thereby confessing the shamefastness itself of Nature. And this much our first Parents confessed, after they had sinned, 
Gen. 3.  by that they were ashamed, and covered their shamely parts with Fig tree leaves, as the Scripture plainly declareth.  
Neither proceedeth this evil thing of Marriage, but of sin, 
August. in Psal. 70.  and it is the pain of sin. In married persons it is evil, but no sin, malum poenae, not malum culpae, as the Scholastical Divines call it. And this is the meaning of that saying of the author that wrote the unperfit work upon S. Matthew, 
Opere imperfecto in Matth. Hom. 1. sub finem.  whom you will needs to be S. Chrysostom. The saying is this. Haec ipsa Coniunctio Maritalis malum est ante Deum. Non dico, Peccatum, sed malum. This very wedlock Conjunction itself is an evil thing before God. I say not, it is Sin, but I say, it is an evil thing. In translating which words, you do very falsely demean yourself, and beguile your unlearned Reader. For in that place the author meaneth not by Coniunctio Matrialis the Copulation of Matrimony, as you translate it, as though he said, 
What is that which is of the Fathers accounted evil in wedlok work.  Matrimony itself were an evil thing: God forbidden, any should so speak of God's holy ordinance. But he meaneth the conjunction of the Husband with his wife in the act of generation. Neither yet understandeth he the conjunction or act itself, in wedlock to be an evil thing (so it be not to the end to satiate lust and pleasure, but to the end to beget a child, that being again begotten and regenerate, may serve to fill the City of God, as S. Augustine speaketh) but the immoderate concupiscence and lust, without the which that wedlock act is not done. Whereof S. Augustine saith, 
August. de Nuptijs et concupiscent. lib. 1. cap. 24.  Cùm ventum fuerit ad opus generandi, ipse ille licitus & honestus concubitus, non poterit esse sine ardore libidinis, ut peragi possit quod rationis est, non libidinis.  
This immoderate concupiscence, this inordination, this rebellion of the flesh, and preventing and overbearing of reason, this filthy motion swerving from reason whereof shame is taken, without which the act of Wedlock is not done, is the thing, which the author of that unperfit work upon S. Matthew, and sundry holy Fathers, have called Malum, asmuch to say, an evil thing. 
The evil thing of wedlock work of married persons well used. The three good things of marriage. à cap. 10. usque ad cap. 16.  Which evil thing notwithstanding, married persons do use well, because of the three good things that Matrimony hath, by which it is excused.  
Those three things are these, Fides, Proles, Sacramentum. Faith, or Fidelity, Issue, and the Sacrament, whereof S. Augustine teacheth learnedly in his first book De Nuptijs & concupiscentia ad Valerium. By these three good things, as S. Augustine, and the Church teacheth, the use of Matrimony is excused, not as an act that of itself is evil, is excused through ignorance, or infirmity, which is rather an excuse of the party that worketh: but it is excused, for that otherwise it should be a sin, except it had these three good things joined together. Which when it hath, the Circumstances to every good act behooful presupposed, it is an act lawful, honest, good and laudable.  
Now this being considered, whereas you M. jewel judge the holy Fathers to speak otherwise of Matrimony, than the honour and holiness of that state deserveth: you show yourself to be of the number of those deceived men, 
August. de Nuptus et Concupis. lib. 1. ca 5.  of whom S. Augustin saith thus. Profectò errand, qui, cum vituperatur libido carnalis, damnari nuptias opinantur, quasi morbus iste de connubio sit, non de peccato. Verily they are deceived, which, when fleshly lust is rebuked, think that marriage is condemned, as though this disease were of wedlock, 
August. de peccato originali contra Pelag. & Coelestium lib. 2. c. 37  and not of sin.  
Likewise he saith again, Quia iam ista conditione mortalium, nunc simul aguntur concubitus & libido, eò fit, ut cùm libido reprehendatur, etiam nuptialis concubitus licitus & honestus reprehendi putetur ab eyes, qui nolunt discernere ista, vel nesciunt. Because as the condition of men is now (after Sin) the act of generation and lust, are done both atonce, thereof it cometh to pass, that, when lust is reproved, the lawful and honest dealing of them together that be coupled in wedlock, is thought also to be reproved, of them, which will not discern between these things (he meaneth the act, and the lust) or else know not how to discern them. To conclude, what so ever certain Fathers say, and how so ever they seem to speak of Matrimony, this pertained nothing to the purpose. Al your great number of allegations might have been left out, for asmuch as thereby your Vowbreakers marriage is nothing justified, nor defended.   

M. jewels second, Principle for defence of Vowbreakers marriages, answered, which is, that bishops and Priests were married in old time.  
Your second Principle (for so you call it) wherein you put the chief confidence of this cause, is, that many Bishops and Priests in old time were married, for so you dispose your words. I tell you M. jewel, you have not so much as one example for you, that a bishop was married, I mean, that any was ever married in the old Church, and allowed in it, after that he was Bishop. That divers and sundry married men were for their virtue and holy life made Bishops, I deny not, ne never yet denied. You allege all the examples of antiquity that you can, yet not so much as one to the purpose.  
That Tertullian was a married man, 
Tettullian of a married man made Priest. Spiridion made Bishop from being a married lay man. S. Hilary married by M. jewel. In the Rejoinder against the Sacrifice of the Mass fol. 172. b.  and afterward made a Priest, I grant. You say, Spiridion the Bishop of Cyprus, was married, and had children: I deny, that Spiridion being a Bishop, was married: but I confess, that being a married lay man before, he was chosen afterward to be a Bishop, and had one daughter, named Irene. Whether he had more children I know not, of more children of his I have not read.  
You make S. Hilary the bishop of Poitiers a married man. Your proof is the Epistle to Abra his daughter. If I deny, that he was ever married, how can ye prove it? The Epistle to Abra, is a peevish Apocryphal, and forged write, as I told you in my last rejoinder, where you utter this same very stuff in great sooth, whereby the world may understand, what simple rags ye have wherewith to cover your brethren the Apostates filthy lechery. That Prosper the Bishop of Rhegium was a married man, you say it, but you prove it not. And were it so, yet it serveth not your turn, because if he were married, it was before he was priest.  
Neither have you good authority for proof, that Chaeremon 
Chaeremon  the Bishop of a City called Nilus, whom you reckon among married Bishops, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. cap 42.  was married. Eusebius saith, that in time of persecution he fled unto a Hil in Arabia, with her that lived with him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and was never found again. That she was his wife, it appeareth not. She might be some woman of his kin, or some other old woman, that kept him, and dressed his meat, and attended him as a nurse, of whom he had need, being a man of extreme age, as Eusebius reporteth of him, saying that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, passing old.  
Polycrates, 
Polycrates.  you say, being a Bishop, sometimes said, that seven of his Fathers, or Ancestors, had been Bishops. What helpeth this your cause at all? Marry say you, the Greek word is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and Ruffinus translateth it, Patres. Whereunto stick you? unto the Greek word, or unto the Latin? If you stick unto the Latin word, Patres, which signifieth Fathers, or Ancestors, you mean not I trow, that Polycrates had seven Fathers, for that were to much by six, you know. One Father is enough pardy for one man. If he had seven Ancestors, what gather you thereof? that he was married, because he had seven Ancestors? Where is your Logic become M. jewel? The truth is good Reader, here is Ruffinus belied. 
Ruffinus belied.  He translateth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Patres, but, Parents: which goeth further of in signification, than the word Patres doth, as the learned in the Civil Laws do know. And this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly signifieth kinsmen, them that be near in blood, them that be of one family, and of the same kindred. S. Hierom translateth it propinquos, 
Hiero. in Catalogo. in Polycrate.  and him followeth Sophronius, putting for S. Hieromes Latin word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying them that were nigh in blood. Now Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus said, in his epistle to Pope Victor, that 7. Bishops in that See before him, were of his house, his family, his stock, his blood, or his kindred. Let M. jewel make the most of this place. Thereof he can conclude nothing for any of the four points before mentioned, which he hath taken in hand to defend.  
That S. Peter was a married man, 
Ignat. ad Philadelp. Origen falsified by M. jewel. Origen. in Comment. in epist. ad Rom. c. 1. Whether S. Paul had a wife ot no by the opinion of S. Ambrose. M. jewels foul contradictions. Reply. Article. 17. Division. 11.  for which you allege S. Ignatius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius the reherser of his words, it was never denied. This have you now told us divers times. But where you say thus, Origen saith, that S. Paul, and his wife were called to the Faith, both at one time: you deal with Origen, as you do with the rest, whom so ever you allege, falsifying them more or less. Origen saith not as you report him, but thus, Paulus (sicut quidam tradunt) cum uxore vocatus est. S. Paul (as some say) was called with a wife, that is to say, having a wife before. That he had a wife, he affirmeth it not for certainty, but maketh it a matter of a Some say. And there it followeth immediately (aliis videtur, sine uxore) that others were of the opinion, he was free, and called to the Faith having no wife at al.  
But sir touching this point, whether S. Paul had a wife or no by the opinion of S. Ambrose, whom here you call to witness, whether is truer man, Master jewel, that wrote the Reply, or Master jewel, that wrote this pretenced Defence? There he saith thus, The twelve Apostles, 
Ambros. in 2. Cor. 11.  saith S. Ambrose, only S. john excepted, were all married. Here he saith otherwise, S. Ambrose saith, Omnes Apostoli, excepto johann, & Paulo, uxores habuerunt. All the Apostles had wives, only john, and Paul excepted. Here S. Paul hath no wife, there S. Paul hath a wife. If you were a true man there, then are you false here. If you be true here, then were you false there. Or he had a wife by S. Ambrose, or he had not: say which ye will, M. jewel is contrary to M. jewel. Again by M. jewel in his Defence pag. 184. S. Paul had a wife. But by the same M. jewel in the same book page. 512. the same S. Paul had no wife. feign would I know, which of these M. jewels were to be trusted.  

Hieron. contra jovinian. Lib. 1. In the 2. Kejoinder. fol. ●75. b.  The place of S. Jerome against jovinian, saying, that Priests in his time had Matrimonies, that is to say, were taken from the state of married persons to be Priests, helpeth you nothing. To the same I have answered in my second Reionder, as to sundry things else here by you again rehearsed. Hitherto M. jewel hath small advantage, as thou seest Reader. Remember the four points I noted to thee before, which is his part to defend, which not being defended, he may of any man be challenged to yield, at least in this matter of the marriage of them, that have vowed perpetual chastity. Before he cometh to the point, he saith little of himself, but bringeth in heaps of other men's sayings nothing pertaining to the question, as I judge, to make a show of learning to the ignorant. Among which this is one, pretended to be alleged out of Damasus, for proof that many Popes were Priests sons. Thus he saith.   
jewel. 
Pope Damasus showeth us, 
Distin. 56 Osius. A vain and a fond thing ascribed to Damasus, as though he written of things done long after his death.  that a great number of Bishops of Rome were priests sons: As Pope Syluerius: Pope Deus dedit: Pope Adrianus. 2. Pope john. 15. Pope Felix. 3. Pope Hosius: Pope agapetus: Pope Gelasius: Pope Bonifacius: Pope john. 10. Pope Theodorus. And concludeth thus: Complures etiam alij inveniuntur, qui de Sacerdotibus nati Apostolicae Sedi praefuerunt: many others beside there are found, that being priests Sons, ruled the Apostolic See of Rome.  
Harding.  
What shall I say unto this fellow? Who ever saw so impudent a man? Doth Pope Damasus show you all this M. jewel? Phy for shame man. You a minister of God's word? Nay, a minister of vain Fables, a minister of open lies. What may we call this in you, foolish ignorance, or shameless malice? How could you be so ignorant, or so witless, as once to dream, that Damasus that learned Pope should thus write? That you might seem a joily proctor for your brothers the married Apostates sacrilegious, incestuous, and abominable yoking (for Marriage is too honourable a name for that filthiness) must Damasus needs be made a Prophet, and such a Prophet, as the world had never the like? A Prophet I say, for unless he had a strange gift of Prophecy, how was it possible, that he should tell, who should be the Fathers of men borne so many years after his death?  
Consider Reader I pray thee (for it booteth not to tell it M. jewel) how this tale hangeth together. Damasus was the .39. Pope. Syluerius, whom M. jewel putteth in the first place, was the .60. Pope. Deus dedit was the .70. Pope. Adrianus the second was the .109. Pope. john the .15. was the .143. Felix the third was the .50. Agapetus was the .59. Gelasius the .51. Bonifacius the first (whereas there were divers of that name, whom he meaneth I know not) was the .44. John the tenth was the .126. Theodorus the first (if he mean any other of that name, he was farther of from Damasus) was the .75. Pope.  

Pope Hosius, a Pope of M. jewels making.  As for Pope Hosius, he is a Pope of M. jewels own making Verily in all the Registres of Popes I find none so named. A small matter, if M. jewel, who maketh so many Pope's priests sons, make us one Pope, who is neither Priests, nor lay man's son, nor any man's son at al. What a marvelous Prophet than was M. jewels Damasus, that could thus prophecy of so many Popes so long to come after his death, and tell, who should be their fathers, so many years before their great Grandfathers were borne?  
If for some excuse you say, that this much you found in Gratian, Distinct. 56. it can not help you. The printed Gratian hath neither this form of words, nor this order of names, nor so many Pope's names by three. For he hameth not john. 10. nor john. 15. nor Adrian. 2. So that you must take it upon you yourself, and bear the shame of it. And what if the book of Gratian had it, as you have alleged? Do you not know, that such things in Gratian be of no authority sometimes, which be rehearsed under this word, Palea? 
Palea.  Palea, good Reader, is asmuch to say, as Chaff: and where so ever this word (Palea) Chaff, is put in Gratian, by the same it is signified, as some do judge, that the saying immediately following is with little judgement infarced, and that it is little worth, as Chaff is little worth in comparison of clean wheat. Such Chaff, and vain fables M. jewel is driven to take hold of, to maintain his brother's filthiness, for lack of better stuff.  
And were it true, that these Popes, or some of them, whose names be found here in Gratian'S Chaff, were priests sons: yet had he been a true dealer in this cause, he should not so unjustly have conceeled, what the Gloze saith in the same place, specially seeing that he is so well acquainted with the Gloze, and furnisheth his great book specially, and above all other Doctors, with the stuff of the Gloze. Thus there we find. 
Distinct. 56. in Glossa.  Omnia ista exempla intellige de ijs qui in Laicali statu, vel minoribus ordinibus orationibus parentum suscepti sunt: quando suis parentibus licebat uti uxoribus suis. Understand thou all these examples of them, that were received (at God's hand) by the prayers of their father's being in the state of lay men, or in the lesser Orders: when their fathers might lawfully use their wives.  
Thus, for any thing you have brought hitherto, is your Great Post of priests Marriages, thwited to a pudding prick. As for that, which after all this you pretend to allege out of AEneas Silvius, 
AEneas Silvius.  whom you call Pope Pius, whereas at the time when he wrote De gestis Concilij Basiliensis, he was neither Pope, nor Pius, and out of Polydorus Vergilius 
Polydorus Vergil.  the late prebendary of Paul's in London (whom in the Chronicles you report falsely) and last of all out of fabling Fabian 
Fabian.  the late Merchant of London, a man of small learning, and of as little authority in these points, though a special favourer of your side, as it is told, and therefore the readier to report untruth: I am sure men of mean knowledge will little esteem, and I account it not worth the answering. Make the best you can of it, thereby perhaps, or by some part of it, ye may prove, that of Married men some were made Bishops, which as I have oftentimes told you, we deny not: but that Bishops, or Priests were ever in any well ordered Church permitted to marry, you shall never be able to prove.  
Now that you have laid your two Principles, as you call them, let us see how substantially you defend your four points above mentioned. And first, that it is lawful to marry after the Vow of Chastity, and after holy Orders taken, show us by what learning, or authority ye prove it.   
jewel. 
First of all, his objection of Vows nothing toucheth the Clergy of England. For it is known, and confessed, that the Priests of England were never Votaries. Yet for further answer we grant, it is reason, and convenient, that who so hath made a Vow unto God, should keep his promise. 
Cyril in Levitic. Lib. 3.  Cyrillus saith, Si castitatem promiserit, & seruar● non poterit, pronunciet peccatum suum. If he have promised, 〈…〉 wooed Chastity, and can not keep it: let him pronounce, and confess his sin..  
Harding.  
How long will you go about the bush, as they say, when come you to the purpose? These buy matters not touched in my Confutation, have made your book great, but the same give evidence, that you put more trust in multitude of words, then in substance of matter. If ye had the clear truth on your side, what needed so many words? One plain sentence might have better served you. That you wander not abroad, here once again I call you home, and require you to leave your delays, and answer to the very point, or to confess your error. Remember, my words of the Confutation be these. It is not lawful for them to marry, 
Confutat. fol. 73. b.  which either have by deliberate vow dedicated all manner their chastity unto God or have received holy Order."  
Over against these my words, you have placed in the margin of your book, this note with your star. 
Defence. pag. 163.  Untruths, two together, as better appeareth by the Answer. By which you charge my saying with two Untruths. Of such notes your book hath great store. But God be thanked, the world seeth, you are ryfer of upbraidings, and slanders, then of substantial proofs. Now by your note you have bound yourself to show us, that it is lawful to marry after the Vow of Chastity, likewise also after the holy Orders taken.  
Before you came to prove either of these two points, you tell us, that the Priests of England were never Votaries, that is to say, that they never made Vow of single life, and chastity, whereby to bind them selves not to marry. Never is a long day M. jewel. Well, be it, as it is. If they be not Votaries, they may marry say you. But answer directly to the point I pray you. 
M. jewel full coldly maketh that but reasonable, and convenient, that is necessary.  May they marry, who have vowed chastity? Say yea, or nay. We grant, say you, it is reason, and convenient, that who so hath made a Vow unto God, should keep his promise. This is somewhat, though it be coldly spoken.  
But yet you must come nearer unto the point. You speak generally, and faintly. We speak not of a Vow, or promise in general. If a man make a promise to an other man, it is reason, and convenient, that he keep it. But how say you to the vow of chastity, deliberately made, of man, or woman to God? Is it in any wise necessary to perform it, or no? If it be necessary, why speak ye so coldly, it is reason, and convenient? What mean you by your reason and convenience? Is it any more, but that if a Monk, or a Friar feel himself moved with lust, he shall by and by take a woman under pretence of Wedlock, and so quench heat? that your nuns also, if they begin to be wanton, shall take husbands, and so mortify the lusts of their flesh? For making the performance of the Vow but a matter of reason, and convenience, ye seem easily to dispense with their marriages in case of hot, and urgent temptations. For so men are wont to dispense with that which seemeth reasonable and convenient, when a greater reason seemeth to move them to the contrary.  
But let us leave your saying to your own construction. 
The Founders, and chief masters of this new Gospel are judged unreasonable men by M. I. himself.  By the same this much you grant at the least, that so many of your Gospel, as have broken their Vow of Chastity, and have married, have done otherwise, then was convenient, and agreeable to reason. Thus ye make the Founder of your Religion Friar Luther, an unreasonable man. Such was Oecolampadius, such was Bucer, such was Peter Martyr, such were in manner all the rest of your fleshly Prelates, Teachers, Preachers, and Ministers, who being Religious by taking Yokefelowes unto them, have broken their Vow and promise to God.  
I can you thank M. jewel for granting this much, althoughte it be too little. Marry to your companions, I doubt not, it seemeth too much. And little thank doubtless shall you have at their hands for it. For the breach of their Vow being granted to be against reason, and a thing inconvenient, how shall God's people believe, their doctrine to be reasonable, and their lives to be convenient? Sure I am that neither Luther himself, nor Bucer, nor Peter Martyr, nor any of the rest, could ever be persuaded to acknowledge, and confess so much. And were they now a live, they would be offended with you for so saying. And how your good married brothers of England will like you for it, I doubt, for as much at it is not for their profit, the people should understand, that by your own confession, their Preachers, and spiritual Governors (specially such as were professed in any Religion, for certain it is that they be Votaries) by taking wives have done the thing, that is inconvenient, and all together against reason. What a heinous crime it is to contemn the vow of Chastity, and to break promise with God, it may be declared in an other place. Here only we take that you confess yourself, that it is against reason, and not convenient.  
As for the saying you allege out of the third book of Cyrillus in Leviticum, 
Forgery.  it can serve you to no purpose, but to witness your forgery, and falsehood. For there is no such saying in that book. If any man be moved to break his vow upon warrant of those words, you are guilty of the crime.  
If the Priests of England be no Votaries, as you say, yet what say you to the Priests of other countries? Is it lawful for them of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and of other lands, who have made the vow of chastity, to marry? That it is not lawful, I have sufficiently proved in my Confutation. For the Scriptures be plain, that a Vow made to God, is to be performed. Neither willed I that which I said in my Confutation, to be understanded of your fellows of England only. How excuse you then your brethren of other Countries, 
What hath M. jewel to say in defence of the votaries marriages in other lands besides England?  that first gave the onset, and adventured to set your Gospel a brooch? What say you for Luther, for Peter Martyr your own good friend and Master, and for many such others, who were not only Priests, but also Religious men, and feared not to yoke themselves in pretenced marriage unto nuns? If they did wickedly therein, as no man living can excuse them, how is not your Gospel builded upon an evil foundation? But this is too large a field at this present, for us to walk in. I look still, when you will come to the point, that requireth your direct Answer.  
As for the Priests of England, what moveth you to say, they be no Votaries? What privilege have they above all other Priests of Christendom, at least of the Latin, 
That priests of England be Votaties.  and West Church? Who ever said it? Who ever wrote it? Where ever found you it? Or if any where it be found (which I trow ye shall never be able to show in any authentical writer) what reason hath the reporter for it? O say you, it is known, and confessed. But your word M. jewel is no Gospel. Your bare affirmation is of small credit. If ye have no better proof for it, and ye will do by my read, in case you be a Priest, be not over hasty to take a Yokefelow yet, as your companions have done. For surely not withstanding your marvelous knowledge, and bold confession, you are like to prove deceived. Marry if you be no Priest, as I can not tell what to make of you, then go to it, and God send you better luck, than some of your fellows have had.  
For proof that Priests of England are Votaries, this is most certain, that the Vow of Chastity is annexed unto holy Orders by statute of holy Church, and that with most convenient reason the Church hath ordained, 
The vow of chastity annexed unto holy Orders.  that all from a Bishop to a Subdeacon, shall vow Chastity. Which thing the Grecians also admitted, though not universally. For although they marry not after holy Orders received, yet they use matrimony before holy Orders contracted. Wherefore there is no doubt, but every man that taketh holy Orders, be he of England, or of what country soever in the west Church, promiseth continency, ipso facto, that is to say, by the very taking itself of Orders, whether he express it in words, or hold his peace.  
That the vow of Chastity is required at the taking of holy Orders, we have these plain words of S. Gregory, 
The vow of Chastity required at the taking of Subdeaconship.  by whose procurement our English nation was converted to the Faith, and at whose hands the Church of England received all order and institution necessary to Christian life: Nullum Subdiaconum facere praesumant Episcopi, nisi qui se victurum castè promiserit. Let Bishops not presume to make any Subdeacon, unless he promise to live in chastity. justinian that Christian Emperor, who lived within five hundred years after Christ, 
Grego. li. 1. epi. 42.  gave the like charge unto Bishops. Neither was it S. Gregory, that first made this Decree, or statute. 
Novel. 123.  He did but command the ancient Order and Tradition of the Church to be renewed, and more exactly to be kept, as certain others his after comers Bishops of Rome did, when they saw the old discipline broken, and austerity of life in some part of the clergy slaked. The Fathers of the second Council of Carthage, which was holden above eleven hundred years past, 
Concil. Carthag. 2. Ca 2. Leo epist. 92. ca 3.  say expressly that these three Degrees, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are annexed and tied unto chastity. S. Leo that learned Bishop of Rome writing to Rusticus the Bishop of Narbon in France, saith. Lex continentiae eadem est Altaris ministris, quae episcopis atque presbyteris. Qui cùm essent laici, sive lectores, licitè & uxores ducere, & filios procreare potuerunt. Sed cùm ad praedictos pervenerunt gradus, coepit eis non licere, quod licuit. The ministers of the Altar (that is to say Deacons, and Subdeacons) be bound to the same law of continency, as Bishops, and Priests be. When they were Laiemen, or Readers, it was lawful for them both to marry wives, and to beget children. But after they came to the foresaid degrees, what before was to them lawful, began now to be unlawful.  

Distin. 31. Quoniam.  Whereas the Fathers of the sixth General Council holden in Constantinople do agnize and confess (as Gratian rehearseth out of Ivo Carnotensis) that it is commanded by the Roman Canon, that they who took the holy order of Deaconship, or Priesthood, should profess and promise to company no more with their own wives, which they had married before they came to take orders▪ thereof it is undoubtedly concluded, that, if any came single to those holy orders, they were, as they might be with more right required afterward never to marry.  

Chastity promised at the raking of holy Orders also in the ancient Greek Church Concil. Neocaesar. Cap. 1.  Neither was it the custom of the Latin Church only, that who so ever took holy orders, should promise chastity: but also of the Greek Church, and that before the first Council of Nice. The Fathers of the ancient Council of Neocaesaria now called Trapezus, Trapezonda in vulgar language, whereat S. Basile, and S. Gregory Nazianzen were present, decreed, presbyterum si uxorem duxerit, ab ordine suo deponi debere, that a priest should be deposed from his order, if he married a wife.  
In the old council of Ancyra we find this decreed concering Deacons. Quicunque Diaconi tacuerunt, 
Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10.  & susceperunt manus impositionem, professi continentiam, si postea ad nuptias venerini, à ministerio cessare debebunt. What Deacons so ever held their peace (when they took orders) and received the laying on of the Bishop's hand, so having made their profession of continency, if afterwards they come to marry, they ought to cease from the ministery.  
The Fathers of the council of Gangra, 
Concil. Gangrene. in fine.  in the end of their decrees concluded with these words. Haec aunt scripsimus, non, qui in Ecclesia Dei secundum Scripturas sanctum propositum Continentiae eligunt, vituperantes, sed eos qui abutuntur proposito in superbiam, & extolluntur adversus simpliciores, abscindimus, etc. We have written these things, not reproving them, which in the Church of God according unto the scriptures do choose the holy Vow or purpose of continency, but we cut of (by excommunication) those that abuse such purpose to pride, and become halt and lofty against the simple.  
The Council of Laodicea speaking of Priests, Deacons, 
Concil. Laodicens'. cap. 24.  and others, that have given themselves over to live in the holy ministration, saith, non oportere eos, qui in proposito continentia sunt, tabernas intrare, that they who have purposed to keep Chastity, may not be haunters of Taverns.  
Origen, 
Origen. in Numer. homil. 23.  whom I may well allege for a witness of the Church of his time, saith, that none may offer the continual Sacrifice, but such only as have vowed continual Chastity.  
The ancient Fathers of the Church, who ordained the vow of Chastity to be made by them that would be admitted to holy Orders, were moved thereto partly by the holy Ghost author of all pureness, partly by the devotion of themselves that came to the holy ministery, partly also by the Tradition of the Apostles, who touching chastity of ministers made this Decree. Exijs qui coelibes in Clerum pervenerunt, jubemus, ut lectores tantum, & cantores, 
Canonum. Apost. can. 25.  si velint, nuptias contrahant. Of them that have come to the clergy single, we command that the Readers, and singing men marry, if they will, and none else.  
Some of our married Priests of England will here perhaps say unto me. Sir, when I was made Priest, I made no vow, 
Vow of Chastity made in fact, though no words be spoken.  nor promised at all to live the single life: For I said nothing to the bishop that laid hands upon me, and he required no such thing of me. How am I then a Votary? And why may I not marry? To whom I answer, you took this charge upon you, before you came to be made Priest, when you took Subdeaconship. For that is the first among the holy Orders. Unto which for so much as the vow of Chastity by common Tradition, by special statute and ordinance of the Church, is annexed, in taking that Order, you hound yourself ipso facto, that is to say, 
Promises other, and Grants, made in deed without word.  in fact itself, to that condition, which thereto belongeth. For Vows, Promises, Oaths, Grants, and such other the like, may be made, and professed by fact and deed, though words of vowing, promising, swearing, or granting be not expressed. Many a man that marrieth a wife, doth not tell her before, or at the time of marriage with express words, that he will love her, cherish her, keep, defend, and maintain her, render wedlock duty unto her, &c: Yet in that he marrieth her, all these he is bound to perform, as being understanded to be contained in the condition of marriage, and hath promised no less by taking her to wife. And if being required of the wise to render these duties unto her, he refuse, and say, nay wife, thou shalt pardon me, I never made thee promise to do this much for thee: may not she say again, why husband, you have married me, and that is promise enough?  
The party that taketh an Oath, commonly saith nothing, but by laying his hand upon a book, and by kissing the book, or, as the custom is in some countries, by holding up his two forefingers, giveth his consent, and protesteth to do that is included in the condition of the oath. Some time men give consent to a thing, not by speaking aught at all, but by going unto a side: which of the old Romans was termed, pedibus ire in sententiam.  
The Soldier 
Soldier.  by taking his badge, and yielding his name to be booked, which is a deed, though he speak nothing, promiseth, and so far forth bindeth himself, to obey his Captain, and to abide the fortune of war. The Gentiles in old time, that received Circuncision, who were called, Proselyti, 
Proselyti.  by that very fact, made Vow and protestation, to perform what Moses' law required, though they said nothing. And many a Christian man in the time, when the faith was persecuted by heathen Tyrants, made promise, and profession of Idolatry, 
Thurificati.  only by casting a little frankincense into the Fire, when they uttered no words of Idolatry at al. Many other such examples might here easily be rehearsed, by which it is declared, that a man in some cases voweth, promiseth, and professeth a thing, good or evil, in act and deed, where words of Vow, promise, or profession be not spoken. And to this sense the common English proverb (if it may be applied to so sad a matter) leadeth us: As good is a beck, as a Dieu guard, whereby is meant a consent, 
Vow of Chastity made in silence. Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10.  given by deed without word.  
But what need I to prove this by examples? The plain text of the tenth Canon of the most ancient Council of Ancyra above rehearsed, putteth this matter out of doubt. Where it is said of Deacons, that if, when they received the Bishops laying on of hand upon them, they required not licence to marry, but held their peace, thereby (professi continentiam be the words of the Council) having vowed, promised, or professed to continue in Chastity: in case afterward they married, they should give over the holy ministery. Lo there by taking the holy order only, without words of a Vow expressed, the promise and Vow of Chastity is by those learned Fathers pronounced to be made. Neither is the party, that after holy Orders taken marrieth, excused by that he ceaseth from the ministery. The cessation from the ministery, is a punishment in the court of man: there remaineth to such a one an other pounishment in the court of God, for his breach of promise. Thus it is clear, that the Priests of England were Votaries, as well as other Priests of the Latin Church be, which M. jewel only upon warrant of his own authority denieth.  
Sith than it is so Reader, that M. jewel keepeth himself a luffe of, and will not come to the point, wherein the controversy lieth, not being able in deed to justify the marriage of them that have taken holy Orders, or otherwise have made Vow of Chastity: I think it good here briefly to rehearse the sum of his allegations, wherewith he hath blotted so much paper about this matter. 
The sum of M. jewels allegations for proof of priests marriages   
Having denied the Priests of England to be Votaries, he bringeth in sayings of Fathers, reporting that Virginity is a hard thing, and that it is not in our choice, but the mere gift of God. Which thing as it maketh nothing to the present purpose, so I grant to be true. We ought not to choose that state of life, but upon good trial of ourselves. But when we have taken that yoke upon us, it behoveth us to pray for the assistance of God's grace, and to use all such good means, by which we may attain help towards the performance of our promise.  
Then he allegeth other sayings counseling those, that either can not, or will not keep Chastity, to take the remedy, that God hath ordained, that is to say, to marry. Which counsel is understanded to be given unto them, that have made no Vow at all to the contrary.  
After this he bringeth in certain testimonies speaking in favour (as they seem) of marriage after a Vow of Chastity, taken out of S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, Epiphanius, S. Jerome. In all which places those holy Fathers are to be understanded to speak of them, that have made a secret or simple Vow, as they term it, and not a Solemn Vow. Neither do they allow such marriages simply, 
Bonifac. 8. in c. unico. de voto. in 6. The determination of the Church, in what case of a Vow made marriage holdeth, in what case it holdeth not. For what reason marriage holdeth in the case of a Simple Vow, otherwise in the case of a Solemn Vow.  but in comparison of a worse iniquity. The matrimony of such, is not to be dissolved, yet is the breach of their promise a mortal sin. Now so it is by determination of the Church, that a solemn Vow is made at the profession of any approved Religion, and at the taking of holy Orders, and by whom such Vow is made, they may not go back to marriage, neither if they marry, doth that marriage hold, but is taken for none. In the case of a simple Vow, marriage standeth for good, and may not be dissolved, albeit the party who Vowed, and promised the contrary, by contracting marriage, as I said sinneth mortally.  
The reason hereof is this. In a Simple Vow there is made but a bare Promise, and the dominion of the thing which is promised, remaineth still with him that promiseth. But in a Solemn Vow, there is not only a promise, but also a delivery made of the thing that is promised, asmuch to say, of himself, and so there is also an acceptation, and a possession to the interest of Christ taken of the Church's part. This is the difference betwixt both. And it is a thing natural, and appertaining to the law of all nations, that a bare promise be of less efficacy, than the exhibition, surrendre, and delivery of Possession of the thing that is promised. He that hath promised one a house, or a portion of Land, hath not yet taken away from himself the dominion of the thing. Wherefore if afterward he make delivery of it to an other, the delivery shall stand for good. Yet to the other he is bound to make recompense, which commonly is judged to be the valour of the thing promised. And he that hath now delivered unto an other a house, or Land, hath altogether deprived himself of the dominion thereof, neither can he now give it to an other, as being an others thing.  
The case is like in the Vow of Chastity, which is a certain contract between man and God. And reason it is, that what we acknowledge ourselves bound to perform unto man in a worldly contract, we be bound to perform no less unto God in this spiritual contract. The bare promise made to God differeth much from the exhibiting: and therefore if after a simple Vow of Chastity, which consists in promise only, a man deliver his body to another, which thing is done by Matrimony: the delivery standeth firm and good. But if he give up also his own body to keep chastity unto God, and by entering into some Religion, or by taking Orders: now he can not dispose of it otherwise, as not being in his dominion, neither if he attempt it, shall it stand for good. This much touching the diversity of a Simple, and Solemn Vow, I thought necessary to be said in this place.  
This much being weighed, and considered, it must appear certain, that the places, which M. jewel allegeth out of S. Augustine, affirming the marriages of such as marry after the Vow of chastity, to be true marriages, and to be such, as may not be dissolved: are truly understanded of marriages contracted in the case of a Simple Vow, and not of a Solemn Vow. Howsoever a man, or a woman make a Vow to live the single life, chaste and continent, and do not solemnize the same, either by entering into some Religion, or by taking holy Orders: if not withstanding the Vow they presume to marry, the marriage holdeth. But if they marry after they have solemnized their Vow by entering into Religion, or by taking holy Orders: the marriage is none at all, 
M. Dorman defended against M. jewel. Defence pag. 169. Dorman in his first book, fo 16. b.  and therefore is to be dissolved, because they have made delivery of themselves before the Church into the hands of their Superiors, and be not in state now to dispose of their persons or bodies otherwise, as being delivered up to custody of perpetual chastity.  
Hereof it appeareth, how little cause you had M. jewel to reprove M. Dorman, for calling the maintainers of marriage in this case, the devils ministers. In this case I say, for he speaketh expressly of Priests. And therefore you may consider, how well it became you to say that by the iudgdment of our late Lovanian Clergy, S. Augustine is become the minister of the Devil, for these be the terms of your seemly eloquence. Here therefore I return upon you M. jewel those words, which without cause, you imagine S. Augustine to say unto me. Ye speak fond, and unadvisedly, and understand not what ye speak.  
Here to return to M. jewels order, among other things, 
M. jewel chargeth the holy Fathers with oversight for zeal and heat.  for answer unto certain places of the Fathers, calling such kind of marriage, worse than Adultery, incest, and Sacrilege: he saith, that such words have proceeded more of zeal, and heat of mind, then of profound consideration, and judgement of the cause. And so in effect he rejecteth the holy and ancient Fathers, as men unworthy of credit. But o Lord, what Fathers? Verily the chief, and best learned, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine. Ah good Sir, lacked these learned and holy Father's consideration and judgement, and do you acknowledge it in yourself, and your companions? O men of deep consideration, and great judgement, that could so easily provide themselves of women to give the bridle unto lust!  
Among all other things that he bringeth in defence of his Companions unlawful marriage, this is the farthest from reason, and hath least colour of learning, that by his doctrine the vow of Chastity is to be broken, and that all monks, Friars, Priests, and nuns, may lawfully marry, because ill promises, filthy Vows, and wicked Oaths ought not to be kept. For proof that ill Vows are to be broken, he allegeth Isidorus out of Gratian saying, 
22. quaest. 4. In malis.  In malis promissis rescind fidem, in turpi vot● muta decretum. Quod incautè vovisti, ne facias, impia est promissio, quae scelere impletur. In an ill promise break thy faith. In a filthy Vow, change thy purpose. What thou hast unwarely vowed, do it not. It is a wicked promise, that is fulfilled with mischief. 
Marc. 6. Act. 23. 22. quaest. 4. Inter caetera.   
Again he saith, It is not sufficient to say, I have vowed. Herode vowed john Baptistes head. The jews vowed S. Paul's death. Hubaldus made a vow that he would never help his own mother, or brethren, were there need never so great. He allegeth also the 8. Council of Toledo. Where it was declared, and decreed, that wicked vows ought not to be made, and if they were made, that in any wise they should not be performed. Where for example the vow of Herode is mentioned, 
judic. 11.  and that of jephte, who through his vow thought himself bound to sacrifice his daughter.  
But what relief bringeth all this unto his cause, unless he be able to prove, that Chastity is an ill, and a wicked thing, as the murdering of S. john Baptist, and of S. Paul, and as the sacrificing of jephtes daughter was? But how excellent a thing chastity is, and how acceptable it is unto God, and of how much more merit it is then matrimony, both Christ himself in the Gospel, and S. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians do partly teach us, 
Mat. 19 1. Cor. 7.  and the holy Fathers in manner all have most largely declared, specially S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, who have written special Treaties of Virginity, 
jovinians heresy.  and S. Hierom, and S. Augustine disputing moste learnedly against jovinian, that held opinion, Marriage and Virginity to be of equal merit, to whose Heresy our fleshly Gospelers bear special favour, and maintenance.  
As for the eight Council of Toledo, I marvel, how he durst be so bold, 
Concil. To letan. 8. Cap. 7. in Epitome. Married Priests of old times called Apostates.  as to allege it, which maketh so little for him touching the breach of a Godly Vow, and so much against him, touching the marriage of them, that have taken holy Orders. For the words of the Council be these. Si verò ad coniugia, morésque seculi redire attentaverint, omni Ecclesiastica dignitate priventur, & Apostatae habeantur, & in monasterio donec vixerint, sub poenitentia retrudantur. In case they give the attempt to return unto marriages, and unto the manners of the world, let them be deprived of all Ecclesiastical dignity, and reputed for Apostates: And let them be shut up in a Monastery to do penance, so long as they live. By this M. jewel may see, by what men his married Brethren were called Apostates, and by how many hundred years, before he and I were borne. I trust he will bear the more with me, if I happen to call them by that their ancient name some times.  
Concerning that you pretend to allege out of one Alphonsus de Castro, Philippica. 19 whom you say to be one of M. hardings greatest Doctors: in good sooth he is no whit a greater Doctor of mine, 
Alphonsus de Castro alleged by M. jewel in stead of Alphonsus Viruesius Episcopus Canarien.  then is the man in the Moon. For in deed there is none of that name, that ever wrote Philippicas. It is one Alphonsus Viruesius M. jewel, a learned man of this present age, Bishop of Canaria, who writing against Philip Melanchthon, called his Orations, or Treaties, Philippicas, after the imitation of Demosthenes, who so named those most eloquent Orations, that he made against King Philip of Macedonia the great Alexander's Father. A like error to that you reprove me of so often, and so bitterly, by oversight naming joshua, for the Prophet Osee. Thus you see yourself not clear of the fault, you charge me so much withal. Neither is this your only oversight of that sort.  
Howbeit that I alleged out of Osee under the name of joshua, maketh clearly with me: and this you allege out of Bishop Viruesius under the name of the Observant Friar Alphonsus de Castro, maketh quite against you, 
Viruesius Philippica 19  and your Brethren. For this is that Viruesius writeth. If a man have vowed (saith he) and can not contain, and having assayed all means, yet prevaileth not: in this case I would advise him, to provide for his safety by Marriage, not doing it of his own head but by the authority of the Pope. Thus he. In which words he giveth but his private advise, referring the party so standing in danger, unto the Pope for dispensation of his Vow. Your Brethren on the other side, notwithstanding their solemn Vow, as being, some, Religious persons, some Priests, run headlong to Marriage, as they call it, having assayed few due means or none at all for the obtaining of Chastity, never calling better men than themselves to counsel, nor sticking for any dispensation for their Vow to be had at al. To say the least of both: his advise is sober, and leaneth to Obedience: these men seem to play the merchant's ventures, their doing is rash contemptuous, and altogether disobedient.  
But how farforth this advise of Viruesius is to be allowed, whether the case be to be admitted, that by Prayers, fasting, by straight discipline, and chastisement of the flesh, by any ask, seeking, knocking, nor by any means, a man having deliberately, and devoutly made a Vow of continency, with intent the more expeditely and purely to serve God, can not obtain at his mercy the necessary gift of continency, and whether, if through frailty, and negligence perhaps he fall, he shall not repent, and study how to amend that he hath done amiss, and continually fight against temptations, but straight way take a woman, and marry, and how safe it is for a man in this case to sue unto the Pope for a dispensation of his Vow: and whether when he hath married, he be sure to be delivered from all temptations of incontinency: these points I will not take upon me here to determine, but leave them to the consideration of their consciences, that be learned in these cases, 
Now M. jew. cometh to the point at length.  and have the true fear of God.  
At length M. jewel cometh unto that point, which he should have answered long before. At length I say, because after that he hath filled five leaves of Paper with divers sayings of the Doctors gathered out of his notebooks, and heaped together to little other purpose, then to show of a great book. Now than thou shalt here see good Reader, how substantially he proveth it to be lawful for Priests to marry, and that the Marriage of Priests hath been accounted lawful. As concerning monks, and Friars, and nuns, that have taken the vail of their profession, they must defend their Marriages, or rather yokinges, aswell as they can themselves: for this man hath nothing to say in their defence. If he had, out it should, to help to make up the heap, neither could he be spareful of it, favouring the cause so much as he doth. That then being left as a desperate cause, let us see, what good stuff he bringeth for the Marriages of Priests.   
jewel. 
M. Harding unwares falleth into the same Negative Divinity, that h●s● often, and so much abhorreth. For thus he saith, we deny utterly, that any man, after that he hath received holy Orders, may marry.  
Neither can it be showed, that the Marriage of such was ever accounted lawful in the Catholic Church. If this tale be true, then be all the Greek Priests Votaries, as well as the Latins. 
Distinct. 31. Quoniam. in Margin.  But it is noted upon the Decrees, Graeci continentiam non promittunt, vel tacitè, vel expressè. The Greeks make no promise of continent, or Single life, neither secretly, nor expressly.  
Harding.  
If you take them to be Votaries, 
In what sense are the Greek Priests Votaries.  that make a Vow never to marry for time to come, so are the Greeeke priests Votaries by law of the Greek Church, as well as the Latins. but if you account them to be Votaries, that Vow utterly to abstain from the use of a woman, whether they had wives before they took holy Orders, or otherwise: in this sense the Greeks are not ne have not been Votaries generally, that is to say, in all places and at all times, as the Latins were, and yet be, as among whom more austerity of life hath always been used. 
M. jewels chief authority is a marginal note upon the Gloze.  So that in this respect your Argument is nought, and concludeth not. As for your marginal note, it is beside the text, and therefore of small authority. It is a sign, ye lack good evidence for this matter, sith that for proof of it, ye are driven to serve yourself of such weak stuff. Albeit the same note is thus to be understanded, that they of the East Church, what time they were promoted to holy Orders, made no promise to abstain from the company of their lawful wives, unto whom they were married, before they took such Orders. And so much you might have found in the text, 
Distinct. 31. Quoniam.  being a Decree of the sixth synod, that you needed not to have scraped help out of the books margin. Now show us your better stuff. For this is little worth.   
jewel. 

Concil. Ancyran. cap. 9  In the Council holden at Ancyra, it is concluded thus, Diaconi quicunque ordinantur, si in ipsa Ordinatione protestati sunt, & dixerunt velle se Coniugio copulari, quia sic manner non possunt, Hi si postmodum uxores duxerint, in Ministerio maneant, propterea quòd Episcopus illis licentiam dederit. Deacons as many as be ordered, if at the time of receiving Orders, they made protestation, and said that they would marry for that they find not themselves able so to continue without Marriage, if they afterwards marry, let them continue in ministery, for as much as the Bishop hath given them licence. M. Harding, I trow, will not deny, but Deaconship is one of the holy Orders.  
Harding.  

Answer unto the Canon of the Council of Ancyra.  This proveth not, that Deacons did marry: nor that any Bishop ever gave them licence to marry, but only, that if they would marry, the Bishop's licence thereto obtained, they should not be removed from the ministery. Whether any with licence married or no, you are not yet able to show. And whereas no deacon might marry, but such as had made protestation that he would marry, before he took holy Orders, and had obtained leave of the Bishop so to do: by this we understand, that for a Deacon to marry, simply to speak, and of itself, it was unlawful. For otherwise what needed protestation, leave and licence? What so ever is lawful, may be done without protestation or licence, and what may not be done but with protestation and licence, the same of itself is unlawful. And so my saying by this testimony is confirmed, it is not confuted.  
Again it is to be considered, that by this Council, a Deacons Marriage was not made first allowable after that he was promoted to the Order of Deaconship, but before he received that holy Order. For if he made no protestation that he would marry, and asked no licence thereto, but held his peace: by the words that follow in the same Canon, it is clear, that he bond himself to perpetual continency, and might never marry afterward, as he that had by taking that Order, professed, and promised chastity. Those words are these, which you should have rehearsed, had you dealt truly and uprightly. Quicunque Diaconi tacuerunt, etc. 
Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10.  What Deacons so ever held their peace (when they took Orders) and received the laying on of the bishops hand, so having made their profession of continency, if afterward they come to marry, they shallbe bound to cease from the ministery. 
The case of our Apostates is not like unto this case.  He that made his Protestation that he would marry, and that for necessity, and had licence of the Bishop: when he married in deed, was suffered to remain in the ministery, as they that were admitted unto holy Orders with wedlock. For he seemed already in heart and affect, a married man. And such that Provincial Council did bear withal, when for lack of other worthy men, the more part yet remaining in infidelity, the Bishops were compelled to admit to the ministery of the Church married men. Your brethren can not claim by this example. For they never made any such protestation, when they were ordered, neither demanded they ever any such licence of their Bishops, but each, as they felt themselves moved with the spirit of lust, upon warrant of your Gospel, and their own spirit, went lustily to their yoke fellows, and under pretence of Marriage concluded a lusty bargain. If ye have no better stuff than this, for the marriage of the Apostates your companions, well you may receive your fee of them, verily it is not yet sufficiently defended.   
jewel. 
So saith Pope Stevin, 
Dist. 31. Aliter.  Graecorum Sacerdotes, Diaconi, aut Subdiaconi Matrimonio copulantur: The Greek Priests, Deacons, or Subdeacons are coupled in Matrimony. 
Glos. dist. 31. Aliter.  Upon which words the Gloze noteth thus, Multi ex hac litera dixerunt, quòd Orientales possunt contrahere in Sacris Ordinibus. Many have said upon occasion of this text, that the Priests of the East Church (contrary to that M. Harding so certainly here assureth us) may marry, being within holy Orders.  
Harding.  

Diversity between the East, and west Church touching liberty of Clerks marriages  Had you rehearsed the whole Decree, as you found it, you had marred your cause, and played a simple Proctor. Your married brethren therefore do commend your policy, I doubt not, who see their marriage condemned by that Decree of Pope Steven▪ The whole is this. Aliter se Orientalium traditio haebet Ecclesiarum, aliter huius Sancta Romanae Ecclesiae. Nam earum Sacerdotes, Diacons, aut Subdiaceni Matrimonio copulantur. Istius autem Ecclesiae, vel Occidentalium nullus Sacerdotum à Subdiacon● usque ad Episcopum licentiam habet coniugium sortiendi. The Tradition of the East Churches, is otherwise, then is the tradition of this holy Roman Church. For their Priests, Deacons, or Subdeacons are coupled in matrimony▪ but there is never a Priest of this Church, or of the west parts, that from a Subdeacon to a Bishop hath licence to marry.  
By this Decree it is evident, that so many as from a Subdeacon to a Bishop do marry in these west parts, do contrary to the Tradition and order of the Church. And whereas you allege the Gloze for you, you make all that be able to read the place, witnesses of your impudency. For it maketh altogether against you. First whereas the Decree hath, Matrimonio copulantur, asmuch to say, the Priests, Deacons, or Subdeacons of the East Church are coupled in Matrimony, the Gloze expoundeth it thus, and that truly, id est, copulato viuntur, that is to say, they use Matrimony, wherein they were coupled before they took orders. As for the other words of the Gloze, Multi ex hac litera dixerunt, etc. Many upon occasion of this text have said, that they of the East Chucrh may marry within holy Orders: it is not the mind of the Gloze, but a some say, as I may term it, and a fancy of certain, whom the author of the Gloze there confuteth, with these words immediately following, which by your common sleight of falsifying, you nipt away from the end of the sentence. Sed eis obstat infrà Distinctio proxima, Si quis eorum. etc. But the next distinction that followeth, whose beginning is, Si quis eorum, is contrary to their opinion. 
Distin. 32. Si quis eorum.  That next Distinction taken out of the sixth Council hath thus. Si quis eorum qui ad Clerum accedunt, volverit nuptiali iure mulieri copulari: hoc ante ordinationem Subdiaconatus faciat. If any of them that come unto the Clergy, be willing to couple with a woman in right of Marriage: let him do it, before he be made Subdeacon. Upon that place the Gloze saith thus, whereunto it made relation in the former Distinction: Istud caput evidenter est contra illos qui dicunt, quòd Graci possunt contrahere in sacris ordinibus. This Chapter is evidently against them, which say, that the Greeks may marry, being within holy Orders. Lo M. jewel, what have you gained by the Gloze? he that examineth your books, specially that of your late pretenced Defence, will say with me, there was never such a false Gloser, as you are, by abusing all other writers that you allege, but specially the poor Gloze upon Gratian.   
jewel. 
Of the Priests of the west Church Cardinal Caietane saith, Papa potest dispensare cum Sacerdote Occidentalis Ecclesiae, 
Catharinus contra errores Caietani, errore. 103.  ut uxorem ducat, nulla existent causa publicae utilitatis. The Pope may dispense with a Priest of the west Church to marry a wife, although there be no manner cause of common profit.  
Harding.  
It goeth hard with you M. jewel, when you have no better testimonies for the Marriage of Priests, than the Objections which the Gloze maketh to himself, and the error of Caietaine, at lest which Catharinus noteth for an error. But to whom will you stick? To Catharinus? or to Caietanus? If to Catharinus, than Caietane helpeth your cause nothing at al. 
Caietan. in Opusc. lib. 5. tractatu. 27.  For of Catharinus it is condemned for an error. If you stick to Caietane, than you disannul Catharinus, who is your author. For else you must tell us, where Caietane saith so, and upon what grounds he saith so.  

whether the Pope may dispense with a Priest, or religious person to marry in a case.  Touching the Question, whether the Pope may in a case dispense with a Priest of the West Church, or a religious man to marry a wife, or no, here I dispute not. I confess, the Single state of the Clergy, not to be juris Divini expressly, but juris Ecclesiastici positivi. And to say, that the Pope may in no case at all dispense with a Priest of the West Church, or with a religious person to marry, it is against the Divines, against the canonists, and against the authority, 
Raymeri● made king of Arragon of a Monk and married by dispensation. See the history of Franciscus Tarapha.  which the Church of Rome hath in some cases used de facto, as they speak, as it is known by the example of Raymeris the king of Arragon in Spain, with whom about the year of our Lord, 1160. the Pope dispensed, yea he compelled him, as we read, to give over the Profession of his Religion, and to marry (which is more, then to dispense with a secular Priest) for saving of Christian blood, and for the necessary disposition of that kingdom. The like example happened in the kingdom of Pole. Casimirus the only that remained alive of the kings blood, 
Munster. Cosmographiae, lib. 3. in Schlesia. & lib. 4. in Polonia Mart. Cromerus.  being a monk and a Deacon, by suit of the Nobles of that realm, Dispensation of the Pope obtained, was taken out of his monastery of the Order of Cisterce, made King of Pole, and married. But such a singular case maketh no common rule. Again where a thing is not done, but by special dispensation, the dispensation itself argueth the same of itself, that is to say, considered without dispensation, to be unlawful. Therefore my Assertion, that no man may marry after holy Orders received, and that such Marriage was never accounted lawful in the Catholic Church, standeth true, as before.   
jewel. 
Athanasius saith, 
Athanas. ad Dracontium.  Multi quoque ex Episcopis matrimonia non inierunt: Monachi contrà Parentes liberorum facti sunt. Many of the bishops (he saith not all, but many) have not married. By which words he giveth us to understand, that some have married) contrariwise, Monks have become fathers of Children.  
Harding.  
This testimony is bodged with your forged Parentheses. Whereby you signify, that of itself, and without addition of your own words, it helpeth you little. All standeth upon trial of the translation. If you could have alleged S. Athanasius own words, as he wrote in Greek, a right answer might soon be made. The translator little thinking of their sleights, that be Proctors for the Marriages of Votaries, had rather having respect to the fineness of the Latin, so to turn it, than otherwise. If the place were thus latined, Multi ex Episcopis matrimonia non inierant, or, non habuerunt, Monachi contrà parentes liberorum extiterunt, whereby is signified, that many Bishops had never contracted Marriages, and that some Monks had been fathers of children, if the place had thus been turned, as I suppose the Greek hath: it would have served you to no purpose. For I grant you, that some bishops have had wives, but before they were made Bishops, as Spiridion, S. Gregory Nazianzenes father, and Gregory of Nyssa S. Basils' brother, and that some Monks were fathers of children, which they begot in lawful wedlock, before they entered into that profession, and order of life.  
Albeit, if we allowed you this translation for good and true according to the Greek, yet of these words you can not conclude, that by judgement of S. Athanasius the Marriages of bishops are accounted lawful. by the circumstance of the place in that Epistle to Dracontius, S. Athanasius may seem to speak those words in dispraise of certain Bishops, and Monks, and not at all in their commendation, and so you ought not to allege it for an allowed example. But hereof we shall be more assured, if they of Basile will set forth that Father's works in Greek.   
jewel. Pag. 176. 
Cassiodorus writeth thus. 
Cassio. li. 6. cap. 14  In illo tempore ferunt Martyrio vitam finisse Eupsychium Caesariensem (Episcopum) ducta nuper uxore: dum adhuc quasi sponsus esse videretur. At that time they say, Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesaria died in Martyrdom, having married a wise a little before, being as yet in manner a new married man.  
Harding.  
A man would think, if this will not serve the turn, that nothing will serve. A blessed man Eupsychius, bishop of Caesaria, a holy Martyr, married to a wise but a little before his martyrdom. The writer of the Story Cassiodorus, a noble man, and grave Senator of Rome, a man of good credit. What can a man desire more? But fie upon such shameless falsifiers. O lamentable state, 
A falsehood in excusable, and in tolerable of M. jew.  where the people of God be compelled to hear such false Prophets. What will he fear to speak in pulpit, where he is sure no man shall control him, that is not ashamed, thus to write in books openly published unto the world, which he knew should not escape the examination of his Adversaries?  
The truth is good Reader, Neither Cassiodorus wrote thus, nor Eupsychius was ever Bishop of Caesaria, nor of any other place, nor so much as a Priest, Deacon, or Subdeacon. The writer of the Story which we have of this blessed Martyr Eupsychius, is Sozomenus the Greek. Who with the Ecclesiastical Story of Socrates, and Theodoritus, was translated into Latin by one Epiphanius Scholasticus. out of which three Cassiodorus gathered the Abridgement that we have under the name of the Tripartite history. 
Histor. Tripartit. lib. 6. c. 14  The place truly reported hath these words. In illo tempore ferunt vitam finisse Martyrio Basilium Ecclesiae Ancyranae Presbyterum, & Eupsychium Caesariensem Cappadociae ducta nuper uxore, cùm adhuc quasi Sponsus esse videretur. They say, that at that time Basilius a Priest of the Church of Ancyra ended his life in Martyrdom: Also Eupsychius the Caesarian of Cappadocia, having married a wife a little before, and when as yet he seemed to be but a new married man.  
Here is no mention made, that Eupsychius was the bishop of Caesaria. The story, as we have it in Latin of Epiphanius turning, calleth him only Eupsychium Caesariensem Cappadociae, that is to say, Eupsychius a man of Caesaria, that is in Cappadocia: which is added to signify of which Caesaria he was, for that there was an other famous City of that name in Palestina, an other likewise in Mauritania, and others more in other countries. Sozomenus himself, who is the author of the Story, addeth a word more, signifying of what estate and condition he was, whereby the opinion of his being the Bishop of Caesaria, is quite taken away. For thus he reporteth of him in the Greek, 
Sozomen. lib. 5. c. 11  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. Eupsychium Caesariensem Cappadociae Patricium, as much to say, Eupsychius of Caesaria in Cappadocia, a nobleman, or, one of the Lords of the City. Thus is Eupsychius, whom M. jewel hath made a Bishop (as much as he is himself) found to be a Lay gentleman, or noble man of the City of Caesaria. And whereas he married a wife, but a little before his martyrdom, what is that to the purpose for proof that it was in old time lawful for Priests to marry? Because M. jewel knew this much rightwell, contrary to the custom he useth at other times, he dissembled the greek Original, and thought he might better father this shameful lie upon Cassiodorus, meaning the latin Translation of Epiphanius. And to help the matter, 
An impudent falsifying.  he sticked not to put in this word (Episcopum) Bishop of his own, and so calleth him boldly, Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesaria. Let these men have leave thus to corrupt and falsify the Fathers, and by them they shall be able to prove, what they list.  
M. jewel standeth so much in his own conceit for the example of this Eupsychius, 
Nicephorus belied by M. jew. Defence. pag. 514.  that for proof of this very matter he bringeth it in again in an other place, in his pretenced Defence of his Apology. But there he allegeth it out of Nicephorus. His words be these. Nicephorus saith, that Eupsychius, being a Priest at Caesaria in Cappadocia, married a wife a little before that he was martyred.  
Now let us hear Nicephorus tell his own tale. 
Nicephorus. lib. 1● cap. 20.  Thus he saith in like sort as Sozomenus said before him. Hoc ipso tempore & Basilius Ancyranae Ecclesiae Praesbyter, martyrio est defunctus: atque item Caesariensis Eupsychius Cappadox, veteri familia, locoque claro natus. At the very same time Basilius a Priest of the Church of Ancyra, died a martyr. Even so likewise did Eupsychius the Caesarian of Cappadocia, borne of an ancient house, and of noble parentage. Thus hath M. jewel belied and falsified, both Sozomenus, and his translator, and also Nicephorus. Let us see, what substantial witness he bringeth for legitimation of his priests Marriage, in the last place. 
Dist. 84. Cum in praeterit● in Glossa.    
jewel. 
Likewise M. Harding might have found it noted in his own Gloze,  〈…〉 
M. Ie●el saith of my 〈…〉 seemeth▪ that than he 〈…〉 Nicepherus sp●…king of the two Apollinar●s, Father, and Son, both heretics, 
Apollinaris the elder not married, after he was made Priest.  saith, P●ter Presbyters, filius Lect●ris ordine●●…ti●ebat, the Father obtained the Order of a Priest, the son of a P●●●der. Of this it seemeth not, that the father was married, after th●● he obtained to be a Priest, but rather contrariwise, that he was married before he was Priest. For Ni●●ph●r●● saith, the father obtained to be a Priest, whereby he seemeth to signify (if we may say, what seemeth to us) that he was a father before he was made Priest, and not first a Priest, and afterward married, and so made a father.  
But perhaps M. jewel g●●her●th his seeming of these words following in Nicephorus: Senex Alexandriae●ri●●, Beryti d●c●it & ●ucta Laodicia coni●g●; Apollinari● fili●… proge●●it ●smuche to say. The old m●● was borne at Al●xandria, ●●ught a● Berytu●, married a wife at Laodice●, and beg●●● Apollinaris his son. Of this order of words he can conclude no more that the older Apollinaris was married after that he was Priest, then that he was borne at Alexandria after that he was an old man. If he could prove that he was an old man b●●ore he begot the younger Apollinaris, and that he was Priest, before he came to Laodicea, when he married, then should he seem to prove, that an Heretic was married after he was Priest, as many be now adays. Until he prove so much, which s●●l a 〈◊〉, this his seeming 〈◊〉 seem little worth. 
Chrysost. in Epist. 1 ad Timo. Homil. 1●    
jewel. 
Chrysostom speaking of the Marriage of Bishops, saith thus, Quamuis nuptie plu●imum di●●●u●tatis in s● hab●●●●, ita tamen assumi possunt, 〈◊〉 perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint, Notwithstanding marriage have in it much tr●●ble yet so it may be taken, that ●…shalbe no hindrance to perfit life. He saith marriage may be tak●● or chosen: and he speaketh namely of the marriage of Priests and Bishops.  
Harding.  
Why nipt you of the end of the sentence M. jewel? 
M. jewel nippeth of words of his doctor.  Though you, nor your good brethren the married Apostates, like not well of them: yet for true dealings sake, you should not so have gelded your Doctor of the words, that so jointly hang to the sentence by you alleged. They be these. 
It is a hard thing that marriage should not be a let unto the perfites life by judgement of S. Chrysostom.  Verum id planè perquam rarò atque difficile. Marriage may be so taken, that it shall not be a let unto the perfecter life (so much goeth before) but certainly that is a thing very seldom, and of great difficulty. Do ye hear sir, what your own Doctor saith? That marriage be not an impediment unto perfecter life, which Priests do profess, it is very seldom seen, and a thing of very great difficulty, saith your Chrysostom.  
Here good Reader that thou be not beguiled, I must tell thee this much. Whereas M. jewel beareth thee in hand, that S. Chrysostom saith, Marriage may be taken or chosen, and that of Priests, and Bishops, for of their Marriage he speaketh, saith this man: all this is false. 
M. jewel buildeth his proof upon a forged sentence added unto S. Chrysostom.  For first understand thou, this sentence is not in S. Chrysostom at all: not in the Greek, I say, in which tongue only he wrote. For I have seen the Greek, and diligently conferred it myself. But it is added unto his text, either by the translation, or by falsehood used at the printing, as in these corrupt times false printers have corrupted many books of the old Fathers. Yet this much will I say of this sentence, that it may right well stand without any evil m●●ning gathered of it, though 〈…〉 be not S. Chrysostom●●, the Greek examples supposed to be true. For the Circumstance of the place beareth it to be spoken, not specially of the Marriage of Priests, and Bishops, as M. jewel taketh it in this place, but of Marriage indefinitely, and generally, as it may be proved (if there were nothing else to prove it) by the same M. jewel in an other place, namely in the page 179. before, where he saith thus, in the first line of that page, S. Chrysostom saith generally of all men, Quamuis n●ptia plurimum difficultatis habeant, etc. Thus M. jewel in the 514. page. is confuted by M. jewel, in the 179. page. Of such Contradictions he hath good store.  
That it may appear the plainer, thus is it that we read in S. Chrysostom. 
I● prim. cap Titi. hom. 2.  Si igitur qui uxorem duxit, etc. Then if it be so, that he which hath married a wife, be careful for the things of the world, and of convenience a Bishop should not be touched with any such care: how said the Apostle before, unius uxoris virum, that a Bishop, should be the husband of one wife? Some understand such a one to be signified (by these words) that shall be made a Bishop after his wives death. Albeit he, that hath a wife, may be, as one not having. And this much he granted them very well in consideration of the time, 
1. Cor. 7.  and nature of the thing, as the case then stood. And a man may take that thing honestly, and lawfully, if he wil For as richesses do hardly bring a man into the kingdom of Heaven (yet often times many rich men have there entered in) so also doth marriage. Thus far goeth the greek in S. Chrysostom, and no further touching this matter. For immediately follow, not the words that M. jewel buildeth his proof upon, but other words concerning an other thing, as every learned man may see in the ●…nted Greek book, in the 20. leaf, the second pag. t●● 20. line.  
You might have seen this in the Greek M. jewel, or your Greek Friend for you, aswell as you saw that other place of S. Chrysostom by me truly alleged and translated, where he expoundeth these words of S. Paul, 
Tit. 1. ho. 2  The husband of one wife. Which place you wring and wr●st very violently to serve your purpose, and yet it will not be, 
M. jew. in his defence pa. 175. useth false translation.  and the learned may easily perceive your false juggling in it. There you will needs have, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify, the wife that is gone from her husband by divorce, and therefore you turn it, Vxori quae decessit (àse) whereas you should have followed the allowed translation that is in use, which hath Defunctae uxori, the wife deceased, or departed this life. So I have turned the place in my Confutation according to the Greek, and as the common Latin translation hath.  
Consider therefore how impudently you reprove me without cause. First in the margin of your book, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pag. 164.  over against this testimony of S. Chrysostom, truly translated by me out of the Greek word for word (For whereas be ●●epeth no benevolence toward his wife deceased, how can he be a good governor? You have set this odious note of reproof, directing it by your star unto the word, deceased * Untruth. For M. Harding foully mistaketh S. Chrysostom's meaning. And there again immediately. * Untruth standing in false exposition. Not being content with this in your te●te, page 174. lin. 3. you say further? Those words M. Harding in his translation hath purposely falsified. I have not purposely falsified them M. jewel for they be not my●●, but they be the word●● of the common translation, and the same i● according to the Greek: For th● verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  signifieth not to depart away by divorce, as you have violently turned it, but simply to depart, or go away, and sometimes, as in this very place, to depart out of this life. You might have learned so much of the common Greek Lexicon.  

What second marriage not forbidden by the laws.  Now that S. Chrysostom is so to be understanded, S. Chrysostom himself clearly showeth in words of the same sentence there. For whereas he speaketh of that second marriage, which he confesseth not to be forbidden by the laws: what other second marriage meaneth he, but that, when as a man marrieth again after the decease of his first wife? For I trow you will not say, that the laws after Christ's coming, among Christian men permitted a man to marry again, his wife being alive, and so to have two wives at once, specially in the case which your translation importeth, that is, when the wife (is not put away for Adultery of her part, but) departeth from the husband, which she may not do, but for adultery of his part.  
It is not likely, S. Paul would debar a man from coming unto the dignity of a Bishop, that had two wives at once. For such a one, except he repented, and had put away from him one of them, was not admitted to be made a Christian man. What trow ye, that he required not a farr● mo●● perfection in him, that was to be made a Bishop?  
Thus you see good reason, why Ambros●●s-C●●ild●le●sis that learned man, translated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for that is S. Chrysostoms' word, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you have noted in your books margin) by this word, Defunctae, and why I turned it, the wife deceased. You may now of your courtesy take back again your bitter reproaches of fowl mistaking, of false exposition, of purposed falsifying, to yourself. For these special qualities be proved to be yours, they be not mine.  
For two other testimonies in proof of priests Marriage, M. jewel craveth help at Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa. Thus he saith.   
jewel. 
Erasmus saith, The Priests of the Greek Church this day, not withstanding their Orders, marry wives. The like writeth Cornelius Agrippa against the jovanians.  
Harding.  
Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa 
Erasmus, and Cornel. Agrippa.  be men of small credit God wot in this cause, which in their time they favoured, as much as you do now. It is commonly reported (you know) for a vain shift of a thief, to say, Ask my fellow, whether I be a thief, or no. Herein we are moved with the authority of these two smatterers of your Gospel, in their days but newly brocked, no more than if we heard Friar Luther, Monk H●p●r, Peter Martyr the regulare canon of S. Augustine's order, and such other married Apostates, to speak a good word in favour of their unlawful yokinges. How be it the truth is, both Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa, belie the Greek Church herein, as the Doctors of the Sorbo●e in Paris have in their Censures against Erasmus truly declared. For by the law, it was never, nor yet is to this day, lawful in the Greek Church, for Priests to marry wives, after that they have taken the holy Order of Priesthoods.   
Ie●●l. 
Likewise Cardinal Caiet●n● saith; Nec ratione, nec authoritat● probari potest, 
Caietan. in Quod libet.  quod absolute loquendo Sacerdos peccet, contrahendo matrimonius▪ It can not be proved, neither by reason, nor by authority, speaking absolutely that a Priest offendeth God, 〈◊〉 marrying a wife,  
Harding.  
Cardinal Caietane hath his errors, for which he hath been reproved and confuted. We are not bound to maintain, what so ever he saith. How be it this saying of his seemeth to have no great error, 
Where of is it, that the Marriage of Priests in the west Church is unlawful. Statute of the Church and Vowannexed.  so it be understanded, as he meant. There be two things, that make the marriage of Priests in the most Church unlawful, the S●… of the Church, and the Vow annexed. The Statute and constitution of the Church, bindeth clerks receiving holy Orders never to marry. As touching the Vow like as the Order and h●b●●e of Monks (by which ●a●e all religious be understanded) hath Chastity ●●nexed by 〈…〉 that instituted the habit, and the ●●le for monks to 〈…〉 in, and therefore he that receiveth it, is said therewith to make a Vow consequently ●●●en so holy Order among the Latins, or thereof the West Church, by the Church's constitution, hath 〈◊〉 anne●●d inseparably, and therefore who so ever takes it, willingly bindeth himself thereunto in fact and deed, though no word of the bo●d be spoken. So ●h●t this b●nde proceedeth both of the statute of the C●●●●●●nd of the Vow. 
What meaneth cajetan by this word, Absolutely.  And for this consideration the 〈…〉 Priest●● is unlawful. Bu● speaking ●bso●●t●ly saith 〈…〉 that is to say, if there were no such stature, of the 〈◊〉, nor Vow at ●et in this case ●f ● Prie●st ●●rried for any thing that is in reason, 〈…〉 in th● 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 press Scriptures to the cont●… he ●ould not sin. Whereby he signifieth, that, the case ●…tanding as it doth, priests marriage is unlawful. Now remaineth M. jewels last proof of this matter.   
jewel. 
〈◊〉 likewise, Anselmus saith in a Dialogue between the Master ●…d the Scholare, touching these matters. 
Anselmus in Dialog. Inquisitione prima.  Desideramu● certificari tua sol●tione super vulgari in toto orb quaestione, quae ab omnibus penè quotidie ventilatur, & adhuc lis indiscussa celatur. Scilicet, an liceat presbyteris, post acceptum ordinem uxores ducere. We are desirous by your answer to be certified, about this common question, that is now tossed through the world, and as yet lieth undiscussed, I mean whether a Priest, being will his Orders, may marry a wife. Hereby a appeareth, that in the time of A●selmus, which was above a thousand years after Christ, this matter lay in question, and was not yet discussed.  
Harding.  
Anselmus wrote three Dialogues, 
Anselmus wrongfully made a spokesman for the Apostates marriage.  in which he maketh the Master and the Scholare to talk together. The first, is De Veritate: the second, De Libero Arbitrio: the third, De Casu Diaboli. another Dialogue he wrote also of an other matter, in which he appointeth for talkers together, Anselmus, and Beso more Dialogues he never wrote, for aught that can appear by the works, that be extant in print under his name. And in these, neither in any of these, there is no such Dialogue between the Master, and the Scholare touching these matters, as you say. And whereas you have in the Maigent of your book, Inquisitione prima, I may inquire for such an Inquisition a long time, before I find it, for there is no such thing at all among his Dialogues. Whether Friar Bale, Illyricus, or some other such gatherer of Riff-raff have deceived you, or of yourself you were disposed in this place to 〈…〉 you● own invention (I w●● 〈…〉 call it pl●●●e lying) I know ●ot: certainly amongst 〈…〉 printed works, there is no s●ch Dialogue to be found.  
But if there were any such, what should that relieve your sorry, causes? If the Master had in good so●●h so told the Scholar's, it had ●en some what. Now th●t 〈…〉 Scholare saith it is a common question, and much tossed between men, and as yet lieth undiscussed: what other thing doth the Author by these words, but provoke the Readers attention, that the Answer be the more diligently weighed, and considered of? You know M. jewel the writers of such Dialogues, may make the demander to talk, what they list. Neither is any thing to be avouched for true or false the sooner, because the demander so reporteth. By this you may see, that the author had a desire to discuss this matter by the Scholars moving of the question, you can not argue, that at that time, this point was so much in question.  
And whereas by the author's fiction, the Scholare saith, it was then a common question, and lay undiscussed, by that a ma● may guess that in Anselmus time, such, as whom it bec●me to be Scholars, and not Masters, were busy in common table talk about such questions, as the like persons now a days occupy their heads, and wheat their tongues about the like, and other questions of greater weight, wh● 〈◊〉 themselves in their bold and sto●●●●ss●●erations more like masters; the●… Scholars.  
And again, whereas the Scholare in the pretenced Dialogue said, that question lay as yet undiscussed, it is to be referred to those days, and to the comp●ss● of that time, sine●●hiche that matter in that age began to 〈…〉 in question. Thereof you may not conclude, that it was never before discussed in Christ's Church, for the sp●ce of a thousand years, as you thereof would seem to g●ther. For among learned men, and the governors of Christ's Church, it was ever from the Apostles time certain, and without all controversy, that Priests being in holy Orders might not marry. And this is all that M. jewel was able to bring for proof, that Priests, and who so ever have Vowed Chastity, may marry. Let us see further, how well he defendeth his Apology against my Confutation, touching this matter.   
The Apology, cap. 8. Division. 2. 
And as Sozomenus saith of Spiridion, and as Nazianzene saith of his 〈…〉 Father, we say, that a good and diligent Bishop doth serve in the ministery never the worse, for that he is married, but rather the better, and with more ableness to do good.  
The Confutation. fol. 76. a.  
Were it not that the weight of these matters required an upright and plain dealing, for civilities sake I could be content sometimes to spare you, and where ye make manifest lies, to use a softer word, and term them fittens. 
Lying much used of this defender.  But now if I tell you that you use your accustomed figure pseudologia, which is lying in plain english: I trust you will bear with my plainness, amend your own fault, and consider the power of truth, that causeth me to be so bold with you. This I am sure of, that neither Sozomenus, nor Gregory Nazianzene, 
Sozomenas', Gregory Nazianzene  nor Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 5. as you have caused your books both Latin and English to be noted in the margin, where ye mistake Eusebius for Ruf●●u●●o● N●●ia●● 〈◊〉 ●●ther i● M●…nodia, 
Eusebius belied by the author of the Apology.  as you note also in th● margin, n●r in the fu●… oration that he made of his fath●● hath any such saying as ye report of them. For how could they say that a bis●●● serveth in his ministery never the worse, but rather the better, and with more ableness to do good for that he is married, the Scripture being so plain to the contrary●… What, ween ye they were either so ignorant, or so forgetful, or so much inclined to promote your carnal doctrine of priests marriages, as to say so, not withstanding that S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians? 
A bishop is not able to do his ministery the better for that he is married to a wife.  Saith he not of them that be married, that such shall have tribulation of the flesh? saith he not, he that is without a wife, careth for the things of our Lord how he may please God? Of him that hath a wife saith he not, that he careth for the things that be the worlds how he may please his wife, and is divided? finally saith he not, I tell you this thing for your profit, not to tangle you in a snare, but for that which is honest, and comely unto you, and that which may give you readiness to pray to God without let? Wherefore recant for shame that fowl error, that a bishop serveth the better in his ministery, and is the more able to do good, for that he is married. 
Left out by M. I.  * Verily here ye seem to be of the flesh rather than of the spirit. Neither are ye to be called any longer, if ye maintain this doctrine, spiritual men, as in times past they have been, whose rooms ye occupy, but rather fleshly men. * Such men, such doctrine, fleshly men, fleshly doctrine. 
Left out by M. jev  * Neither see I, what ye can say for Defence of this doctrine, unless ye bristle yourselves against S. Paul, and maugre his authority affirm impudently, that it is no let for a Bishop from the service of God, to have the tribulation of the flesh, that he may serve in 〈…〉 vocation better, taking care for the things that be the worlds, and seeking how to please his wife, then if he study for the things that be our Lords, and seek how to please God: that a man may do more good, being by occasion of his wife divided and distracted, then being whole and in himself united finally that a bishop shall serve the Church better being entangled and clogged with worldly affairs, then having power and opportunity to pray to God without let. *  
Now therefore see you not how great is your impudency in that you lie yourself, and father such a fowl lie upon Sozomenus, and that light of the world in his time Gregory Nazianzene? 
Left out by M. je. The place of Sozomenus examined  * But for then dealing let us hear what Sozomenus saith concerning Spiridion. For Rufine in the tenth book added to Eusebius touching this matter reporteth nothing, but that he had a daughter named Irene, who died before her father a virgin. * The words of Sozomenus be these. 
Cap. 5. lib. 1. cap. 11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, Spiridion was a Husbandman, having wife and children, and yet for all that he was never the worse about God's service. Of this place we grant ye may say with Sozomenus, that Spiridion served God never the worse for that he was married. But how, and whereof gather ye, that he served God the better, and was more able to do good because of his marriage? 
Left out by M. je.  * Now Spiridion 
Spiridion  was a man of passing holiness, and in power and virtue surmounted all other men of his time, as one that wrought great miracles, and was taken for a prophet. For Rufine, where 〈◊〉 compareth P●pl●●utiu● with the Apostles, 
Ecclesiast. Histo. lib. 10. cap. 4. & 5.  seemeth to probates Spiridion before him. If this one Saint of so great excellency being made bishop of a married man served God never the worse for that he was married; will ye therefore make a general doctrine, that bishops and priests shall ma●y, and that thereby they shall be no whit hindered from God's service? * Spiridion obtained that privilege through especial grace by his exceeding ve●●ue, which is granted to few. And the privileges of a few make not a law for all in general ye know, as Nazianzene saith.  

The place of Sozomenus alleged by the defender maketh utterly against them. Left out by Mil.  Furthermore if the words of Sozomenus that ye build your annal doctrine upon be well examined, ye shall find, th●● he maketh more against you then with you. For signifying that he had wife and children, he addeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yet for all that he was never the worse about God● service. This revocation, or exception negative (yet for all that etc.) implieth a confession affirmative of the contrary. * As though by reason the sentence should bear this meaning. He had wife and children, and therefore was less apt and able to serve God in bishoply ministery. If there were no repugnance between the state of a bishop, and marriage, but the having of a wife were a better abling of a man to serve in that vocation, as ye say: then Sozomen us neither would, nor should have used that manner of speech, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as much to say, yet for all that but ●●ther thus he should have spoken, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that this sense might rise of his words, Spiridion was a husbandman, having wife and children, and therefore he was the better disposed and readier to serve God. *  
Neither maketh the place of Gregory Nazianzene ●…y what for you more, than this of Sozomenus doth: 
nazianzens' words returned upon the defender.  whose words be these after the translation of Rapha●… Volaterranus varying much from the Greek. Hic Basilij pater Basilius item appellatus, et si matrimonio se vinxit, ita tamen in eo vixit, ut nihil propterea ad perfectam virtutem, ac Philosophiam consequendam impediretur. Basiles father who was named also Basile, although he put himself in bonds of matrimony, yet he lived so herein, as he was letted no whit from the attaining of perfect virtue, and holy knowledge. Were not marriage a let and hindrance to perfection requisite in a Bishop, this learned man could not rightly have said, ita tamen in eo vixit, etc. yet for all that he lived so, etc. 
Left out by M.I.  * Because the having of a wife is a hindrance to perfection, therefore of good reason in the praise of that holy Bishop, who was married long before he took that degree, yet notwithstanding (saith this writer) he was not therefore letted from perfection. By which manner of speech he acknowledgeth marriage in others to be a let to perfection. Who understandeth not for what cause of these two speeches, the one is reasonable, the other absurd: he is power, yet for all that liberal, and, he is power, yet for all that sparing? The like consideration duly conceived, returneth the authority by this Defender alleged against himself. For the like absurdity is in this saying, Basiles father was married, yet for all that he was not thereby letted from perfection: if for having a wife a man be the better able and readier to serve in the holy ministery of a Bishop. *  
Right so it is easy to put him from the hold he taketh of Chrysostom, by Chrysostom himself. For lest my man should think, 
Tit. 1.  whereas S. Paul sayeth, a Bishop ought to be the husband of one wife, that the same order continueth still in the Church, thereto he saith in his seco●d homily de patientia job: non ea ratione quod id nunc in Ecclesia obseruetur. Oportet enim omni pr●rsus castitate S●cerdotem ornatum esse. S. Paul (sayeth he) required this not in consideration that the same be now observed in the Church. For it behoveth a Bishop to be garnished with all manner a chastity.   
jewel. 
Here cometh M. harding in a loft with Io Triumph, as having beaten down all the world under his feet: And as being already in sure possession of the victory, he crieth out, Impudencies, Loud his, foul Faults, and piety Fittens. And full terribly chargeth us, like a Conqueror, to render ourselves, and to r●cante for son. This new courage is suddenly blown upon him, for that he th●●keth, we have intruded v●on his office, and as he saith, ha●e corrupted, and falsified the holy Fathers. But it were a worthy matter to know wherein. Forsooth we say, by the report of Soz●menus, and Gregorius Nazianzenus, that Spiridion, and Gregory Father to Nazianzen, being both Married Bishops, notwithstanding their Marriage, were never the w●rs● able to do their Ecclesiastical offices, but rather the better.  

* The words import it not.  Here M. Harding of himself, and freely confesseth, these Holy Fathers w●re ne●●r the worse able to d●● their offices? For so much th● 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 import, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But that they were the better able to do their● offices, ●●cause of their wives, that he d●nieth utterly, and herein he sayeth me are corrupters, and falsifiers of the Fathers. And thus the whole difference, that is between M. harding and us touching this matter, standeth only in these two poor words, Rather the better, and ●euer the v●●rse.  
Now gentle reader, 
I beseech thee also Reader to weigh my Answer.  that thou mayest be the better able t● judge between us, I beseech the indifferently weigh these w●●des.  
Gregory Nazianzene hereof, that is, of the help, 
Untruth for then he was not Bishop, but an infidel Nazian. in Epitaphic patris.  that his Father, 〈◊〉 being the Bishop of Nazianzum had by his wife, writeth thus: Illa quae data est Adamo, etc. Eva that wvas given to Adam for a helper for as much as it was n●● good for man to be alone, in steed of a helper became his enemy. It followeth, Meo autem Patri Mater mea data illi à Deo, non tantum adiutrix facta est, id enim minus esset mirum, sed etiam dux, & princeps, verbo, factoque inducens illum ad res optimas. Et aliis quidem rebus quamuis optimum esset subditam esse viro, propter iura coniugii tamen in pietate non verebatur seipsam illi magistram exhibere: My mother being given to my father of God, became not only his helper, for that had been no great wonder, but also was his leader, and Captain, 
She was his Mistress before he knew, what the faith of Christ was yet they serve you to no purpose. False. He was not then Bishop of Nazianzum, nor yet a Christian.  both by word and by deed, training him unto the best. And albeit in other things it were best for her to be subject unto her husband for the right of marriage, yet in religion, and Godliness, she doubted not to become his Mistress.  
These words M. harding, be plain, and clear, and without fitton, Gregory Nazianzen sayeth, that his own ●●●ther was unto his father the Bishop of Nazianzum, a helper and a director, both by word and deed, to lead him to the best: and that in all other things being his inferior, yet in religion and Godliness she was his 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What a do would this fellow make, if he had me at a Vantage in deed, that thus fareth without cause, as by the answer it shall better appear.  Mistress. And yet m●st all these words so open, so plain, so clear, be drowned with your simple distinction, of Rather the better, and never the worse. May we not now allow you with favour, to take all these, that ye call sitions, lies, corruptions, and falsifienges, home again unto yourself?  
If you ●●●●r cr●●le th●se t●●●ges before is 〈…〉 must remember all truth must not be measured by your reading▪  
Harding.  
To begin with these last words, as I require not all truth to be measured by my r●●ding M. Jewel, so neither is it to be measured by your writing. Whether I ever read these things before, or no, it skilleth not. Certain it is, where you read all that ye have here alleged out of S. Gregory Nazianzene, you read also that, whereby your false, and unreasonable assertion is confuted, teaching that his Father being Bishop of Nazianzum learned the doctrine of Godliness of his wife. Having read and seen the truth of this point in that very place, and here conceeling it, that you might not seem confuted, yea, and so boldly avouching the contrary: how make you not all men, that know this, witnesses of your falsehood, and impudency?  

M. jewels gay eloquence ministerlike.  As for your vain, and light taunts of my coming in a loft, with Io Triumph, of my terrible charging of you like a Conqueror, of the new courage suddenly blown upon me, and such other pretty eloquence fit for a Minister, then for a sober man: I can easily contemn. No wise man that readeth my words, for which ye ruffle so with me, will judge you had just cause, with such sport to delight yourself. Neither said I, if you mark my words well, that you had corrupted and falsified the holy Fathers, for that you said upon report of Sozomenus, and S. Gregory Nazianzene, that Spiridion, and Gregory Father to Nazianzene, were for their marriage never the worse able to serve God, but rather the better (which nevertheless is false): but for that you speak it generally of a Bishop: as though Bishops should do● that appertaineth to their charge the better, if they married wives. For truth whereof I refer me to the place. 
Spiridion, and Gregory Nazianzenes father.   
Those two holy Fathers, were men endued with a singular and special grace, and the example of so few, is not to be drawn to be made a rule in general, as I said in my Confutation. Yet the most that is said of them, is, that they served God never the worse by reason of their Marriage.  
Again, 
M. jewel defendeth after his manner but few parts of the Apology.  whereas I answered to every part of your Apology in this place, you defend but one thing by me confuted. Neither to say the truth, do you defend the same, but say, what you were able, to show some colour of a Defence. This argueth that the other things you brought, are fully confuted. For else why did you not defend them? And this much is the Reader here to be warned of by the way: That whereas most commonly I answer to every thing by the Apology objected unto the Catholics, in your pretenced Defence, you lay much of my Confutation together, and in your Answer, either you touch no point by me confuted, or very few points, but fill your book with new matter, not pertaining to the defence of that which is confuted, taken as it seemeth out of the store of your notebooks, which Illyricus, Friar Bale, and certain others of that cut have made to your hand.  
Touching this present matter, you would, if you witted how, persuade the world by the example of Gregory Nazianzenes Father, that a Bishop is not only not letted or hindered from doing that, which belongeth to his duty by having a wife, but also much helped, and that for being married, he is the better able to discharge the service of a Bishop. To prove this, you allege much out of S. Gregory Nazianzene in epitaphy patris. 
In what respect saith Nazianzen of his Mother, that she was to his Father, a leader. etc.  And the words, which you allege, be there in deed. Which words report, that S. Gregory Nazianzenes Mother, was to his Father a helper, a guide, a Leader, a captain, by word, and by deed training him unto the best, yea further, that in Religion, and godliness she was not ashamed to become his Mistress. All this is true M. jewel, I confess, and yet it proveth not your purpose at al. How so?  

M. jewels falsehood discovered.  Mark Reader, and consider of it well, how M jewel beguileth thee. Gregory Nazianzen hereof (saith he) that is, of the help that his Father, being the Bishop of Nazianzum had by his wife, writeth thus. Illa etc. Here lieth the deceit, in that he maketh S. Gregory Nazianzenes Father Bishop of Nazianzum, when he had such help of his mother, as though it were credible, that a Bishop should be taught of his wife, how to teach his flock the doctrine of our Religion. If S. Gregory Nazianzene had meant thus, he had made his Father but a simple Bishop. It is a weak flock, they say of sheep, where a Yew beareth the bell. So truly it must be an infortunate Diocese, where the Bishop is his Wives scholare. 
Gregory Nazianzen expounded.   
Now Reader all these great cracks, that M. jewel uttereth here so liberally, in thy judgement must come to nought, when thou understandest the truth of this matter. Thus than it is. Gregory the elder, S. Gregory Nazianzenes Father, was a married man long before he was Bishop: and before he was married unto his wife, and also long after, he was in Infidel. She, S. Gregory's mother, contrariwise was a Christian woman, borne of Christian parents, and descended of a stock, that had been Christian of long time. Her learned son speaking of her, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. fol. 124. a. Aldi. Hypsistarij what men they were  in comparison of his Father, saith, that she was not taken out of the wild Olive, and engrafted into the good Olive, as he was: But that she had virtue, and the true faith of Christ, as by ancient inheretance, from her godly forefathers. Of him he saith, that he was a branch of a Root, that was not to be praised, that was not disposed to godliness, that was not planted in the house of God. Touching the religion that he was of, speaking more particularly of him, he saith, that he was one of them, who were named Hypsistarij, of whom I have not read, but in S. Gregory Nazianzene. These Hypsistarij, as he describeth them, were neither altogether Heathens, nor jews, but (as a man following S. Gregory might term them) mongrels between both. For (as he saith) of the Heathenish error, they exchewed Idols, and Sacrifices, and yet honoured the Fire and Lamps, and of Moses' law they had in reverence the Saboth day, and used the jewish superstition about certain meats, but Circumcision they utterly refused. Such a one touching Religion, was this Gregory.  
Now that virtuous and holy woman his wife on the other side, taking great thought for her husband, ●nd, as her son writeth, having great grief at heart, that being yoked together in wedlock, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  they drew not one way together through diversity of faith, that she was united unto God but in respect of half, that the copulation of the spirit was not joined with the bodily copulation, being most desirous to remedy this, and y●● not being ●●ble to bring it to pass: she f●l down (saith h●) befo●● God day and night, she besought and craved of him the salvation of her husband, with much fasting, and with many tears. Withal she was instant upon her husband to come to the Christian faith, she used all the ways she could devise whereby to win him, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Gregory the Father's Vision.  with chidings (saith he) with admonitions, with 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Gregory the Father's Vision.  kind and loving services, with tokens of displeasure. To be short, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Gregory the Father's Vision.  it could no otherwise be (saith he) but that the drop of water with continual falling should at length make a hole in the stone, and that the thing in time should be brought to pass, that was so earnestly intended.  
There then speaking particularly of the means, by which Gods providence borough him to Salvation, and to become a Christian man, among other things, he saith, that his Father was much furthered with a vision in a dream, wherewith (saith he) God oftentimes benefiteth 〈…〉 soul, which he accounteth worthy to be saved. It seemed unto him in his dream, that he sang that verse of David the Prophet. Laetatus sum in ijs quae dicta sunt mihi, in demum Domini ibimus. 
Psal. 121.  that is to say, as he uttereth it out of the seventy Interpreters, It rejoiced me to hear them, that said unto me, Come on, let us go into the house of our Lord.  
This vision he told his wife. She, being very glad of it, as having assured hope, that her long prayer and desire was heard, interpreting it to the best sense, and signifying unto him, how great favour God showed unto him, made all the haste she could possibly, that he were Christened, fearing, as her son writeth, lest by differing some thing might happen in the mean while, that should be a hindrance to that blessed calling, and defeit all, 〈◊〉 she had so much and so long gone about to bring to affect. To be short, within a while after she found the mean, that he was Christened by the holy Father Leontius Bishop of that Diocese, at what time out of all coaster of the world the Bishops repaired to Nicaea, there to hold a General Council, to the condemnation of the heresy of Arius. After this he lived a holy life, and at length by God's providence, he was promoted unto the bishopric of Nazi●nzum.  
This much is (though in a far larger process) declared by S. Gregory Nazianzene in the Oration, which he made at the burial of his Father. Whereby it is made clear to all men, how his Father was helped by his wife, not as being a Bishop, as M. jewel doth untruly say, but as yet being an Infidel. That her son reporteth of her, that she was unto his Father, a helper, a guide, a leader, 
Faithful wives have been cause of their husbands conversion to the faith. Monica S. Augustine's Mother laboured to convert Patricius her husband. Confessionum. li. 9 cap. 9  a Captain, an instructor, a teacher a mistress in religion, and godliness: all this is to be understanded of the time, in which he remained an unbeliever, not of the time, in which he was Bishop of Nazianzum.  
Herein she did the part, that many other godly and faithful wives have done, who have used the like diligence and care, to bring their husbands being Infidels, unto the faith of Christ. That holy woman Monica S. Augustine's mother, did the like with her husband Patricius, of whom he writeth thus in his book of Confessions, speaking unto God, as there his manner is: Tradita vira seruivit veluti Domino, & sategit cum lucrari tibi, etc. When she was married out unto her husband, she served him, as if he had been her Master, and took care how she might win him unto thee, o Lord. Again he said there afterward. Vir●m s●●m iam in extrema vita temporal eiu● lucrata est tibi. She wan her husband unto thee (o Lord) now in the end of his temporal life.  
In consideration that God oftentimes worketh such grace by the wife to the winning of the husband unto God, S. Paul requireth, that a Christian woman put not away her husband from her being an infidel, if he consent to dwell with her. For how knowest thou o woman (saith he) whether thou shalt save thy husband or no? 
1. Cor. 7.   
Either you have read these things M. jewel, in the place from whence you took the words, which here you allege, or you trusted the gatherer of your Notes. If you trusted your gatherer, you should have tried the testimony well, before you had spoken so peremptorily. If you have read and seen all this, in that you have conceeled the truth, and spoken so much to the contrary, you show yourself to be one, that is little to be trusted.  
Certainly all men may now see, how just cause I have, not to take these fittens, and corruptions again unto me, but to leave them with you, and to charge you with them, as I did before in my Confutation of your Apology.  
After this M. jewel bringeth in a great meany of Doctors sayings, with which they commend Marriage and seem to blame them that despised, and condemned Marriage, and were of the opinion, that a man could not be saved if he were married. Whereunto I think all answer needless, for as much as we are not they, that condemn Marriage, as it hath now been oftentimes said. we esteem it as honourable, and where marriage is lawful, and lawfully used, we account that bed unspotted and clean, as S. Paul calleth it. Marry we say, 
Heb. 13.  that who soever have bound themselves to live in continency by solemn Vow, as Priests and Religious persons, for them it is not lawful to marry, and their Marriage is unlawful, or rather, none at al. Against which doctrine M. jewel hath nothing to say, nor to allege, and yet touching Marriage, he hath filled a great deal of paper with the doctors sayings. So ready he is to bring much, and so little able to bring aught, that maketh clearly for him.  
What things certain Fathers have written against impure heretics dispraising marriage in all men, 
With what stuff M. jew. furnisheth out this point at large. Defence Pag. 187. 188. 189.  the same he allegeth now, as if they were spoken against the Catholics condemning the Marriage of these Apostates. He bringeth in a long saying of Origen, spoken of the Marcionistes, and Cerdonistes, and such others. He allegeth Epiphanius against the filthy Origenians. Chrysostom against wicked women, that keeping the name of Maids, lived worse than hartlots in the Stews. Briefly so many more as he found, old, and late writers of all sorts, speaking bitterly against the impune life of ill men, and women. Whereunto I answer briefly: As all the married Apostates approach near unto the filthiness of Devils, so some of the Catholic Clergy, and religious persons, be far from the pureness of Angels. God give us all grace to amend, that is amiss, and you M. jewel a better heart, and more charity towards his Church. With which grace being endued, you will take less pleasure in reporting ill of her Ministers.  
I need not here after this sort to travail any farther in this matter against Master jewel. What soever is beside that, which I have here answered in the whole book of his pretenced Defence touching th●… point, it is either not worth the answering, as altogether impertinent, or sufficiently refelled in my former Confutation. Compare the one with the other Christian Reader, and if thou be able to judge of these things, assure thyself, my said Confutation may satisfy thee, for aught that M. jewel bringeth. Now because it were infinite to stand upon every point, and to discuss so many tedious, and impertinent allegations: I think it more convenient to use an other way, and by laying together certain his Untruths, to make shorter work.   

M. jewels Untruths, and flat Lies concerning the Marriage of Priests, and Votaries.  
He steineth the authority of S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, 
Pag. 165.  S. Gregory Nazianzen, and divers other learned and ancient Fathers, as disgracing lawful Matrimony, and the Marriage of Widows, and Widowers.  
He saith, S. Jerome in Catalogo witnessed, that Tertullian was a married Priest. 
Pag. 166.  The place will show this untruth. Albeit I deny not, but that he was married, before he was Priest: and so were divers others, as Spiridion, S. Gregory Nazianzenes Father, Gregorius Nyssenus, and certain others.  
He saith, S. Hilary Bishop of Poitiers was married, and that he proveth by an Apocryphal epistle to one Abra his daughter. These toys are vain, and more fabulous, than Esop's fables.  
So he maketh Prosper the bishop of Rhegium, a married man, upon a felender conjecture, how soever it be, it can not be proved, that he was married after that he was Bishop. that is enough for us.  
He saith, that Polycrates had seven of his Father's Bishops before him. The meaning of the testimony alleged for that purpose is, that seven of his house, and kindred, had been Bishops in his Church before him. For so signifieth the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  as is before noted.  
That which he allegeth under the name of Pope Damasus, is entitled in the Decrees, Palea, as much to say, Chaff, by which name in the Decrees of Gratian, that is signified, which is by some other man added unto Gratian. and well may this be so named, because it is a thing forged, and little worth. And how could Damasus write of so many Popes, which lived after his death certain hundred years?  
He saith, alleging for his author Fabian the late merchant of London, 
Pag. 167.  that Marriages of Priests in England were free a thousand years together, and yet it is evident, that the English Clergy was governed according to the order which our Apostle S. Augustin left, who by S. Gregory's rule, might not allow married Priests.  
He saith, the Priests of England were never Votaries, for proof, he saith boldly, it is known, and confessed, which stout asseveration maketh weak proof. And were it so, then surely if any had married, although he had sinned thereby, yet the marriage should have continued, which is known to have always been used otherwise.  
He calleth the Vow of Chastity, an evil promiss, 
Pag. 168. 169.  and an unhonest Vow, which word was never yet spoken by any good or honest man. For our Lady vowed her chastity unto God, 
Luc. 1.  as it is evident by the interpretation of many holy Fathers upon S. Luke's Gospel.  
He denieth primam fidem, the first faith in S. Paul to be meant of the Vow of Chastity, 
Pag. 170. 1. Tim. 5.  which is directly against the ancient father's doctrine. For although it were expounded of baptism also, yet none but Heretics, ever denied it to appertain to Vows.  
He beareth the world in hand, as though we violently forced young Maidens to receive Vows. 
Pag. 171.  It cometh of their own choice, and of God's grace, and not of any constraint of ours.  
He turneth, Offer, to Minister the oblation, or holy communion, 
Pag. 172.  whereas it is to make the oblation, before that it be ministered.  
He taketh half the sense of S. Paul away, concerning those, whom he exhorteth to abstain from the use of wedlock for a certain time of prayer, as I proved before.  
He saith, Paphnutius alone, was proctor for the truth against the whole Council of Nice, 
Pag. 173.  intending thereby to bring his reader in belief, that one is better, than three hundred and seuenteen. For 318. Bishops were at that Council. Thus he seeketh to discredit Councils.  
He burdeneth us, as seeming to say, that the company of man and wife is filthiness, which we say not, but teach Marriage to be a Sacrament, but yet, as, not between father and daughter, so neither between Friar and Nun.  
He saith, I have falsified S. Chrysostoms' words. But it is not so. 
Pag. 174  For S. Chrysostom saith, that neither he, that had two wives at once, nor he, who had been again married after his first wives death, may be made Priest by S. Paul's rule, he speaketh of the second Marriage after the first wives death, saying. Qui defuncta uxori benevolentiam non servat, he that rendereth not good will to his wife being dead, how can he be a good governor over the Church? So that by S Chrysostom's interpretation, S. Paul literally forbiddeth him to be made Priest, who hath had more Wives than one, whether it were at once, or one after an other.  
He corrupteth the text of S. Chrysostom, putting for the Greek word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this Latin, 
Pag. 175. Chrysost. in epist. ad Titum Hom. 2.  quae discessit (à se) her that is gone from him, in stead of this word defunctae, which is, dead. His conjecture taken of the Greek word, is void, and nothing worth. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, decedo, doth signify also to departed this life. And it is plainer, that S. Chrysostom expressly confesseth this sense, which we defend, saying, Quidam hoc ita intelligunt, ut ad episcopatum is assumatur, qui unius fuerit uxoris vir. Some men do understand this matter, that he be taken to Bishophoode, who hath been the husband of one wife. And that this last sense not being reproved of S. Chrysostom, is the most literal sense, it may appear by these words of S. Paul. Let her be chosen a widow, quae fuerit unius viri uxor, 
1. Tim. 5.  which hath been the wife of one husband. Wherefore as by the wife of one husband, she is meant, which hath not been twice married: so by the husband of one wife, he likewise is understanded, that hath not been twice married.  
Cassiodorus (saith M. jewel) writeth, that Eupsychius, who suffered martyrdom being new married, 
Pag. 176.  was a Bishop. What a shameful corruption is this, to add the word, Bishop, unto the text, whereas it is evident by Sozomenus the author of the Story, and by Nicephorus, that Eupsychius was a lay gentleman of Caesarea in Cappadocia, as is before declared. What vile forgery is this M. jewel, to turn a Gentleman, or a Noble man, into a Bishop, only that a Bishop might seem to have married? So little can your Marriages of Bishops, and Priests be maintained without Lies.  
He leaveth out the better half of the Gloze, reciting that part, 
Pag. 175.  which the Gloze alloweth not, leaving that, which it alloweth.  
He saith, that a good and diligent Bishop serveth rather the better, because of marriage. But how untruly he saith it, it is before sufficiently declared. Certainly (I may say) were it true, than Christ, who was the best Bishop that ever was, and omitted nothing, whereby he might have been most perfit) would have been married.  
He saith, S. Paul gave rules to the Clergy, that Bishops, 
Pag. 182.  and Deacons should be the husbands of one wife: the sense is not well given. It is to be understanded, that none other husbands should be Bishops, or Deacons, but such, as had been, or were, the husbands of one wife.  
He saith further, immediately after the former rule of one wife, in the same tenor and course of speech S. Paul showeth, that some shall forbid to marry. This is false. It doth not follow immediately. For there goeth between a commendation of the Church (which S. Paul nameth the pillar of truth) and likewise of the Incarnation of Christ. After which words S. Paul saith. 
●. Tim. 4.  The spirit saith plainly, that in the last days some shall departed from the faith. From which faith? Verily from that faith of the incarnation, and that, whereof the Church is the pillar. Mark the word discedent à fide, 
Discedent à fide.  they shall departed from the faith. He that departeth from the faith, once had the faith. We never had your faith M. jewel, neither in any other point, nor in this concerning the marriage of Priests. But we had, and have the faith, that the lawful Marriage of Christian persons is a Sacrament, and that faith had you once, when you were baptised, and incorporate in our Church. You are gone from that faith, and not we. S. Paul then teacheth, that some shall forbid Marriages, as the Manichees, Encratites, and Marcionistes did, of whom the Apostle prophesied, as S. Chrysostom, and divers other Fathers do expound. But (saith M. jewel.) He that condemneth Marriage in a few, 
Pag. 182.  must likewise be called a condemner of Marriage. Why sir, do you allow Marriage between the Father and the Daughter, or between the Brother and the Sister? If not, than you condemn Marriage in a few. It is to be known, that Marriage is then forbidden, when it is taught, that a man having no impediment in his own person, or when there is no impediment in the person, whom he would take, is yet forbidden to marry: as if Marriage of itself were ill, or, as if it were an ill thing in itself, a man to marry.  
There is impediment, as of blood, as between brother and sister, so of Solemn Vow, and of Religion, as between a Priest and a Nun, or any other woman. And as S. Paul doth allow the impediment of blood, counting him a great sinner, who had his father's wife: 
1. Cor. 5.  so doth he allow the impediment of a vow, when he saith, that the young widows (if they should be received into the number of those chaste persons, whom the Church used to feed) were like to have damnation, because they would desire to marry, and so would in heart at the least break their former faith, or promise of perpetual Chastity. But (saith he) let young widows marry, 
1. Tim. 5.  and bring forth children. As who should say: If they were received into the solemn number of Widows, than they should make promise not to marry: and that promise perhaps they would break, if not openly, yet in heart.  
Thus it is no devils doctrine to teach, that a person having once vowed, can not marry: because he himself giveth the impediment, and not the law of the Church. For that law was in S. Paul's time, as I now have showed after S. Chrysostoms' mind. Oecumenius saith, Pactae sunt quòd Christo adiungerentur, reijciunt autem ipsum ad humanas revolutae nuptias. (Item pòst) verùm quia hoc faciunt, nubant, seipsas Christo non despondeant. They covenanted that they would be joined unto Christ, but they shake him of, and turn themselves to humane Marriages. But because they do so, let them marry on God's name, let them not (by Vow) betrothe themselves to Christ. Mark Reader, S. Paul would not have them marry after their profession of Chastity (that might not be in any wise) and therefore he will have them not to be professed, and so to marry. 
Pag. 182.  Pope Innocentius is belied. he condemneth not Marriage, but Incest, and unlawful Marriage, and preferreth in Priests, and Deacons, holy continency, before the satisfying of Carnal lust. Likewise Pope Siricius is foully belied. If thou deal not chastened, yet deal charily, 
Pag. 183.  what is meant thereby, and how reasonably it is said, 
Infra. li. 5. cap. 15.  I shall hereafter declare in due place. Where I shall clear the canonists of the slander you utter against them of teaching the people, that Simple fornication is no sin, which they never taught.  
We say not that men in Marriage can not please God: but that such men can not please God, who having promised by taking holy Orders, that they will live chaste, do break their promise. It is better to marry in a case, then to live single: to some man I grant, it is the avoiding of a greater evil, but not of itself better. For the Apostle saith, he that joineth his virgin in Marriage, doth well, 
1. Cor. 7.  but he that joineth her not, doth better.  
Whom God hath joined, let no man sunder. But God ne-never joined a Priest in Christ's Church to a wife after his Priesthood, because the man's own fact, and vow, 
Pag. 185.  is against his Marriage. Again he is already married to Christ, who liveth for ever, and so whiles his first spouse liveth, he may marry no more. that is S. Basils' reason. Although simple fornication be not now punished with deposing the Priest, yet it is not left unpunished.  
Last of all you repeat many abuses of the Clergy, which as in some part may seem to arise and come of single life, so I doubt not, but if Priests were commonly married, the case would be much worse. Certainly seeing Christ said, there are eunuchs, 
Math. 19  who geld themselves for the kingdom of heaven, the Church hath done right well, to reserve the highest order for them, who do most force unto themselves, for heavens sake. And seeing S. Paul would have all men chaste without Marriage, as himself was: much more it is to be thought, 
1. Cor. 7.  he would have his own Successors in the public ministery to be such.  
Again if among married men, he be meetest to be chosen Priest, who hath had but one wife, he yet were more meet, who had none at al. If before Priesthood one wife be the most, afterward one is to much. If perfection, and an Angel's life be in most perfit chastity, that same is most meetest for Priests, who are the Angels of God. If married persons ought to be apart for a time, to have the more leisour to pray, and to communicate: he that must still attend the public prayer, and must both offer, and minister the Communion, had need still to abstain from wedlock: specially seeing the Priests of the law during the time of their ministery, did not company with their wives.  
Eusebius, and Epiphanius, account those counsels, and praises of single life, which are in holy Scripture, to appertain to Priests, as to the most excellent degree, and not unto the Lay men: as who are permitted to use a lower state of perfection. If no man that liveth in warfare to God, do wrap himself in secular business, and yet S. Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 7.  that the married person doth think upon the things of the world, and is distracted thereby: how conveniently hath the West Church ordained, that he should only be made a Priest, who by God's grace is content to profess and lead a single life? Or how can that Bishop, or Priest wholly attend hospitality and almose deeds, and the profit of his flock, and the setting up of common schools, of universities, of hospitals, and almose houses for the poor, and such other like deeds of mercy, and of public profit: who hath his wife and children to provide for? Had we now had in all England the furniture of Colleges, and Schools (which God be praised we have, and should yet have had more, had not the blast of your evangelical spirit overthrown them) if the Clergy had always been married? Nay the married Bishops, that now live so merrily, and keep such continual dalliance and cheer upon other men's pains and travails, were nourished in the Universities, specially by their almose, and foundations, who were single, and chaste Bishops, and Priests. Thus though nothing be perfit in this life, yet the single life, of the two, is more convenient for the Clergy, both by God's word, and by the experience of Civil policy.    

Of the Canonical Scriptures, the word of God, Traditions, etc. The second Chapter.  
jewel. Pag. 193. 

In proem. in prouer. Solomon.  Touching the book of the Maccabees we say nothing, but that we find in S. Jerome, S. Augustine, and they holy fathers. S. Hierom saith, the Church receiveth them not among the Canonical allowed scriptures.  
Harding.  

The books of the Maccabees canonical among the faithful.  S. Jerome speaketh of such Canonical Scriptures of the old Testament, as the very jews allowed for Canonical. Such in deed the books of the Maccabees are not. But why have you not alleged S. Augustine's words, as well as S. Hieromes? Certainly because they condemn you. For if ye said all that of the books of the Maccabees, which S. Augustine saith, you would allow them for Canonical Scriptures among faithful Christians. 
August. de De Civitat. Dei, lib. 18. ca ●6.  He saith Machabaeorum libros non judaei, sed Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet. As for the books of the Maccabees, not the jews, but the Church accounteth them for Canonical. Hereunto I mai● add: but M. jewel, and his Companions, account not the books of the Maccabees for Canonical 〈◊〉 the●●in they are of the jews synagogue, and not of the Church of Christ. Now see good Reader▪ 〈…〉 be made, when he said as thou findest noted in the m●rge● of his book, Pag. 191. that he would deny no more, than S. Austin, S. Hierom and other Fathers have denied. If you say, ye deny not the books of the Maccabees▪ 〈◊〉 reprove you praying for the dead, which is so suffici●●●y proved by those books? Sooth if you allow the one, you must allow the other.   
jewel. Pag. 193. 

S. james epistle.  Eusebius saith, S. james Epistle was written by some other, and not by S. james, We must understand (saith Eusebius) that it is a bastard epistle.  
Harding.  
You have abused Eusebius. For he leaveth not there, but goeth forward, showing, what he meant by his word, 
li. 2. c. 23. li. 2. c. 23.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you turn, is a bastard. But Ruffinus more civilly translated it, à nonnullis non recipitur, The epistle is not received of some men. And Eusebius himself addeth: Nos tamen scinius etiam istas cum caeteris publicè aplerisque fuisse Ecclesiis receptas. Yet we know that S. james, and S. judes Epistles with the rest, have been publicly received of most Churches, whereby we learn that Eusebius meant by the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as much to say, as it is accounted of some men, not to be S. james own. Touching his own judgement, he showeth himself to be of the opinion, that it is S. james epistle. Of some, he confesseth by those words, that it was doubted of. Therefore you have reported Eusebius untruly, making him to pronounce negatively of the epistle, which directly he hath not done.   
jewel. 
S. Jerome saith: It is said, that the Epistle of S. james, was set forth by some other man under his name. 
Hiero. i● catalog●.   
Harding.  
I grant. But S. Hierom had said before those words, which you allege, unam tantum scripsit Epistolam, quae de septem Catholicis est. He wrote only one epistle, which is one of the seven Canonical Epistles. 
Hiero. i● catalog● Ecclesi. script.  Again after the words by you alleged, it followeth, that the said epistle in process of time hath obtained authority.   
jewel 194. 
We (Lutherans and zwinglians) agreed thoroughly together in the whole substance of the Religion of Christ.  
Harding.  
I perceive the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, is no substantial point with you: and yet he that receiveth it unworthily, 
1. Cor. 11.  receiveth his damnation. And he can not receive it worthily, who believeth amiss of it. But either the Lutherans, or the zwinglians, or both, believe amiss thereof, because in that behalf they ●eache clean contrary doctrine. Therefore either both, as the truth is, or one of those two sects, as themselves must confess, receiveth always unworthily: and consequently they must confess, that one of the two sects is utterly damned, without any hope of salvation. And certainly the zwinglians, as also the calvinists are the worse, because they believe. God's word less in some degree, than Luther taught; and go further from the literal sense of his Gospel, 
1. Timo. 3.  and from the belief of the Church, which is the pillar of truth.   
jewel. 194. 
The Church is not God, nor is able of herself to make, or alter any article of the faith.  
Harding.  

isaiah. 59 joan. 14.  But she is the spouse of God, and to her he hath promised both his words, and his spirit, to remain with her for ever. And therefore she is the chief witness of all the articles of the faith. Wherefore seeing you hear● not her witness, you ought to be unto us, as an Heathen, 
Matt. 18.  and a Publican.   
jewel. 

Isai. 8.  isaiah saith, to the la rather, and to the testimony. If they answer not according to this word, they shall have no Morning light.  
Harding.  

jere. 31. Hebre. 8.  This law is written also in our hearts, as jeremy, and S. Paul do witness. And the successors of the Apostles give also a testimony of Christ no less, 
joan. 15.  than Christ said the Apostles should do. Therefore the law and testimony, whereunto isaiah calleth, is as well that, which is written in faithful men's hearts, and which is witnessed in the Church, as that which is written in the old, and new Testament.   
jewel. Pag. 194. 
M. Harding saith further, If quietness of Conscience come of the word of God only, then had Abel no more quietness of conscience then wicked restless Cain. etc. Who would think, that M. Harding bearing such a countenance of Divinity, would thus go about to deceive him false with a point of Sophistry?  
Harding.  
Who would think, that M. jewel being pressed with a point, whereunto he is not able to make answer, would not thus go about to deceive his unlearned Reader with a point of Sophistry? I pray thee reader take the pains to peruse, what the Apology saith, what I have said in my Confutation, and what M. jewel bringeth in the Defence, touching this matter. I desire no more, but that thou read it, and then judge, as thou seest cause.  
It is an easy matter for M. jewel, when he hath made me to speak, what he listeth, to frame an answer accordingly. But I must always warn the reader, not to believe M. jewel, when so ever he reporteth either my words, or any other man's, 
M. jew. shifteth himself from Scripture, to God's word.  but to repair to the Original. Fot seldom is he found clear of the crime of falsifying. And here he entwiteth me of Sophistry, whereas in deed he useth the grossest sleight of Sophistry himself. He conveyeth himself from the Canonical Scriptures, to God's word. Now I spoke of the Scriptures, and he answereth of God's word.  

Defence. pag 191.  Whereas it is said in the Apology, that only in the Canonical Scriptures of the old, and new Testament man's heart can have settled rest: Against this I bring the example of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and jacob, and of those holy men, that lived before the time of Ezdras, when the Scriptures were lost: and here I demand whether their hearts never found settled rest. For if rest be found only in the Scriptures, how could they have rest, when no book, nor part of the Scriptures was written? If it be true, as the contrary can not be proved, that Moses was the first, that ever wrote any part of the Scriptures, shall we judge, that all the holy patriarchs, that were before that time, had no settled rest in their hearts? 
Confut fol. 82. b.  If this be true, then (say I) had good Abel no better rest in his heart, then wicked restless Cain. As I said in my Confutation, so, for aught that M. jewel is able to bring in his Defence, I say here again, what foolish, and absurd Doctrine is this?  
Now how doth M. jewel defend this Doctrine of his Apology? What is his answer? I wish no more, but that it be read, and conferred with my Confutation: here to write out all again, it were too long. He slincketh away from his own words, and by change of words, maketh of it a new question. M. Harding (saith he) saith further, If quietness of conscience, come of the word of God only, then had Abel no more quietness of conscience, then wicked rest less Cain.  
You bely M. Harding, as your custom is: he saith not so. Let the book be trial between us both. The question is not, whether man's heart findeth his settled rest only in God's word: (the quietness of the conscience was not spoken of) but whether that rest you spoke of in the Apology, be found only in the Scriptures. In your Apology ye said, yea, in my Confutation I say nay. And now in your Defence, yourself also say Nay: 
Galat. 2.  and so ye destroy, what ye builded before, and thereby prove yourself a prevaricator as much to say, a false hartlot.  
For in that now ye convey the matter from the Canonical Scriptures of the old and new Testament, unto God's word, what is this, but a secret recantation of your former false tale? If your said former tale were true, and might be maintained, why do you so shift your hands of it? are you a shamed to be accounted a Recantour, and yet recant in deed? Who seeth not great diversity between God's word, and the written Scriptures? These be more special, that is more general. By skipping from the written Scriptures, to God's word, you thought to set yourself at h●●re liberty. And yet having taken your liberty, as it were by breaking lose out of your chain, never so much, as you seem to give over your former saying, and to recant: so you prove not your later saying. You allege S. Chrysostom saying, 
In Gen. Ho. 2. Heb. 1. in job. 27.  that God from the beginning spoke 〈…〉 m●n by himself: S. Paul, that God in old times spoke m●ny ways, and in sundry sorts unto the Fathers: S. Jerome, that the holy Scriptures be everlasting, though the w●●ld shall have an end, and that the thing, which is promised by the holy Scriptures, shall last for ever, though the paper, parchment, and leaves of books shallbe abolished. Again you allege S. Chrysostom, saying, 
2. Cor. hom. 18.  that S. Paul calleth Preaching not written, the Gospel. But to what purpose all this? How proveth this, either, that you avouched in your Apology touching the settled rest of man's heart, to be found only in the Canonical Scriptures of the old; and new testament, or, which now you teach, having revoked your former doctrine, that it is found only in God's word?  
Verily by aught that you have said yet, either in your Apology, or in your Defence, you have neither showed, where man's heart shall find the rest you spoke of, nor where we shall find you: so like a hunted fox you start, from one thing to an other, as it were, from bush to bush, from hole to hole. So must they do, who serving the Master that you serve, take upon them to impugn the Catholic Doctrine, and to defend Untruth.   
jewel. 

Ibidem.  God himself in his own person and presently spoke unto Abel. etc.  
Harding.  
That would I confess: But he spoke not to him by paper and ink. And yet we are not now in worse case than the old fathers were. And the word of God in their hearts (whereof they could not doubt) was ever much more clear and plain, then that, which is in our books, whereof some men doubt many times. Therefore we also in Christ's Church have as well God's word in our hearts, as in our books, whence also (to wit, out of our hearts) we may resolve the doubts, which arise upon our books. But let us see this matter ript up more deeply.   
jewel. Pag. 194. 
We speak not so precisely and nicely of God's word written in paper, for so it is a corruptible creature, and shall perish.  
Harding.  
Why then bind you us in all cases to the written word, and will have nothing to be believed, or done, that is not written?   
jewel. Pag. 195. 
Chrysostom saith, Preaching not written Paul calleth the Gospel. 
Homil. 18. in 2. Cor.   
Harding.  
But we only have preaching not written, 
Preaching not written.  for you will have nothing preached, which is not also written. Therefore we only have the whole Gospel, and you have but one piece thereof.   
jewel. Pag. 195. 
S. Antony the Eremite was notably learned, 
Aug. de Doctrinae Christ. li. 1. in prologo.  and perfit in the scriptures.  
Harding.  
But without knowledge of letters, as with S. Augustine yourself must confess. This proveth that by the Scriptures the sense, and meaning is understanded, and not the bare letter. Now the meaning of the Scriptures, not only tolerateth, but convinceth the unbloody Sacrifice of Christ's body, Transubstantiation, prayers to the Saints, and prayers for the dead, as divers learned men have declared at large.   
jewel. 
The force and substance both of prayer, and of meditation dependeth of reading. 
Aug. de scalis paradisi c 11   
Harding.  
Not only of reading. For than unlearned persons should neither pray, nor meditate, nor have God's word. Mark still, we deny not the written word: but we say besides it, there are unwritten Verities, 
Basil. de Spiritu Sancto. cap. 27.  which thing you impudently deny.   
jewel. Pag. 195. 
S. Basil reckoneth Traditions to be equal with the word of God, but that he written those words rather of zeal, then of judgement it 〈…〉 appear, because the traditions he nameth, are forgotten even in the Church of Rome, as not to kneel in the Church upon the sonnedaie.  
Harding.  
If because some Traditions be altered, 
Traditions.  or abolished, they were not God's word, than the precept of abstaining from strangled meats, 
Actor. 15.  is not God's word, because it is now abolished. But you miss M. jewel. What soever God commandeth but for a time, it is his word: And whatsoever his ministers do command, as profitable to the Church for the present time, it is God's word, as himself said; 
Luke. 10.  He that heareth you heareth me. He that despiseth you despiseth me. How be it S. Basil speaketh not altogether as you report. He maketh not all Traditions equal with God's word, simply, and in all respects: he speaketh of three things, of Doctrines written, and doctrines unwritte, and of customs, for which we have no scripture. Of the unwritten doctrines it is, that he speaketh, not of customs, that they have equal force with the written doctrines, ad pietatem, to train us to godliness. As touching unwritten customs, many think your example false. For we were never forbidden to kneel at all upon the Sonnedaie, but at our lords prayer, whiles it is said at Mass time, as some interpret it. At which time all the Pope's Chapel to this day useth to stand up, and not to kneel.   
jewel. Pag. 195. 
The rest of S. Basiles traditions stand in hallowing of water, and blessing of oil: etc.  
Harding.  
Those Traditions, which belong to Sacraments, as that of the blessing of the oil doth, may never be changed. Those that are mere ceremonial, may be abrogated by custom, as the thrife dipping of the child, or of any other that is to be baptised, and such others the like, which neither S. Basile, nor we ever made equal with God's express word.   
jewel. Pag. 196. 
S. Paul saying, hold the Traditions which ye have received, 
2. Thess. 2.  either by epistle, or by word calleth them traditions, although they were contained in his epistles and delivered to them by writing.  
Harding.  
And also, though they were not delivered by writing. You leave out half. For he saith by writing, or per sermonem, that is to say, by speech. The writing contemned words: ergo, the speech, which differeth from writing, were words without writing.   
jewel. Pag. 196. 
Whereas S. Paul will have his own things to be kept, 
Hieron. in 2. Thes. 2.  he will have no strange things thereto to be added.  
Harding.  
We add no strange things, but believe, that S. Paul preached, and delivered the Sacrifice of the Mass unto the faithful people so plainly in practice, and words, that the writing was not able to show his mind so fully in that behalf. And by Tradition we have as well that, which he taught by practice, as that, which he preached, whether he wrote it, or no.   
jewel. Pag. 197. 
S. Paul by the word, Traditions, meant not Ceremonies, or certain secret unknown Verities, 
●. Cor. 15.  but the substance of the Gospel I have delivered unto you that Christ died for our sins, saith he.  
Harding.  

M. jewels Secret unknown verities.  He meant not only Ceremonies, I grant. And as for secret unknown verities, we have no such, except you are so mad, as to call praying for the dead a secret unknown verity, which hath even been known to all men, yea women, and children in the Church of God. And that custom of praying for the dead, S. Paul did teach, as well as all other the Apostles, as Tradition telleth us, 
Homil. 69. Ad populum Antiochen.  witnessed also by S. Chrysostom. So that as the whole Gospel cometh unto us by Tradition, so doth Mass, Dirige, Holy water, Lenten fast, and others.   
jewel. Pag. 197. 

Epist. ●6.  S. Augustine findeth is not appointed by Christ, or the Apostles, what days we ought to fast.  
Harding.  

Lenten fast is not found in the Apostles writings, but in the Apostolic Traditions. Aug. in epist. 86.  You keep your kind, in alleging things out of their kind. S. Augustine there speaketh of that, which is to be found in the writings of the Apostles. For thus it went before, In Apostolicis literis, in the Apostolic writings. There he findeth not the Lenten fast. But he findeth it in the Apostolic Traditions, saying in the very same epistle. In his rebus de quibus nihil cert● statuit scriptura divina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta maiorum prolege ●edendasunt. Look in what things the holy Scripture hath determined nothing of certainty, the custom of the people of God, o● the ordinances of the Forefathers, 
Custom is a law.  are to be kept as a law.  
Mark that the custom of Gods, people must be ●olden for a law: prolege, for a law M. jewel. It is the epistle alleged by you, that saith, Traditions, and customs must be kept for a law. And his own words another where are  quadraginta illi dies ante Pascha obseruetur, 
Augustin. epist. 118.  Ecclesiae consuetudo roboravit. That the forty days before Easter should be kept, the custom of the Church hath confirmed, and strengthened it. And generally he saith: Quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orb obseruantur, dantur intelligi, vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenarijs Concilijs commendata, atque statuta retineri. Look what things we keep, not being written, but delivered by tradition, which are observed all the world over, thereof intelligence is given us, that they be kept in ure, as things commended unto us, and ordained either by the Apostles themselves, or by the General Councils.  
Now seeing the Fast of the forty days was, and is generally kept in the Church, and yet not first commanded by any general Council: it remaineth according to S. Augustine's rule, that it was instituted of the Apostles. And S. Jerome by name saith, it came from the Apostles. In fidei regula discrepamus. We differ in the rule of faith from the montanists. For they deny three persons confounding them into one. They account the second Marriages as ill, as Adultery, and make three Lenten fasts. Nos unam Quadragesimam secundùm traditionem Apostolorum toto anno, tempore nobis congruo ieiunamus: We fast at a time convenient one Lent, in the whole year, according to the Traditions of the Apostles.   
jewel. 199. 
M. Harding saith, Persona, Ingenitus, Homoousion, are not found in the scriptures, but the sense and meaning is found there.  
Harding.  
So is the sense, and meaning of Mass, of transubstantiation, and of praying to saints found there.   
jewel. Pag. 200. 
Gennadius saith, the perpetual Virginity of our Lady is proved sufficiently by scriptures. 
In catalogo.   
Harding.  

Gennadiin cattle. in Heluid.  This is a loud lie. Try it out who will, Gennadius saith not so but only, that S. Hieromes book, which he wrote against helvidius, affirming that our Lady bare children, after she had borne Christ, was sufficiently furnished with 
* Documents  testimonies of the Scriptures. For although it be not expressly written, that she was a perpetual Virgin, yet the faith thereof is most agreeable to the Scriptures, and most certain in Tradition. But were not the Tradition so strong, the Scriptures certainly might be doubtful enough in that behalf.   
jewel. Pag. 200. 
Of God and his word they would evermore have us stand in doubt: but of the Pope, and his word, they say, in any wise we may not doubt.  
Harding.  
Our doubt is not whether God's word ought to be believed, no man doubteth thereof: But only what is the meaning thereof. And then beside to understand it the better, we join universal tradition with it, and in all further doubts we say, the Pope, or the General Council is the highest, and last judge in earth to declare unto us the meaning of God's word. Otherwise we should never have an end of Controversies, as we see by experience between the Lutherans, and zwinglians.   
jewel. Pag. 200. & 201. 
How know you saith M. Harding, that the scriptures, be the scriptures? etc. The Church of God had the spirit of wisdom, whereby to discern the true scriptures from the false. So saith S. 
a In prooemi. in Luc.  Ambrose. S. 
b count. Fau lib. 22.  Augustin. and 
c 80. li. 6. ca 2.  Eusebius. Yet will it not follow that the Church is above the scriptures.  
Harding.  
If the Church of God have the spirit of wisdom, to discern the true scriptures from the false, shall it not also have the same wisdom of God, to expound the holy Scriptures, and also to determine any question arising thereon? Neither do we say, that the Church is above the Scriptures in authority: but that it is to us better known, and as a more lively, so a more plain teacher, than the Scriptures be.  
For if we ask the Scriptures any question, 
Clemens Alexand. li. stron. 1  be it never so hard, as Clemens Alexandrinus hath well noted: They will answer us no more, than it is written. But if any man ask the Church never so many questions, if the knowledge be behooful for man's soul health, it will ever make him to each question an answer, and so will dimisse him with a full satisfaction touching all his doubts. 
1. Tim. 3.  For this cause the Church is called the pillar of truth: And as you confess, that the Church hath showed us, which be the true Scriptures: so must you likewise grant, that the Church hath the spirit of God, to show us the truth in all behooful cases, yea even in those, which be not expressly written. For where is it written expressly, that the church of God should have the spirit of God, for this end to show us the true Scriptures, to approve the true Scriptures, and to condemn the false forgeries? 
Luc. 10. Mat. 18.  Christ said generally of all matters, He that heareth you, heareth me: Item, he that heareth not the Church, let him be to thee, as an Heathen, and a Publican.    

Of the Sacraments of the Church. The third Chapter.  
jewel. Defence. Pag. 103. & 104. 
M. Harding saith, there be seven Sacraments, which (as he saith) do not only signify a holy thing, but also do make holy those, to whom they be adhibited. But how can Matrimony sanctify a man, and make him holy? Or by what institution of Christ containeth it grace in itself, and power to sanctify?  
Harding.  

Ephes. 5.  S. Paul answereth you thus. Ye husbands love your wives, as Christ hath loved his Church. And then he proveth the wife to be the flesh of the husband, as also the Church is the body of Christ. And so both ways the Prophecy of Adam is verified, 
Gen. 2.  that two shallbe in one flesh. Sacramentum hoc magnum est in Christ & Ecclesia. 
Sacrament Mystery.  This is a great Sacrament (or a great Mystery) in Christ and the Church. For we stand not now upon the word, but upon the thing. What is that great Mystery? First Matrimony is always a conjunction of two in one, both by natural consent of minds and also (if it be consummate) by corporal conjunction. Now by Christ's institution, that conjunction is also made inseparable, 
Matt. 19  when he said, That which God hath joined together, let not man separate, or put a sunder.  
Now than this conjunction is made to be inseparable between faithful persons, it is directed by Christ, and instituted purposely to signify his inseparable conjunction with the Church. And whiles it is instituted of Christ to signify that thing, it is made a Sacrament, or Mystery, whereunto Christ giveth grace, and holiness for that purpose. For when any thing, or action is appointed by Christ to signify a holy thing in Religion, that action is thereby made a Sacrament, and doth sanctify the worthy receivers of it. We see that Circumcision might be made, and was used among some Infidels, and to them it was no Sacrament. 
Gen. 17.  But when the faithful were commanded to circumcide themselves, to signify the Circumcision of the heart, which Christ should make in them that believed, by his spirit and grace: then Circumcision was made a Sacrament, and did sanctify the worthy receiver. Even so it is in Matrimony, as S. Augustine saith. 
August. lib. 1. de Nupt. & Concupis. cap. 10. Ephes. 5.  Quoddam Sacramentum nuptiarum commendatur fidelibus coniugatis. unde dicit Apostolus, viri diligite uxores vestras, sicut & Christus dilexit Ecclesiam. A certain Sacrament of Marriage is commended unto the faithful married persons. Whereupon the Apostle saith, ye men love your wives, even as Christ loved his Church. Huius proculdubio Sacramenti res est, ut mas & foemina connubio copulati, quàm diu viwnt, inseparabiliter perseverent. Nec liceat excepta causa fornicationis, à coniuge coniugem dirimi: hoc enim custoditur in Christo, & Ecclesia, ut vivens cum vivente in aeternum nullo divortio separetur. The thing doubtless of this Sacrament is, 
The thing of the Sacrament of Matrimony.  that the man and woman joined together in Marriage, as long as they live, continue together undissevered, and that it be not lawful for the one to be separated from the other, but for fornication. For this thing is kept in Christ, and the Church, that he living with the living for ever by no divorce be separated.  
Here we learn, not only that the name, but also that the thing of a Sacrament is in the Marriage of Christians: which thing doth sanctify those persons, that come worthily to Marriage. For as Marriage was from the beginning ordained to beget Children, so by Christ it is ordained to a higher signification, verily not to be separated, whiles the parties married together do live, and thereby to signify Christ's inseparable union with his Church. 
The chief signification of Matrimony.  And as that union of Christ with us is an inseparable sanctification to faithful men, so is the sign thereof a special sanctification to them, who married in our Lord. It is known, that as S. Augustine assigneth, there are, tria bona matrimonij, 
August li. de Nuptijs & Concupisc.  fides, proles, & Sacramentum: Three good things are in Marriage, the faith (or fidelity of wedlock which the man, and wife must keep, rendering duty the one to the other) the child which is brought forth, and the Sacrament, whereof Christ said, That which God hath joined, 
Math. 19  let not man separate.   
jewel. 042. 

In this place M. jewel setteth us forth a great many of Phrases.  The Father's entreating of the Sacraments, have used vehement, and great words, etc.  
Harding.  
Whiles you hunt for words, and Phrases, you consider not, that the Church of God had the practice of certain things, whereby the Father's words were perfitly understanded. Restore us those things, which you can not deny to have been in the Primitive Church, as holy oil, Chrism, monks, consecrated Virgins, Altars, and Sacrifice for the quick and dead, with other such: and then talk you of words, what you list. I account it labour lost to dispute with you about Phrases of speech, upon which Christ's faith dependeth not: but upon his Institution, and the practice and custom of his Church, the best interpreter of the same.   
jewel. Pag. 206. 
The Sacraments of the old, and of the new la, in truth, and substance are all one.  
Harding.  
I know not what you mean by Truth, and Substance. I confess the effect of them all tendeth to one end: That is to join us with God, and with Christ, in heart, will, and glory. But after Christ's incarnation, grace is more copiousely distributed by corporal instruments, to the end we may learn to seek our salvation by the flesh and body of Christ, 
Sacraments are the ordinary means whereby to receive grace in our Souls. Marci 16. Chrysostomus ad Hebrae. Homil. 14 1. Cor. 10. johan. 20. jacob. 5.  who was made Man to save us. And therefore although grace be only in our souls, yet the ordinary mean of receiving grace, cometh to us by the Sacraments, accordingly as it is said, He that believeth, and is baptized, shallbe saved. Baptismus (saith S. Chrysostom) corporis mundatio non est, sed animae. Baptism is not the cleansing of the Body, but of the Soul. Now the Soul is cleansed only by grace. Therefore baptism giveth grace, as an instrument appointed thereto by Christ. And all we being many are one bread, and one body, which partake of the one bread, to wit, of the body of Christ, saith S. Paul. Whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven. And he that is anointed with oil by the Priests of the Church praying for him, in the name of our Lord, shall have his sins forgiven him, if he be in any.   
jewel. 
M. Harding will reply: S. Augustine saith, 
In Psal. 73.  the Sacraments of the new testament give salvation. But his meaning is this, Our Sacraments teach us, that Salvation is already come into the world.  
Harding.  
So then Dare, is to teach, and Salus, is salvation come into the world. Here is gay gear for wantoness, to dally with words, in matter of our Salvation.   
jewel. 

Contrà Faust. Manich. lib. 19 cap. 14.  S. Augustine saith in an other place: The Sacraments of the old la were promises of things to be accomplished: our Sacraments of the new la are tokens that the same promises be already accomplished.  
Harding.  
If your words had any pith in them, I would lay them out at large and answer them fully: But now I grant all that you say. What then? Will it follow, that because our Sacraments do show, that Christ is already come, therefore our Sacraments give no grace? For that is the point which you deny. Nay rather they give grace therefore, because they show so much by his Institution. For Christ maketh not naked shows, his words work, and his deeds be effectual in the soul, and his Sacraments both show that, which is done, to wit, the death of Christ, and make us partakers of the grace purchased by the same. He that eateth Christ's flesh, 
1. Cor. 11. joan. 6.  showeth his death (saith S. Paul) and he that eateth my flesh (saith Christ) hath life everlasting. Mark, how our having of life goeth together with our showing of Christ's death. You divide these matters, and make Christ's Sacraments only to be shows.   
jewel. 
M. Harding saith our doctrine is but in a corner of the world, and that therefore Christ hath given this watcheworde of us, believe them not. Howbeit so many kingdoms, Countries, Common weals, as profess this day the Gospel, would make a good large Corner of the Church of God.  
Harding.  
I look not only to your present state, M. jewel: but I look a little backward. For Christ's Church began not with Friar Luther within these fifty years, but fifteen hundred years past. Your Church is not yet very great, and nothing so great, as the Arians was. Howbeit fifty years past it was so small, that not only Christ, but even Photinus, or Pelagius would have been ashamed of you. For your candle was under a bushel, and your congregation in the desert, or in the secret parts of the house, 
Math. 5. Math. 24.  which kind of Congregations, Christ willed us not to believe. For his City is always upon a Hil, and can not be hid.   
jewel. Pag. 208. 
Christ meant of Antichrist, as it is very likely, when he said, 
In Math. Homil. 49  believe them not. For out of the very true Churches come deceivers, as Chrysostom saith.  
Harding.  
And you are the members of Antichrist: for you came out of the true Church, when you went from us.   
jewel. 208. 
Verily howsoever M. Harding will shift this matter, the plain words seem rather to touch him, and his company, then either Luther, or Zuinglius, or any other. For they can point with their fingers, and say, here is Christ, and there is Christ: Behold in this pyx are three Christ's: in that five: in that seven: in that more. Therefore it is likely that Christ giveth us this special watchword of them, and such others, believe them not.  
Harding.  
If those words, here is Christ, and there is Christ, 
Math. 24 Marc. 13.  were meant of his body in the Sacrament, even at his own Supper it might have been said, here is Christ, and there is Christ. For in every Apostles hand, or mouth Christ then was. 
Ambro. de iis qui initiantur mister. c. 9  For as S. Ambrose witnesseth, In illo Sacramento Christus est, quia corpus Christi. Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the body of Christ.  
S. Chrysostom of purpose answereth your foolish objection: 
Chryso. ad Heb. Homil. 17.  Quoniam in multis locis offertur (Christus) multi Christi sunt? Nequaquam, sed unus ubique est Christus, & hîc plenus existens, & illic plenus, unum corpus. Because Christ is offered in many places, are there many Christ's? No, not so. But one Christ is in every of the places, being fully here, and fully there, it is one body.  

Reservation of the Sacrament of the Altar  Again this Sacrament was preserved even in the Primitive Church, and sent by Deacons to those, that were absent, as S. 
a In Apologia. 2.  justinus the Martyr, and S. 
b Apud Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24.  Irenaeus do witness. Exuperius also the Bishop of Tholosa (as S. 
c In epist. ad Rustic. Monachun. Math. 24. Arius. Nestorius' Hus. Luther. Zuinglius  Hieron showeth) carried it in a wicker basket. So that it is but the lewd souter's Divinity, to expound, here is Christ, and there is Christ, of the being of Christ's body in the Sacrament. And what was Christ's meaning in those words, it is expressed in the Gospel, that divers false prophets should arise in divers corners of his Church, as Arius at Alexandria, Nestorius at Constantinople, and likewise other arch-heretics in other corners, of the which every one should challenge Christ to him: As for example, that john Hus would say, Christ is well preached with us in in Bohemia only: Not so quod Luther, but Christ is well preached here at Wittenberg only. Zuinglius then would say no thereunto, but that he is well preached at Zurich only. Nay saith Caluine, he is most excellently, and most purely preached at Geneva. Tush quod Suenkfeldius, 
Suenckfeldius.  he is better preached in Silesia. Ye are all deceived quod Waldo, 
Waldo.  he is best of all preached in certain dens about Lions. I perceive quod Bernardinus Ochinus, 
Bernardi. Ochinus.  ye never were in Polonia: for there is the very sincere word of God professed, and the doctrine for a man to have more wives at once, is allowed. But Osiander 
Osiander.  for his part crieth out, that in Prussia the Gospel hath more liberty, because Duke Albert is for his own tooth. Well quoth Brentius, 
Brentius.  when all is done, there is no doctrine like to the Ubiquity frankly taught in the Duchy of Wirtemberg. Ye are all far out of the way, say the anabaptists, 
anabaptists.  for Friesland is alone, and there only Christ is truly preached, and that should well appear, if our kingdom begun at Muster had gone forward.  
Now last of all creepeth me forth one Brown at London, with his unspotted Congregation, otherwise called Puritans. 
Puritans  As we come last, say they, so we are purest, and cleanest of all others. For we will have no jot of the Pope's dregs, nor any religion, what so ever hath been tofore. away with all: for all was nought until we came, and our way doubtless is without fault. These and many other contrary Sects (M. jewel) challenging each one of them the truth to themselves, are these Corner creepers, who cease not to cry, here is Christ, and there is Christ, 
Math. 5.  of whom we are all warned to beware. For in the mean time Christ is preached truly in the only Catholic Church, in the light of the world, where his Candle standeth upon the Candlestick to give light to all that are in his great House. And in this sense do all the Fathers expound these words of Christ, as I might at large show, if I had your boasting vain, and coveted to seem to say much upon every thing, be-it never so plain.   
jewel. 208. 
M. Harding'S fellows are not yet well agreed what to make of their own Consecration.  
Harding.  
Your long needless process is answered with one word. Their question is concerning a point not necessary, to wit, how Christ did consecrate. But they are all agreed, that he made and consecrated his own body and blood, by what means so ever he did it.   
jewel. 209. 
We use the words, that Christ used. If Christ and his Apustles consecrated, then do we undoubtedly likewise consecrate: And our intention is to do that, Christ hath taught us 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 do witness, that as Melchisedech in foreshowing the figure of Christ had done, panem, & vinum offerens, offering bread and wine: ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis & sanguinis repraesentaret, Christ himself also should make present the truth of his body and blood. And when Christ had thus consecrated his body and blood, than he made his Apostles also Ministerial Priests, 
Luc. 24.  saying, do ye this (wherein is contained, make this) in my remembrance. And so they consecrated always as Priests, and taught us the oblation of the new testament, 
Lib. 4. cap. 32.  as S. Irenaeus witnesseth. But as for you M. jewel, believing, there is no external priesthood, and refusing to take the Sacrament of orders, which the Church hath always had: how can you have either the intention to consecrate, and offer up Christ's body, or to do that thing, which you falsely believe may not be done?   
jewel. Pag. 209. 
There is the body of our Lord (saith M. Harding) be the receivers believing, or not believing. But S. Augustine saith: 
In johan. Tract. 26  This is the eating of that meat, and the drinking of that drink, that a man dwell in Christ, and have Christ dwelling in him.  
Harding.  
That is in deed the worthy eating, and drinking, whereof S. Augustine speaketh. But S. Paul showeth, that he, 
1 Cor. 11.  who eateth unworthily that meat, is guilty 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 eat.   
jewel. Pag. 109. 
Origen saith, Est verus cibus quem, nemo malus potest edere. 
In Math. cap. 15.  Etenim si malus posset edere corpus Domini, non scriberetur, qui edit hunc panem, vivet in aete●num. The body of Christ is the true food, which no evil man can eat. For if the evil man could eat the body of our Lord, it should not be written, he that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.  
Harding.  
You have foully corrupted this place M. jewel. Origen speaketh not of the Sacrament in those words, nor of the Sacramental eating. Yea expressly having spoken before of the Sacrament, 
Origen. in Mat. c. 15.  he endeth his talk thereof in this sort. Et haec quidem de typicosymbolicoque corpore. And these things I have said of the typical and figurative body. Where it is to be noted, 
Figurative body.  that the Sacrament is called a figurative body, because it is made present for a figurative purpose, that is, to th'end the death of the same body (which death is: now past and absent) may be remembered most effectually by the presence of the self same body, that died. Now goeth Origen forward, saying: Multa porrò & de ipso verbo dici possent, quod factum est caro, verúsque cibus, quem qui comederit, omnino vivet in aeternum, quem nullus malus potest edere. Et enim si fieri posset, ut qui malus adhuc perseveret, edat verbum factum carnem, cùm sit, verbum & panis vinus: nequaquam scriptum fuisset, quisquis ederit panem hunc, vivet in aeternum. Moreover much might be said of the word itself, how that it was made flesh, and the true food, the which, he that eateth, shall be sure to live for over, the which no evil man can eat. For if it could so be, that he, who continueth evil still, should eat the word made flesh, whereas it is the word, and living bread, it should not have been written, whosoever eateth this bread, shall live for ever.  

Origen foully corrupted by M. jew.  These are the true words of Origen. But M. jewel hath so mangled them, that the sense is clean altered. For in steed of verbum caro factum, the word made flesh, he hath placed the body of Christ, referring it to the Sacrament. And whereas in Origen it is (edere) verbum factum carnem (to eat) the word made flesh: he hath made exchange thereof into edere corpus Domini, to eat the body of our Lord. And so whereas Origen meant, that evil men can not eat spiritually, and effectually the Divinity of Christ, so as it dwelleth corporally in his flesh: M. jewel hath taught him to say, that an evil man can not in the Sacrament eat Christ's body.   
jewel. Pag. 210. 
We say with S. Augustine the Sacrament is not our Lord, 
In johan. Tract. 5●  but the bread of our Lord.  
Harding.  
S. Augustin denieth not the Sacrament to be our Lord, he hath no such words. Howbeit we ourselves would deny it, in some sense. For some time the Sacrament is taken for the form of bread and wine, and that in deed is not our Lord.   
jewel. 212. 
M. Harding might account not only seven, but also seventeen sundry Sacraments.  
Harding.  
I account only seven in such sense, as the Church properly taketh a Sacrament. And how that is, I showed before.   
jewel. pag. 213. 
Thus we say it can not be proved, that this number is so specially appointed. As for the reasons of seven seals, seven trumpets, seven stars, seven golden Candelstikes, and seven eyes, they are childish.  
Harding.  
We ground not our seven Sacraments upon those similitudes. 
Seven Sacrametes. August. de Civit. Dei li. 11. c. 30. & de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 16.  Albeit if any man apply some of those matters to the seven Sacraments, it is not childishly done: seeing S. Augustine confesseth, that the Mysteries of numbers be great in the holy scriptures.   
jewel. 213. 
Unto every Sacrament two things are necessary: a sensible outward Element, as in Baptism Water, in our lords Supper Bread and Wine, and the word of Institution.  
Harding.  
Thus far we are agreed with you.   
jewel. 
Matrimony, Order, and penance have the word of God, but they have no outward creature or Element. extremes Unction, and Confirmation, have neither word, nor Element.  
Harding.  
To answer you herein M. jewel I can not do better, 
Conci. Florentin. in unione Armeniorum.  then to send you to the Council of Florence, and to the books, wherein the order of our Sacraments are contained. Where you shall find, that there lacketh neither the word of Institution, nor convenient Element. It is enough to us, that both by the word of God, and by the perpetual doctrine of the Church we are taught, 
Act. 8. jacob. 5. Luc. 22. joan. 20.  that these seven are Sacraments. Confirmation is proved in the Acts of the Apostles: Extreme Unction in the Epistle of S. james: Order in S. Luke, and in S. john. Now baptism, and our lords supper, yourself grant: of penance, and Matrimony I have said sufficiently already. To be short, we are in possession of seven Sacraments: neither can you, nor any man now alive, or that ever lived sith the Apostles, show, that ever the Church was without so many Sacraments. Impugn them when you list, I doubt not but you shallbe answered. For that ye have said hitherto is little worth, and most things are lies.   
jewel. pag. 213. & 214. 

De Sacrament● Eucharistia.  The ancient Fathers having occasion to entreat of purpose, and specially hereof, speak only of two Sacraments, and so Bessarion namely saith.  
Harding.  
None of them all hath written purposely of all the Sacraments of the Church, but as occasion served, 
M. jewel belieth the ancient Fathers touching the number of the Sacraments. Dionysius De Ecclesiast. Hierarch. Tertullian. lib. de resur. carnis. Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 1. ad Stephanun. Bessarion de Sacramento Eucharistiae. Bessarion belied by M. jewel.  they now speak of two, now of more. Of two they speak the more specially, because the custom was to give them both together, to those, that were of discretion.  
Howbeit Dionysius Areopagita the most ancient of all, entreateth of many more, as his book de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia doth witness. Tertullian besides Baptism, and the body of Christ nameth together with them Anointing, and Signing, and Imposition of hands. And the Doctors which you bring, affirm two, but they deny not more. Yea S. Cyprian, whom you cite in the first place, can not be proved there to mean by both Sacraments, Baptism, and the supper of our Lord.  
Bessarion saith, two were delivered plainly in the Scriptures, but he confesseth more which are delivered also in the Scriptures: though not so plainly as the other two. And he expressly nameth Chrismatis Sacramentum, the Sacrament of Confirmation, or of bishoping. Of the other Sacraments in general he speaketh twice in the beginning of that Treaty. Wherefore there is an impudent he included in your words, where you say, that I have in express words, The only two Sacraments of the Church. So that now we may couple you with Beza, ●●o teacheth the same doctrine in his Confession, and iu●●ly call you both false teachers.   
jewel. 214. 
All these things not withstanding the Tridentine Council concludeth seven Sacraments.  
Harding.  
So it ought, and may easily do M. jewel, any thing that you have yet brought, notwithstanding. You prove in deed that there are two Sacraments, but that there are no more, you have not brought so much as one apparent authority, Saving that of Bessarion, who nevertheless is utterly against you. For he believed, and taught, that there were seven Sacraments, 
Bessarion De Sacramento Eucharistiae.  as by that Treaty it may well appear. But what should I do good reader, should I now prove that there are seven Sacraments? Certainly it were easy for me so to do, and to set out a book of that Argument far greater, than M. jewels is. And that may well appear true by that Ruardus Tapper, Cardinal Hosius, and Petrus a Soto with divers other learned men have done in this behalf. I am sure M. jewel will not deny, but I were able to english at the lest that, which I should find in their Latin books. And yet therein standeth his whole show. For in deed he doth little else, but english that which the Germans and genevians books have. 
The 7. Sacraments proved out of S. Augustine. Augustiniana Confessio.  The untruths, and scoffs, that he addeth of his own, though they be many in number, yet do they not greatly increase the bulk of his volume. Besides all other Catholic books there hath one been set forth of late by the learned jesuits of Dilinga in Germany, entitled Augstuiniana Confession, where in manner no word is found besides that, which is in S. Augustins own works. And there all seven Sacraments are proved at large, out of S. Augustin alone, and that may suffice in this behalf. For if ye refuse S. Augustine's authority, I know not whose authority ye will allow.    

Of the power of Baptism in infants, and of Concupiscence. The 4. Chapter.  

Harding.  
What M. jewel would say in this matter, 
Incertainty of M. jewels doctrine. Pag. 215. Pag. 216. Pag. 215.  I can not certainly tell: he is so inconstant, and like a man, that is half ashamed of his doctrine. For one while he saith, the Sacrament dependeth of no man. At another time, The just man shall live not by the faith of his parents, but by his own faith. And yet he saith, S. Augustine, justinus Martyr, S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and others writ plainly, that the faith of the Parents doth help. But how truly that is written, he will not say.  
Again, he saith, that Infants are not void of faith: 
Pag. 216.  A little after he writeth, God is able to work salvation both with the Sacraments, and without them. And then he mingleth the Sign with the Thing, and the Thing with the Sign. Last of all he saith, In deed, 
Pag. 217.  and in precise manner of speech, Salvation must be sought in Christ alone, and not in any outward signs. In effect he sticketh, and maketh much a do (and feign he would if he durst) bring forth this proposition plainly, condemned of the Church in old time, That infants may be saved without Baptism. But it is the heresy of Pelagius, and the same is against the word of God, saying, 
joban. 3.  Except a man be borne again of water, and of the holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of heaven. For whereas saith with the vow and desire of baptism in a time of necessity, doth serve him, that hath discretion to believe, 
Augustinus Epist. 23.  seeing the said faith is not in the child, except baptism, which is the Sacrament of faith, be received of him: it doth follow, that Children dying without Baptism, are condemned. This much may suffice for that point.   
jewel. 
Concupiscence remaining in the faithful after baptism, is sin forcing S. Paul to cry out, 
Rom. 7.  I see an other law in my members, fight against the law of my mind, and leading me prisoner to the law of sin. And again. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death?  
Harding.  

1. Pet. 3.  It is to be understanded, that whereas Baptism saveth us, as S. Peter saith: all sin is washed away therein. And we are made a new creature, according to that S. Paul saith In Christ jesus, 
Gal. 6. Chrysost. Ibidem ad Galatas.  neither Circumcision is aught worth, nor uncircuncision, but the new creature, meaning by a new creature, as S. Chrysostom, and other holy Fathers expound it, that our nature, which was waxen old in sin, Repentè baptismi lavacro renovata est, non aliter quàm si denu● esset condita, is renewed in the washing of baptism, none otherwise, then if it had been made a new. So that no sin at all can be in us now baptised, if we have worthily received Baptism. Which notwithstanding, there is evidently perceived in our flesh a certain resistance, and rebellion against Reason: in such wise that, as our mind, and soul being endued with grace desireth to do all goodness: so do our senses, and sensual appetites entice and provoke us to much naughtiness.  
Now because the sensual appetite delighteth us, and so overcometh us commonly, more or less: therefore it is called the law of the flesh, or the law, which the flesh would gladly follow, and obey: which law, or concupiscence, leadeth us prisoners to sin, so much as lieth in it, and so oft as we obey it.   

Whether concupiscence be sin, though we consent not unto it.  
But the point of the question is, whether it be truly and in deed a sin in us, although we consent not unto it. We say, it is not properly sin. M. jewel defendeth the contrary: but S. Paul's words prove not the concupiscence which remaineth, to be a sin, except we obey it. Otherwise if of itself it were sin, we had not been made a new creature in Baptism. For the creature wherein sin is, remaineth still an old creature. But albeit all sins be taken away in Baptism, yet God suffereth the concupiscence to remain in our flesh, partly that we may by the Rebellion thereof, perceive from what an enemy our soul is delivered, and so give thanks to God, as the Apostle doth in this place, 
Rom. 7.  which M. jewel alleged: partly that we may be exercised with tentation, to th'end we may be crowned for our victory. I therefore (saith S. Paul) in mind (or soul) obey the law of God, but in flesh I obey the law of sin. And who knoweth not, it is the consent of the mind, and not the desire of the flesh, which maketh a man to be a sinner?  
Concupiscence is in my flesh only, and not in my mind, except I consent unto it, and so take it into my mind, and then in truth it is a sin. And this is the very discourse of S. Paul. For when he had said, in mind (or in the highest part of my soul) I obey the law of God, he concludeth thereupon, 
Rom. 8.  Nihil ergo damnationis est his qui sunt in Christo jesu, qui non secundùm carnem ambulant. Therefore no part of damnation is to them, who are in Christ jesus, who walk not according to the flesh. For if a man walk according to the flesh, then in deed his Concupiscence, which before was no sin, is become a sin. Thus albeit our flesh be the flesh of death, that is to say, 
Ibidem.  mortal, as S. Chrysostom expoundeth it, and therefore S. Paul would feign be delivered from it, as fearing lest he should at any time yield unto it: yet if he do not yield unto it, 
Rom. 8.  there is no sin in him. For the law of the spirit of life (which is the grace that justifieth us in baptism) delivereth him from the law of sin, and of death everlasting.   
jewel 217. 

Lib. 10. epist. 84.  S. Ambrose saith. There is not found in any man such concord (between the flesh and the spirit) but that the la (of concupiscence) which is planted in the members, fighteth against the la of the mind. And for that cause the words of S. john the Apostle are taken, 
1. joan. 1.  as spoken in in the person of all Saints. If we say, we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and there is no truth in us.  
Harding.  
I grant that in this continual fight we are daily so conquered in some small sin, or other, that we never remain any long time without venial sin. But that happeth, because we yield, and consent unto sin, and not because the concupiscence of itself is sin, before we have consented unto it.   
jewel. 217. 
S. Augustine saith in most plain wise: 
Contra julianum lib. 5. c. 3.  The concupiscnce of the flesh, against which the good spirit lusteth, is both sin, and the pain of sin, and the cause of sin. Yet the late blessed Chapter of Trident in spite of S. Augustine, hath published the contrary.  
Harding.  
Thus ye speak in spite of the Council. Verily the Council of Trent did determine that, which it found in S. Augustin, who teacheth most manifestly, that the Concupiscence is not properly sin, but is only called so. And thereby you know how S. Augustine is to be understanded in the place by you alleged. His most plain words are these. 
Augustin. count. duas epist. Pelagi. li. 1. ca 13.  Dicimus Baptisma dare omni indulgentiam peccatorum, et auferre crimina, non radere: Sed de ista concupiscentia carnis, falli eos credo; vel fallere, cum qua necesse est, ut etiam baptizatus, & hoc, si diligentissimè proficit, & spiritu Dei agitur, pia mente confligat. Sed haec etiansi vocatur Peccatum, non utique quia peccatum est, sed quia peccato facta est, sic vocatur, Sicut sciptura, manus cuiusque dicitur, quòd manus eam fecerit. We say that Baptism giveth remission of all sins, and that it taketh crimes quit away, and doth not shave them (as who would say, it leaveth not the roots behind). But I suppose that (as touching this Concupiscence of the flesh (they be either deceived themselves, or that they deceive others. For of this Concupiscence he also, who is baptised, yea though he profit nevel so well, and be guided with the spirit of God, must of necessity suffer in his Godly mind some conflict. But this Concupiscence, albeit it be called sin, yet verily it is not so called, because it is sin, but because it is made by sin. As for example, any writing is called the hand of him, that wrote it, because the hand made it.  
If then S. Augustine say most distinctly, that the Concupiscence in them, that are baptised, is not a sin, how spitefully, yea how falsely also have you said, that the Council of Trent defined the contrary in spite of S. Augustine? I pray you be not so angry with the Council of Trent. If your stomach will not hold in that spiteful humour, but you must needs utter it: yet will truth be truth.    

Of the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament of the Altar. The 5. Chapter.  

The Apology. Pag. 218.  
We say that Eucharistia, that is to say, the Supper of the Lord, is a Sacrament that is, an evident representation of the Body and Blood of Christ: wherein is set, as it were before our eyes, the death of Christ, and his Resurrection, and what so ever he did, whilst he was in his mortal Body: to the end we may give thanks for his death, and for our deliverance. And that by the often receiving of this Sacrament, we may daily renew the remembrance thereof, to th'intent we being fed with the Body and blood of Christ, may be brought into the hope of the Resurrection, and of everlasting life: and may most assuredly believe, that as our bodies be fed with bread and wine, so our souls be fed with the Body and Blood of Christ.   

Confutation. fol. 90. b.  
Among all these gay words, we hear not so much as one syllable uttered, whereby we may understand, that ye believe the very Body of Christ to be in deed present in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar. Ye confess the Eucharistia, which commonly ye call the Supper of the Lord, to be a Sacrament, and all that to be none other, than an evident token of the Body and Blood of Christ, etc.   
jewel. Defence. Pag. 220. 
Here is no mention, saith M. Harding of Real presence, and thereupon he playeth us many a proper lesson. Notwithstanding here is as much mention made of Real presence, as either Christ, or his Apostles ever made, or in the Primitive Catholic Church was ever believed.  
Harding.  
COnsidering how oft this matter hath been handled, and how few men are ignorant, what each side saith: I willbe the shorter in this place. First, I grant the eating of Christ's body by faith to be necessary. Again, I grant the Sacrament to be a mystical figure of Christ's death, and of his visible body. But I say farther, that besides eating by Faith, our flesh and body, receiveth Christ's body, and that really. 
Matt. 26. That these words, this is my body, this is my Blood, are meant properly. Tertullian. de resurr. Carnis.  Which conclusion is proved, because the words of Christ, this is my body, are meant properly, and without any figure of speech, albeit the manner of the presence be figurative.  
My reason to prove, that Christ's words are meant properly, is the perpetual interpretation of the ancient Fathers, the sense and custom of the Church. To begin with Tertullian, he saith in this wise: Caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur. Caro ungitur, ut anima consecretur. Caro signatur, ut & anima muniatur. Caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut & anima spiritu illuminetur. Caro corpore, & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut & anima de Deo saginetur. The flesh is washed, that the soul may be made without spot. The flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is signified, that the soul may be fenced. The flesh is shadowed with the laying on of hands, 
The flesh is the mean, whereby the grace of God passeth unto the soul.  that the soul also may be lightened with the holy Ghost. The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul also may be made fat of God.  
In these words, as divers Sacraments are joined together, so herein they agree all, that the flesh is the mean, by which the grace of God passeth to the soul. As therefore in Baptism the flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleansed: so in the Sacrament of the Altar, the flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be nourished with the godhead, which dwelleth in that flesh. It is then to be noted, that the flesh eateth not material bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ. For as the thing, wherewith we are washed, is water, and that wherewith we are anointed is oil: even so that, wherewith the flesh is fed, is the body and blood of Christ. The instrument therefore of God's grace is none other in the Supper, beside that flesh, wherein the fullness of the Godhead dwelleth.  
It is well known, that our flesh hath no faith to eat Christ's body withal. Therefore when our flesh is said to be fed with Christ's body, it is clearly meant, that our flesh is also really fed, with Christ's own substance, as it is washed with water. And as by water touching our flesh, cleanness cometh to our soul, even so by the body of Christ touching our flesh, the fatness of God (so Tertullian speaketh) that is to say, the plentiful grace of God, cometh to our soul. 
Coloss. 2.  For in that flesh God the son dwelleth corporally. And by that only flesh grace is most abundantly ministered unto us, for which cause that flesh is made the instrument of grace to us.  

Ambros. de Sacrament. li. 6. cap. 1.  Hereunto agreeth S. Ambrose: Idem Dominus noster jesus Christus consors est & divinitatis, & corporis: & tu qui accipis eius carnem, divinae eius substantiae in illo participaris alimento. The same our Lord jesus Christ is partaker both of Godhead, and of body. And thou which receivest his flesh, art made partaker in that food of his Divine substance. There S. Ambrose spoke of receiving the Sacrament, and expounded, how Christ is the living bread, that came down from heaven. 
joan. 6.  His flesh (saith he) came not from heaven: but whiles thou receivest that flesh, in that food thou art made partaker of the godhead. But if it were bread, which we receive at Christ's supper, in that food of bread we should not be made partakers of the divine substance. For the divine substance is in none other food (as to be received of us) but only in the flesh and blood of Christ. And there it is for our sakes: and for that divine substances sake, the flesh of Christ is given really to us: that thereby the Godhead may the more mightily pour grace, and the seed of immortality into our souls.  
By faith we might feed of the Godhead, but by that means only we should not be made partakers of the godhead as by the best mean. For the flesh of Christ with our faith, is a better mean to derive the godhead unto us, than faith alone. Faith sufficed the old Fathers, because there was yet no better mean. But when Christ had once taken flesh, than his flesh together with saith, 
joan. 1.  was an other manner of mean to make us partakers of more abundant grace. 
Christ is touched now of us. Luc. 6.  For now we touch really the flesh of Christ by the forms of bread and wine, even as in the days, when he lived in earth, divers persons touched him by touching his garment, which was about his flesh. And by that means as they were most speedily 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 graveolenti oscularis? Oro te, an voles manibus illot is ad oblationem accedere? Atqui manibus quidem ad tempus contin●tur, in ill●m ver● 〈…〉 resoluitur, seu diversatur. Cur non vasa vides ita undique lota, ita splendida? Illa non sunt capacia illius quem in se habent, non sentiunt illum, nos verò planè. How shalt thou appear before the throne of Christ, who art so bold, as with unclean hands, and lips to touch his body? Thou wouldst not adventure to kiss the king with thy stinking mouth, and wilt thou kiss the king of heaven with a foul stinking soul? I pray thee, wilt thou not wash thy hands, before thou comest to the oblation? And yet in thy hands he is holden but for a time, but into the soul he is wholly resolved, or (there) maketh his abode. Wherefore beholdest thou not the vessels, how they be clean washed, and shine full brightly? And yet they be not partakers of him, nor feel him, whom they contain, but we do truly.  

Christ held in our hand.  In this discourse it is evident, that we touch Christ in the Sacrament. In so much that he saith, the vessels hold him, our hands hold him, and our soul holdeth him. Mark well that the self same thing is in the vessels, (to wit, in the patin, and in the chalice), and in the hand also, which is in the soul. Bread and wine are not in our soul but only Christ's flesh. Wherefore it is Christ also which is in the vessels, and in our hand▪ But he is holden in our hand, saith S. Chrysostom, ad tempus, a while. But he dwelleth in our soul none other wise, then if one thing were made of both, and one were resolved into the other. Again the vessels hold him, but they partake him not, because they lack faith. But it is the same Christ in the vessels and in our hands, which is in our soul. For from the vessels he cometh to our hands, and from our hands into our bodies, and so into our souls. What extreme impudency than is it to say, that in these words S. Chrysostom meant not the blood of Christ to be really in the Chalice, and his body to be really under the form of bread?  
Leo the great saith, 
Leo sermone. 6. de jeiunio. 7. mensis. Christ's body is received with mouth.  ye ought so to communicate of the holy table, that ye doubt nothing at all of Christ's body, and blood. Hoc enim ore sumitur, quod fide creditur, for that thing is taken in by mouth, which is believed in faith. But the thing believed in faith concerning Christ's supper, is the manhood, and godhead of Christ. Therefore the self nature of God, and man, is received in mouth. What can be prentended here to the contrary?  
Cyrillus saith, The mystical blessing, 
Cyrillus lib. 10. in joan. c. 13.  when it is become to be in us, doth it not cause Christ to dwell corporally also in us, by the communicating of his flesh? Mark that the mean of Christ's dwelling corporally in us, is the receiving of the Sacrament. And with Cyrillus it is well known, 
Hilarius de trinit. lib. 8. Gregorius in evangelia homil. 22.  how thoroughly S. Hilary agreeth.  
Last of all S. Gregory saith: Quid sit sanguis Agni, non iam audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis. Qui sangus super utrumque postem ponitur, quando non solùm ore corporis, sed etiam ore cordis sumitur. In utroque etenim post 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, ut imitari passionem illius nec dum velit, in uno post sanguinem posuit. What the blood of the Lamb is, ye have now learned, not by hearing, but by drinking. This blood is put upon both the posts, when it is received not only by the mouth of the body, but also by the mouth of the soul. For the blood of the Lamb is put upon both posts, when the Sacrament of his passion is both received by mouth for our redemption, and is also earnestly thought upon in the mind, for imitation. For he that so receiveth the blood of his Saviour with this mind, that he is not yet willing to follow his Passion: hath put the blood but upon one post.  
The very same blood which is received with the mouth of the heart, is also expressly taught, to be received with the mouth of the body. It is not therefore bread, that entereth into the mouth of the body, and it is the flesh of Christ, that entereth into the heart. But the self same thing, which the heart feedeth on, entereth in at the mouth. These are such testimonies, that can never be avoided by any Answer, and at this present they may suffice for this controversy of the Real Presence. For what soever M. jewel bringeth, well may it perhaps prove a figure, which I grant, but that figure is also the truth: as it may appear by these witnesses now alleged. For the Fathers be not contrary one to the other, but agree all in one faith, and doctrine, specially in this matter, which was ever so continually believed and practised in the whole Church.    

That in old time many faithful at the celebration of the holy Mysteries stood by, who received not the Communion. The 6. Chapter.  
jewel. Pag. 225. 
Good men, saith M. Harding, withdraw themselves, and are contented to be present only, and to stand by, but receive not the sacrament. 
Ad ephes. homil. 3.  But Chrysostom saith, thou mayst no more stand here, than an Heathen, that never was christened.  
Harding.  
YOu ever make your advantage of untrue report. I did not call men good, for withdrawing themselves: but whereas in consideration of their unworthiness they would humbly withdraw themselves: I said, this desire to be present, and devoutly to stand by, 
Whom S. Chrysostom calleth a Catechumen, M. jewel interpreteth a Heathen.  was commendable. As for S. Chrysostom, you abuse him very much, by interpreting, whom he calleth a Catechumen, who is a learner of the faith, a Heathen as though they were Heathens, that profess the faith, which is taught in the school of Christ. It was truly an heathenish interpretation of yours.  
But that very place of S. Chrysostom proveth, it was become to be a custom in those days, the Christians to be present at the holy Mysteries, and to stand by, although they did not receive. And S. Chrysostom also suffered his own people and diocesans, so to do. How be it reproving them for negligence in not receiving, he vehemently exhorted and stirred them to oft receiving. Qua ratione Praecodicit, Abite, qui preces fundere non potestis? 
Chrysost. ad ephes. homil. 3.  Tu vero impudenter perstas. Verum non es istorum, sed de illis qui communicare possunt. Et tamen rem hanc nihil curas, nihil aestimas? (Item). Aduenisti, hymnum cecinisti, cum cimbus reliquis ex eorum te numero esse qui digni sunt, hoc ipso confessus es, quòd non cum indignis abscessisti. Quomodo cùm manseris, de mensa ista non participas? For what consideration saith the Crier of the Church, depart ye, that can not pray? Yet thou standest still impudently. But (thou wilt say) thou art none of those, but of them, who may communicate, and yet carest thou nothing for it, regardest it nothing? Item afterward. Thou art come hither, thou hast song an hymn, in this thy fact, that thou didst not depart with the unworthy, thou hast confessed thyself with all the rest, to be one of them, that are worthy. Wherefore then dost thou not participate of this table, seeing thou remaynedst behind?  
Thus we see, it was the custom for the faithful people, to be present at the mysteries, and to stand by, though they received not the communion. And albeit S. Chrysostom reproveth them for not communicating, yet he doth not excommunicate them, as breaking the order of the Church in tarrying. And yet if there had been such an order, he would have caused the Deacon no less to have driven them out, than the Catechumens, the possessed of Spirits, or the penitentes. But this odds there was, that they only were of necessity driven out of the Church, who though they would, might not communicate: But the rest that might communicate, did, and might tarry, albeit they would not communicate.  
Now a wise man (as M. jewel taketh himself to be) would understand, that how earnestly soever S. Crysostom speaketh, to provoke those that were present, to communicate: yet his meaning was not to burden them with any mortal sin for standing by without receiving the communion. His words therefore import a counsel rather than a precept. And verily of the two, it were less evil to stand by, and not to communicate, then neither to communicate, nor to stand by. Neither is the standing by that, which chief S. Chrysostom reproved, but the abstaining from the Communion. And there is no doubt, but if (whereas none at all by his own words did sometime communicate) S. Chrysostom had seen every one go out of the Church, and himself left alone: he would then as fast have called them in again, bidding them at the jest, to honour the Sacrifice with their presence, if they would not sacramentally communicate.  
S. Augustine crieth out upon those Heretics, 
Augustin. count. episto. Parmeniani. lib. 3. cap. 4.  that bring the words of the Prophets, which they spoke against the high Priests, and yet will not look to the deeds of the Prophets, who always remained in the same Church with those high Priests, whom they so much reproved. But now the Lutherans, and zwinglians, reproving us for certain things, depart from our company, faith, doctrine, and Church: wherein they have no example, neither of the Prophets, nor of the Fathers,    

Of Communion in one, or both kinds. The 7. Chapter.  
jewel. Pag. 229. 
M. Harding saith, neither Christ commanded, nor the Apostles ordained, that the Sacrament should be delivered to the people in both kinds. Certainly these words of Christ, Drink ye all of this, do this in my remembrance, are very plain words of commandment, and institution. 
In 1. Cor. homi. 27. 1. Cor. 11.  Therefore Chrysostom saith, that Christ said, both in the bread, and also in the cup, Do this in the remembrance of me. And Theophylacte, The reverend cup is in equal manner delivered to al. And whereas Christ saith, drink ye all of this, Paschasius putteth thereto these words, tam ministri, quàm reliqui credentes, as well the ministers, as the rest of the faithful.  
Harding.  

Matt. 26. The literal meaning of drink ye all of this.  THe literal sense of those words, Drink ye all of this: was none other, then that the Cup should be divided between all the twelve in such sort, that two, or three of them should not drink it up, as thinking to have it filled again for the rest: but that Peter should so drink, as to leave some for John, and John so, as to leave some for Androw, and so each man to leave some deal, till the very last man had drunk of that cup, once filled, and once consecrated: for to that end, this word (all) doth serve. And that may well appear by S. Luke, 
Luc. 22.  who giveth us Christ's words in this wise: Accipite, & dividite inter vos. Take ye, and divide it between you. Which words S. Augustine saith were spoken of the Cup of the new Testament. 
Augustin. de consensu Euangelistarum. lib. 3. c. 1. Enim. Matt. 26. Drink ye all of this, in what s●●se was it spoken. Marc. 14.  Divide this Cup between you, and drink ye all of this, doth make all one sense: and that may more plainly appear by the word, enim, (for) which doth follow in Christ's saying.— Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood. As if he said, were not this my blood, each of you might drink up the whole cup, if occasion of thirst so required. But now it is given, not to quench bodily thirst, but to nourish the Soul. Therefore drink ye so, that all may drink of this one Cup. Et biberunt ex illo omnes. And all they drank of it.  
Thus we see by the Circumstance of the place, that the word (all) doth nothing else, but warn them of the Mystery present in the Cup: whereof we may not infer that all, which at any time do communicate in one Church, must needs drink of one Chalice, as the Apostles did: as neither that there must be still twelve to drink of every Cup. For that was a Circumstance so used in Christ's Supper, as we can make no law thereof. The true law to direct us in that behalf, was committed to the Apostles, who taught the Church, that always at the Consecration it was needful for both kinds to be offered, and received: as well that the being of Christ's Soul apart from his Body at his death might be signified, as also, that the public Minister might wholly represent by his outward action, that here is all food necessary for man's comfort, whether it be meat, or drink that he needeth. As for the rest, it should be all one, whether they that communicated, received one, or both kinds: because the whole Body, Blood, Soul, and godhead of Christ is fully present in either kind.  
Concerning that S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact● have said, as well of the cup, as of the bread, Do this in my remembrance: it meaneth, that as well when we consecrate the Body, as when we consecrate the Blood, or when we receive either of them both, the end of our doing must be the memory of Christ's death.  
Whereas Paschasius addeth expressly, that the Ministers must as well drink of the Cup, as the rest of the faithful, you name us not the place, where we may find it: And therein you have done more politicly, then uprightly, or plainly. For in deed it maketh not for you. 
Paschasius speaketh of the spiritual eating or drinking. Paschasius ca 15.  Paschasius in that place disputeth of spiritual eating or drinking, and saith, that as well the faithful people, as the ministers, must drink spiritually of this Cup. His words immediately before are these: Solus Christus est qui frangit hunc panem, & per manus ministrorum distribuit credentibus, dicens, accipite, & bibite ex hoc omnes, tam ministri, quàm & reliqui credentes. It is Christ alone that breaketh this bread, and divideth it by the hands of his ministers unto the believers, saying, take ye, and drink ye all of this, as well ministers, as also the other believers, this is the Cup of my Blood. Lo as well the ministers, as all others are bid to drink of the bread or Cup indifferently, to wit of Christ, so that he speaketh no more of the Cup, then of the bread, but all in like wise of Christ alone. For Paschasius saith, 
ca 15.  that Christ broke the bread, saying, take ye, and drink ye all of this, this is the Cup of my blood. He then so mingleth the breaking of the bread with the drinking of the Cup, that a man may well perceive, that he rather spoke of the thing itself contained under those forms, then of either kind, or form by itself.   
jewel. Pag. 230. 
M. Harding himself is forced to confess by the report of Leo, 
Sermone 4. De qua drages.  that the first known devisers, and authors of his Communion in one kind, were the old heretics called the Manichees.  
Harding.  
Where have you any such word in all my book M. jewel? I must bear with you for custom's sake. 
M. jewel forgeth words upon his Adversary.  For this is your accustomed manner, to make me speak, that, which I never thought. It is to be understanded, that before the time of Leo, and in his time also, the manner and custom was, that the faithful people received either one, or both kinds, as their devotion served them. By occasion of which custom, 
The Manichees heresy denying Christ's true flesh.  the Manichees also covered their pestilent heresy, as they who believed, that Christ had no true flesh, and consequently no true blood, but only a fantastical, or apparent body without real truth of flesh and blood. They then perceiving, that at the mysteries some Christians used to receive one kind alone, mingled themselves always with them, and wholly abstained from the Chalice. Which thing when Pope Leo perceived, he gave a watch word thereof unto the people, saying, 
Sermone 4. De qua dragesim.  Cùm ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysterijs, ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant, ut interdum tutius lateant: o'er indigno Christi corpus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant. Whereas they, to hide, and cloak their infidelity, be so bold, as to be present at our Mysteries, they behave themselves so in the receiving of the Sacraments, that now and then they may lurk the more fafely. They receive with unworthy mouth the body of Christ, but as for the blood of our redemption, they utterly refuse to receive it.  
Now if these men came thus to the mysteries among the Christians to hide their heresy, and infidelity: it is not to be thought, that they alone received one kind. For than they had forthwith been betrayed. But whereas other men received either the body, or the blood, as occasion, or devotion required: the Manichees ever received only the body of Christ, and never the blood, and that with this false and heretical opinion, that Christ had no true blood. Gelasius then being Pope not long after Leo, willed all the Christians, who before were at liberty, to receive both kinds, that thereby all opportunity, and occasion might be taken from the Manichees any more so to lurk, and to cloak their impiety. Now to declare this much, is not to confess, that the Manichees were the first devisers of Communion under one kind. Wherefore you may have good leave M. jewel to take that spiteful Untruth to yourself home again.   
jewel. 230. 
You say, ye exhort the people to receive their maker. What Scripture, what father, what doctor ever taught you thus to say? It is the bread of our lord, 
In johan. Tract. 59  as S. Augustine saith, it is not our Lord. It is a creature corruptible, it is not the maker of heaven, and earth.  
Harding.  

johan. 6. That we receive our maker in the B. Sacrament.  Good words M. jewel, I pray you. Christ saith: he, that eateth me, shall also live for me. Was he, that spoke these words, the maker of heaven, and earth, or no? If he were, accursed be he, that deemeth him so to be. If he be our maker, and God, when we exhort men to receive him in the blessed Sacrament, why may we not exhort them to receive their maker? And the body of Christ hath no other person to rest in, or to be sustained of, beside him only, who being the Son of God, is maker of heaven and earth.  
You know, that our forefathers were taught to call it their maker, even as S. Augustine confesseth, that his people called the Sacrament of the Altar, vitam, life. 
The blessed Sacrament our Lord, and maker by verdict of S. Augustine. Augustin. in johan. Tract. 59 1. Cor. 11.  You make as though S. Augustine denied the Sacrament to be our Lord, which he never doth, but rather saith, Illi manducabant panem dominum, they did eat the bread their Lord: but judas did eat Panem Domini, the bread of our Lord, against our Lord Illi vitam, ille poenam, They did eat life, he did eat pain. For he that eateth unworthily (saith the Apostle) eateth damnation to himself. If the Apostles at the supper of Christ did eat only the Sacrament (for the scripture speaketh of none other thing eaten) and yet they did eat the bread, which is our Lord (as S. Augustine saith): Certainly the heavenly bread of the Sacrament is our Lord. But judas is said to have eaten the bread of our Lord against our Lord, because he did eat the Sacrament unworthily, and so he did not eat our Lord, as he is bread, that is to say, as he feedeth, but as he is a judge, and as he condemneth the unworthy eater to everlasting pain. For otherwise S. Augustine saith, 
Augustin. Epist. 162. judas did care his maker.  that judas did eat his maker. Sinit accipere venditorem suum, quod norunt fideles, pretium nostrum. He suffereth him that sold him, to receive our price, which the faithful knowe. Our maker was our price through his humane 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  because it is the body of Christ Wherefore you see, how little cause ye have to be so much offended with me, for saying, when we exhort the people to receive the blessed Sacrament, that then we exhort them to receive their maker.    

Of Transubstantiation, and M. jewels falsehood in that matter. The 8. Chapter.  
THe Real Presence is the ground of this doctrine. For seeing Christ said, 
Math. 26.  take, eat, this is my body, these being proper, and not figurative words, as it hath been showed before: it followeth thereof that the body of Christ, which is not made of nothing, is at the lest wise made really present by virtue of the Consecration, the substance of bread and wine converted 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 Christ. Likewise S. Chrysostom saith: Num vides panem etc.  
Seest thou bread? Seest thou wine? God forbidden. Think not so. Like as if wax be put into the fire, it is made like unto it, neither remaineth aught of the substance of wax: even so here think 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 Levit cap. 22.  Hesychius, 
d in johan. 6.  Theophylante, 
e. de orthodoxa fide. li. 4. cap. 14. Theophylact in ca Math. ●6.  Damascen, and all the other Fathers, teach the same doctrine, as it hath been oft told in other places.  
jewel. 239. 
What one word speaketh Theophylact either of your Transubstantiatiation, or of your Real Presence, or of your corporal, and fleshly eating?  
Harding.  
Can there be any greater impudency in the earth, then to save, that Theophylact speaketh not one word, of these points? Beside all that I have already brought out of Theophylact in my Confutation, how plain is he, where he writeth thus upon S. Matthew? Ineffabili operatione transiformatur, etiam si nobis videatur panis, quoniam infirmi sumus, et abhorremus crudas carnes comedere, maximè hominis carnem. Et ideo panis quidem apparet, sed re vera caro est. It is transformed by an unspeakable operation, although it seem bread to us, because we are weaklings, and do abhor to eat raw flesh, specially the flesh of man: And therefore it appeareth to be bread, but in deed it is flesh. Can these words be eluded, or shifted by your phrases, and figurative speeches? It seemeth bread, but in deed it is flesh, saith he, what is then become of the bread? It is transformed, or made over into another thing. Into what other thing, but into the flesh of Christ? And why remaineth the form of Bread, whereas in deed it is made flesh? Because (saith he) we abhor to eat raw flesh, and specially man's flesh. And yet speaketh not Theophylact one word of Transubstantiation, or of the Real Presence of Christ's flesh? Many other places in him are as plain as this, but he that hath such a face, as to deny this one, will not be moved, if we bring forth never so many. Having thus abused Theophylact, perhaps he will seem for antiquities sake to bear more reverence towards S. Ambrose, whom here he now taketh in hand.   
jewel. Pag. 246. 
S. Ambrose saith of the bread and wine, Sunt quae erant, & in aliud mutantur. They remain the same, that they were, and are changed into an other thing. 
S, Ambrose saith not so. Phie, what falsifying is this?  The natural creatures of the bread and wine in the supper of our Lord (saith S. Ambrose) remain still in substance, as they were before: yet are they changed into an other thing, that is to say, they are made the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which before they were not.  
Harding.  
Many other places M. jewel make me doubt, left you have your conscience marked with the sign of Antichrist, that is to say, lest, although you see, and know yourself to lie, and to falsify the holy Fathers, yet you will not yield unto the truth in any point. Much a do we had to persuade you, that Sabellicus wrote Decades: and I think you would never have granted it, except other men might have found the book in Paul's Churchyard, and so have seen your falsehood. But of all other impudencies, this which you stand in concerning this saying of S. Ambrose is not the  of al. 
Confutat. fol. 97.  For you defend it, and repeat it again and again, notwithstanding it was fully by me confuted: and yet it is so childish an error, that I can not think you to be deceived therein, but rather to be set desperately in defence thereof, for which ye have nor learning, nor reason, and only because you would not seem overcome. Who would think, that a man of your study, and learning, and of that place, would say and maintain it, that S. Ambrose meaneth bread and wine after Consecration, to remain still in substance that, which they were before?  

M. jewel defendeth his part by falsifying S. Ambrose Ambros. de Sacra. lib. 4. cap. 4.  To begin first here with the term of bread and wine is no part of S. Ambroses' words: it is your forgery, it is your corruption, it is one of your own falsifiyinge: His words are these: Panis iste, panis est ante verba Sacramentorum, ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Hoc igitur astruamus. Quomodo potest, qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis est, & cuius sermonibus? Domini jesus. Nam reliqua oina qua dicuntur, laus Deo defertur, oratio praemittitur propopulo, pro regibus, pro caeteris: ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile Sacramentum, iam nōsuis sermonibus sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum. Quis sermo Christi? Nempe is, quo facta sunt oina. jussit Dominus, et factum est coelum. jussit dominus, et facta est terra. jussit Dominus, et facta sunt maria. jussit Dominus, et omnis creaturage nerata est. Vides ergo quam operatorius sit sermo Christi. Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini jesu, ut inciperent esse, quae non erant: quantò magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? Coelum non erat, mare non erat, terra non erat. Sed audi dicentem: Ipse dixit, & facta sunt: ipse mandavit, & creata sunt. Ergo tibi ut respondeam, non erat corpus Christi ante Consecrationem, sed post Consecrationem dico tibi, quòd iam corpus est Christi. Ipse dixit, & factum est: ipse mandavit, & creatum est.  
This bread is bread, before the words of the Sacraments: when Consecration cometh to it, of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Let us confirm this. How can that, which is bread, be the body of Christ? By Consecration. With what words then is Consecration made, and with whose words? With the words of our Lord jesus. For as for all the rest, that is there said, praise is given to God prayer for the people is sent before, for kings, and for all other. When the Priest cometh to make this honourable Sacrament, he useth not now his own words, but the words of our Lord. The word therefore of Christ maketh this Sacrament. What word of Christ? Verily that wherewith all things were made. Our Lord commanded, and heaven was made. Our Lord commanded, and the earth was made. Our Lord commanded, and the seas were made. Our Lord commanded, and every creature was brought forth. Thou seest therefore how workeful the word of Christ is. If then so great force, and strength be in the word of our Lord jesus, that those things should begin to be, which were not: of how much more strength is it to work, that the things which were, be, that is to say, have a being, and be changed into another thing? The Heaven was not, the Sea was not, the Earth was not. But hearken to him who saith: He said, and they were made, he commanded, and they were created. Therefore that I may make thee an answer to this question, it was not the body of Christ before Consecration: but after Consecration I tell thee, that now it is the body of Christ. He said, and it was made, he commanded, and it was created.  
Who seeth not here this drift of S. Ambrose, to prove, that as the word, or speech of our Lord, made all things of nothing, even so it is much more able, to change one thing into another thing? And because I required M. jewel to construe S. Ambroses' words, which yet he would not do, though he promised to do it: I will construe them for him, and will show his extreme blindness, or rather his wilfulness in the understanding of that sentence. Ergo, then, si tanta vis est, if so great strength be, in sermone Domini jesu, in the speech of our Lord jesus, ut, that, quae non erant, the things which were not, inciperent esse, began to be, that is to say, to have a being: quantò magis operatorius est, how much more is our lords speech workful, ut, that, quae erant, the things which were, sint, be, that is to say, have a being, & in aliud commutentur, and be changed, into an other thing? By these words it is clear, that S. Ambrose here speaketh generally of all things, which God worketh by his word, and not particularly of bread, and wine.  
Now will I construe the same words, as M. jewel would have them to be taken. First, he understandeth, and supplieth, bread and wine, to be the nominative case to the verb, sint, be, or rather to the verb, Sunt, as for his advantage he altereth that holy Doctors words. Whereas it is evident, that in the same whole sentence, bread, and wine are not particularly once named.  
Secondly, he beginneth the construction with the verb (sint) whereas (quae erant) should go before it, as it may well appear by setting the one part of the comparison against the other. For the one part is thus to be set, Quae non erant incipiunt esse, the things which were not, begin to be. Therefore the other must be thus set accordingly: quae erant, sunt, & in aliud commutantur. The things which were, be, and be changed into an other thing.  
Thirdly, between quae, and erant, M. jewel conveyeth in a pronoun demonstrative, which hath no place there, saying, which (they) were, as if bread, and wine were respected. Again, you translate, Sunt, quae erant, they remain the same, that they were. And those words you put forth in great text letters. Is Sunt, to be englished, They remain the same? Sunt, is no more, but They be. If S. Ambrose would have said, as you untruly translate him, his words had been these, manent eadem: for that is the Latin of this your English, they remain the same.  
But S. Ambrose meaneth thus. Those things that were not, by God's word begin to be: And those that were, by God's word be also, but they be another thing. How so? Because they are changed into an other thing. But M. jewel beginning the construction amiss, teacheth us, that God's word causeth things to be, that they were, which is not S. Ambroses' mind. For than God's word should cause bread to be bread still, and that were only the conserving of creatures, and not a changing of creatures. But now all S. Ambroses' reason proceedeth to prove, that God's word is of force to change creatures, and he meaneth of change in substance. For all his comparison consisteth about the words, 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 only an other thing in quality, than they are only already a thing in quality, which is false. For the being that they have, is a certain substance or substantial being. Therefore the other being, or change, which they have, is an other substance.  
And I pray you, who would not wonder to see S. Ambrose labour so vehemently to prove, that God's word is able to change a creature in quality, as though a man were not able to change a thing in quality? Can not the Cutler make rusty iron bright? Can not a Pargeter make a brown wall white? Can not a Cook make cold liquor hot? And can not you M. jewel show yourself sometimes sweet, and quiet, sometimes eager, and waspish, sometimes a true man, more oftentimes a liar? Wherein standeth this great force and working of God's word, whereof S Ambrose speaketh? Sooth in the change of the substance of things. For as he began his disputation, before the words of Consecration, quoth he, the bread, is bread: but when Consecration is come unto it, de pane, from of bread it is made Christ's flesh. Mark, whence is the change made, from bread. And into what is it made? Into flesh. This then is that S. Ambrose must prove, That God's word hath power to change bread into flesh.  
To make short, this very sentence, whereof we now dispute, is in an other place thus uttered 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 non erant? The word 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 giveth an evident reason of his own words, saying: Non enim minus est novas rebus, dare, quàm mutare naturas. For it is not less, to give new natures unto things, then to change natures. As who should say, he that can give new natures, can much more change natures. Now sir, I pray you, when God giveth new natures, doth he not give new substances? When therefore he is said at the same time to work in changing natures, it is meant that he changeth substances, to wit, bread into the body of Christ, and wine into his blood. You have a guilty conscience M. jewel, if all this considered, yet you will hold your own, and say still, that S. Ambrose meant not a change in substance, but only in quality. For either you have lost your wit, or else you do see, to what purpose S. Ambroses' discourse goeth.  
Besides all this, consider good Reader, how S. Ambrose concludeth, and endeth this discourse: Ergo didicisti, quòd ex pane corpus fiat Christi. Now than thou hast learned, that of bread the body of Christ is made. His purpose then was to show, not that a new quality, but that a new substance was made by change of the old substance: Of bread (I say) the Body of Christ was made, and of wine was made his blood. And yet it appeareth not blood, 
Ibidem.  ut nullus horror cruoris sit, that there might be no abhorring of blood. But as in deed our sins are utterly taken away in Baptism, where the old Adam dieth, and a new creature is made in righteousness: even so although it appear not blood, yet in deed the old substance of the wine is changed into the new substance of the blood of our Saviour. Thus the bread, and wine are changed in substance, and yet keep still their old outward forms.   
jewel. pag. 248. & 249. 
What moveth you M. Harding to make this piteous out cry? We change not S. Ambroses' words, but report them simply, as we find them. These they are. Panis & vinum, sunt quae erunt, & in aliud mutantur. The bread and wine are the same that they were, and are changed into another thing.  
Harding.  
You have learned this falsehood of that false man Berengarius. Panis, and vinum are not there, and for that cause Lanfrancus denied those words so alleged by Berengarius to be in S. Ambrose. 
Lanfrancus in lib. de sacramento Eucharist.  Again in the Latin all these words lack, which you put in English, to wit (the same that they) there is no Latin I say for those words. The nominative case to, sint, is not bread and wine, but things imported by these words, quae erant, things which were. The sense is, the things which were, be, and be changed into an other thing. Bread and wine were, but they are not any more bread and wine: and yet they are somewhat, to wit, they are that, into which they are changed, that is, the body and blood of Christ. This only can be the meaning of S. Ambrose by the very literal construction of the place, as every man may see, that is able, and willing to construe, and parse it. As for M. jewel, he hath no way to shift his hands hereof, avoiding all lying and falsifying. I should be a shamed thus to descend to these Grammare points, were I not driven unto it by M. jewels untrue dealing.   
jewel. Ibidem. 
By this Logic, 
In Math. cap. 18.  where S. Jerome saith pride is changed into humility, M. Harding may say, it is changed, therefore pride is, or remaineth still.  
Harding.  
How so ever it like you to esteem my Logic, my Argument remaineth unanswered. If your skill in Logic were answerable to your boasting, you should see the difference between change of accidents, and change of Substances, whereof you seem ignorant. Howbeit, I said not the bread is changed, Ergo, bread remaineth still: it is you, that say so. I said the bread is changed into another thing. Ergo, it is. But I say not, that it is bread, but that it is that, into which it is changed. And therefore it hath a being, though it have not the same being in substance, which it had before consecration. For it is not made nothing (as you are wont to cavil of it) but is it made an other thing: and so it is still: but it is not that it was.  
Your example of pride, is more proudly, then wisely alleged. For pride is no substance, nor creature at al. Man only in his understanding considereth it as somewhat, whereas it is only a defect, and failing from humility. For God never made vice. Pride is a vice, and therefore  〈…〉 
But what shall a man say to this fellow? When the name of Substance seemeth to make for him, than it standeth properly, as the Philosophers use the word, which is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but when it seemeth to make against him, than it standeth for grace, faith, words, and Sacraments: which in some writers are named Substance, as the divines sometimes use the term, whereto the Greek term Hypostasis answereth, as S. Paul useth it, Heb. 11.  

How the Church is resolved in doubtful cases.  The truth is, that seeing words for the more part, are doubtful, ambiguous, and subject to cavils, Christ hath not planted his Church in such sort upon words, that his faithful members should thereby be divided into many sects. For as he considering our infirmity, left unto us his holy will conceived in such words, as men use in their common speech, he left also with those words a high Pastor, 
johan. 21. Luc. 22.  by whom we should be fed, for whose faith he prayed, and his prayer is heard. To which chief Pastor he gave power, and commandment to strengthen, and confirm his brethren. So that it is in deed little worth to hang of syllables, and letters, but it behoveth us always to seek for the meaning of the word. And because we should never agree among ourselves upon words: 
Math. 18.  he bond us to hear the Church, the chief and ordinary mouth whereof S. Peter was, whiles he lived, and after him the Bishops of Rome his Successors, have ever had the same place.  
He than that will be sure to know, how every word 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 chief Pastor.  

Act. 20.  Now that Pastor calling to him out of all the world the chief and best learned Bishops, ordained by the holy Ghost Governors of particular flocks, having seen, and heard all that might be said too and fro in the midst of four hundred threescore and ten Bishops, and of more than a thousand learned Divines besides, the assistance of the holy Ghost called for, mature deliberation had, and diligent examination of the Scriptures, and holy Fathers made, found, and by all their consent determined, 
Concil. Lateranen. ca 1.  that the substance of bread and wine (in the Sacrament of the Altar) is by the power of God's word changed into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood. After which determination we know, how Gelasius, and how Theodoritus must of necessity be understanded, if at the lest we will hear the Church, as under pain of damnation we are bound to do. This answer may suffice all the cavils, that are moved, and tossed by M. jewel touching nature, substance, subsistence, or any like word. All words are ambiguous, as S. Augustine confesseth. 
In lib. de Dialecti.  The highest judge in the highest court of Christendom hath given sentence. He that obeyeth, hath humility, and seeth his ground. He that being loath to seem deceived wrangleth, as M. jewel doth, is proud, vain, contentious, and disobedient: which custom Heretics have, and ever have had, but as S. Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 11.  the Church of God hath it not.   
jewel. Pag. 262. 263. 
To leave these unfruitful gheasses, we say that the cup of blessing, which Christ calleth the Cup of the new Testament notwithstanding it were made in a Mystery the Sacrament of Christ's Blood yet in nature and substance was very wine still and as Christ himself calleth it, the very fruit, and generation of the grape, as it was before. The words of the Evangelist S. Matthew are very plain.  
Harding.  
Would God, I could so clearly show to the Reader, as the weight of this matter requireth, how lewdly you play as well with the Gospel, as with me. It is not I M. jewel, that am inconstant in saying, now these words were spoken before consecration, and now after, and perhaps at both times, whereat you jest, and scoff: it is not I, that changed my mind. But whereas one of the Evangelists telleth the matter one way, and the other an other way, and whereas sometimes they tell things out of order, as yourself can not but grant: my answer must needs be such, as by all means to save the truth of the Gospel: that howsoever these words were spoken, which be obscure, yet the plain truth should not be hindered by them. You stick to the plain words of S. Matthew, as you say. And why sir I pray you, may not I as well claim, that S. Luke's words are as plain? 
Luc. 22.  I then have mine eye to both, and so make a distinction, showing how both together may be defended. You little esteeming S. Luke, talk to us only of S. Matthew: whereby you declare, that you believe none other evangelist, ne none other word of God, beside your own fancy.  
Likewise you dissemble, how diversly the Fathers have expounded the fruit of the Vine, and utter many words about a most known truth, 
The fruit of the vine.  which no man denieth, wherein as you deserve small praise of learning, so you lose among the wise the commendation of discretion. For answer to all which I say, that it is a certain case, and clear out of question, that there was wine in Christ's chalice, whereof the Sacrament should be made, and yet forsooth you would needs prove it in many Pages together. Again 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 will prove so plainly, 
That after consecration there was no more the substance of wine in Christ's cup. Luc. 22.  that you shall never be able to answer to it.  
Christ himself said (if at the lest you admit S. Luke's Gospel) This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood, which (cup) is shed (or, shallbe shed) for you. The Cup shallbe shed for us, saith Christ, that is to say, the liquor contained in the Cup, shallbe shed for us. But natural, or artificial wine was not shed for us, but only Christ's own Blood was shed for us: Ergo, only Christ's own Blood is in that Cup, and the substance of wine is not there at al.  
The words are plain, that, which is in the Cup, or chalice, shallbe shed for us: that was only Christ's Blood: Therefore only Christ's Blood is in the Cup or Chalice. But Christ's Blood is no wine, except we call it wine in such respect, as Christ himself is called the Vine, and the grape: Therefore no material wine of the common grape is in the Cup of Christ's Supper. 
Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 10.   
With these plain words agreeth the Doctrine of the old Fathers. S Chrysostom saith: Quod est in Calais, id est, quod è latere fluxit, & illius nos sumus participes. That which is in the Chalice, is that, 
Chrysost. in Ephe hom. 3.  which flowed from his side, and thereof we are partakers. And again Vasa non participant, nec sentiunt Sanguinem, quem in se habent, nos verò planè. The vessels partake not, ne feel not the blood, which they contain in them, but we do partake it. And as there Chrysostom saith, the vessels have the same blood of Christ for the time, which cometh to our hearts, and souls.  

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 Lamb (of the new Testament) hath given place to the bread (of the new Testament) being ignorant, that both then the show bread was wont to be put upon the table of our Lord, and that now also he taketh his part of the Body of the unspotted Lamb. He saith, that blood (of the old Testament) hath given place to the cup, not considering, that he now also receiveth blood in the Cup.  
Mark Reader this comparison of S. Augustine, that, as the old Fathers did eat of the Lamb, so do we of the true Lamb Christ: and as the Priests of the Law had blood in their basins, even so have we in our cup, whence we receive it. The odds only is, that their blood was only the blood of Calves, not able to cleanse man, but our blood is the blood of Christ, which cleanseth all sins. Our Sacraments therefore are the spiritual novelty of the new Testament, not lacking either Altar, or Fire, or Bread, or Lamb, or Blood, but having them all in Christ's Body, and Blood, into which the bread, and wine are so converted, that the very true and real blood of Christ is received in the cup.  
Oecumenius also saith: 
Oecumenius in cap. 11. 1. Cor.  Pro sanguine irrationalium Dominus proprium dat sanguinem, et bene in poculo, ut ostendat vetus testamentum ante à hoc delineasse. Our Lord in stead of the blood of unreasonable beasts, doth give his own blood, and it is well that he giveth it in a cup, to show that the old Testament did foreshadow this thing. Euthymius agreeth with the same Fathers. If then it be clear by Christ's own words, and by the interpretation of the Fahers, that the same blood, which was shed for us, and which ran out of Christ's side, was in the cup, and that thence it is partaken, seeing that wine was not shed for our redemption: it is clear, that after Consecration wine was not in Christ's cup, except (as I said before) we take wine by a metaphor, as Christ is the vine, and his blood is the wine of that vine which Christ is.  
Notwithstanding that I have great advantage in the rest of M. jewels words, yet seeing this much doth suffice for the Catholic reader, I will not spend more words therein, but will pass away to some other matter.  
Concerning the adoration of the Sacrament, 
Adoration.  there is much more said of it in mine own, and in other men's books, then as yet M. jewel, or all his fellows have answered. And that thing wholly dependeth of the real presence.    

Of applying the merits of Christ's Death to others in the Mass. The 9 Chapter.  
Harding.  
We never taught, that by our Masses, we applied and distributed all the merits of Christ's death to men, how soever they were disposed.  
jewel. Pag. 297. 
The most catholic pillars of your catholic Church (as namely Caietanus) have said, that faith is not necessary for him, that receiveth the Sacrament of thanksgiving: notwithstanding he acknowledgeth this was an error.  
Harding.  
What vanity is this, to lay that to Cardinal Caietane, which yourself confess, he defendeth not, but acknowledgeth to be an error? The words by you alleged out of a book made by one, 
Paralip. Vrsper. anno. 1518.  that was as false a brother, as yourself, do mean no more, but that a man may receive Christ's body, albeit he have no faith, as judas did. What is this to the purpose, that we speak of? Moreover, if cajetan once had thought (which he never did) that by the Mass we apply Christ's merits to men not well disposed: yet seeing you say, he took it for an error afterward, by this mean I might prove, that M. jewel were a Papist, because once he professed the belief of the Catholic Church, when verily that Church was only meant by Godfathers, Godmothers, and the Ministers, which had the Sacrifice of the Mass, and prayers to the Saints, and Prayers for the Dead.  
But you can not M. jewel allege us any one man, that saith, that by the Mass we apply the merits of Christ to men, howsoever they be disposed. Neither doth Gabriel Biel, nor jacobus de Valentia, 
De venerab. Sacramento altaris. c. 1.  nor S. Thomas teach so, whose words you corrupt with false translation, englishing, Pro quotidianis delictis, for the debt of daily sins, where debt is not in the Latin. And in deed the debt of all sins, as well actual, as original, was taken away by the Sacrifice of the Cross. But we see evidently, that the act, or actual doing of all sins was not then taken away. For even now faithful men do sin daily. Therefore we need still a daily Sacrifice of none other substance, then that of the Cross was, but even of the very same substance, which substance hath in it all his merit of the Cross. And thus we offer Christ's body, and blood, not now in truth by bloodshedding (as once only upon the Cross it was offered) but in mystery, by changing the bread, and wine into his body, and blood. We offer it thus I say, to apply unto devout persons by faith, and sacraments, the merit of the Cross, praying unto God, that the death of Christ, which is ever available in itself, may (through his blood, which we offer in the chalice, and drink with our mouth, and partake in our souls by faith and charity) be made availeabe unto us.   
jewel. 
Catharinus one of the Worthies of your late chapter of Trident, saith, 
Deincruento Sacrificio.  Apparet etc.  
Harding.  
Whatsoever he said, he is none of our Worthies, nor yet is he allowed of the Council of Trent, when soever in any matter of Doctrine he speaketh otherwise, than that Council doth, I doubt much M. jewel, how in the judgement of wisemen these boish flouts become a man of your profession, in that so vainly you praise unto us, now Peter Lombard, now Gratian, now the Gloser upon him, now Lorichius, now Cusan, now Catharinus, now cajetan, now Alphonsus, now Pighius, now Bitontino, and I can not tell how many more. As though we leaned to them, more than to the Scriptures, or to the ancient Fathers. If you will know, what we believe, and will not be deceived therein, read the Council of Trent, the doctrine I mean of the Canons in the same decreed, and so shall you not lose your labour. We tell you, though ye be not ignorant thereof, that sundry things have been said, and written by Glosers, which we defend not, no more than you defend, either all bawdy Bales lies, all Luther's devilish doctrines, 
Beza in c. Luc. 22.  or all Bezas filthy verses, wicked writings in defence of heinous acts, and blasphemies against S. Luke's Gospel. And yet Catharinus saith not that, which you should prove, when all is done. He saith in deed fond, but he uttereth not that fondness, which you lay to us, as his words, and yours, do show to him, that listeth to read both.   
jewel. 
We receive the merits of Christ's death only by faith.  
Harding.  
That we receive the merits of Christ's death by faith, 
The merits of Christ's death be not received by Faith only.  we grant, but that by only faith we receive them, it is a false doctrine, and repugnant to many express sayings of the holy Scriptures. God according to his mercy hath saved us (saith S. Paul) by the washing of the second birth, and of the renewing of the holy Ghost. 
Tit. 3.  By receiving salvation, we receive the merits of Christ's death: but we receive salvation by Baptism, Ergo, we receive the merits of Christ's death by Baptism. And sith that Baptism is not faith, but a different grace from faith, verily we receive not the merits of Christ's death by faith only.  
Again the merits of Christ's death are received of him, whose sins are forgiven. 
Christ's Merits received by Love, or charity. Luc. 7. 1. Cor. 13.  But Marry Maudelenes sins being many, and great, were yet forgiven her, because she loved much, as Christ himself said: and yet love is not faith, for S. Paul saith, faith, hope, and charity are three things: Wherefore the merits of Christ's death are not received of us by faith only. The like Arguments might I make out of God's word, for the fear of God, for hope, and for many other virtues, and specially for the grace of God, 
Matth. 5.  whereby we suffer unjustly for righteousness sake. For as Christ specially was exalted according to his manhood in glory, for that in humility, and meekness he suffered most unjustly: 
Philipp. 2.  even so he granteth to them the greatest merits of his death, who by his grace suffer together with him unjustly for the defence of his justice, as the holy Apostles, and Martyrs have done. That, 
in joan. tractatu. ●0.  which M. jewel here saith out of S. Augustine, that the water of Baptism worketh, because it is believed, proveth Faith to be necessary, which thing we grant: but it proveth it not to be sufficient alone, which was the point we sp●ke of.   
jewel. Pag. 29●. 
Hesychius saith, the grace of Go● is received by only faith. 
in levit. lib. 4. ca 14.   
Harding.  

Lib. 4. cap. 14.  You l●aue out half, as your custom is. For Hesychius saith, The grace of God is received by faith alone, non ex eperibus, ut Paulus dicit, not of works, as S. Paul saith. Nam gratia iam non erit gratia. For if the grace of God were deserved by works, now grace were not grace. Thus Hesychius saith, that God's grace is received by faith alone, only to exclude their vain opinion, who thought works, which were without faith, to deserve faith, or justice, which is not so. For we are justified freely without works, that may deserve the grace that God giveth. Yet it is not denied, but that, when faith is given us, then hope in God, and the love of him is also given us. By which hope, and love spread in our hearts, we receive the merits of Christ, and not by faith only.  
For Purgatory matters we refer you to M. Allens Book, and to that I said thereof in my Confutation, which is more railed, and scoffed at, then answered.    

Of the Intercession made to Saints to pray for us. The 10. Chapter.  
jewel. Pag. 311. 
If Christ only be the mediator of Salvation, wherefore do you thus call upon the blessed virgin Christ's mother, salva omnes, qui te glorificant? Save thou all them that glorify thee. Here ye intrude upon Christ's office.  
Harding.  
A Wrangler will never lack words. 
Save us o blessed virgin, in what sense is i● taken.  Whereas you know by our doctrine, and profession, that we believe, not the blessed Virgin, but only Christ to be our mediator, what fish you for words to trap us in them? When we say to the Virgin, save us, we mean thus: pray for us to God, that we may be faved. And herein we speak, as S. Paul did speak, who saith to Timothee: doing thus (that is to say, preaching, and giving good example of life) & teipsum saluum facies, 
1. Tim. 4.  & eos qui te andiunt. Thou shalt save both thyself, and those that hear thee. What? Doth S. Paul make Timothee a mediator and Saviour in these words? They are thus well meant: Thou shalt be a mean to save thyself, and others, that is to say, whereby the sooner salvation may freely for Christ's sake be given of God to thee, and to others. Even so, save us virgin, is to say, O virgin pray to God, and to thy son jesus, that through his death salvation may be given unto us. I might bring many such speeches out of the holy Scriptures, if I thought this might not suffice. He is a contentious wrangler, who knowing our meaning, doth pike quarrels of dissension upon words only, taken in evil sense, the good sense dissembled.   
jewel. 

Ibidem.  Wherefore say ye thus of Thomas Becket: O Christ make us to ascend unto heaven, whither Thomas is ascended, even by the blood of Thomas, that he shed for thy sake. Here you seek salvation in the blood of Thomas.  
Harding.  
This is an objection for a Cobbler, as the other was, and not for a Divine, 
How it is lawful to say in prayer. super Thomae Sanguinem, and the like. isaiah. 37.  whose duty it were to depend of things, and not of words. Albeit you make it otherwise to your advantage, than the Latin words report, yet thus we say: It is lawful to ask mercy of God only for his own sake: it is lawful also at the time of ask mercy, to present to him the remembrance of any gift, or grace of his.  
God himself saith by his Prophet Isaias: Protegem civitatem istam ut saluem eam propter me, & propter david servum meum. I will defend this city to save it for mine own sake, and for n1g-nn's sake my servant. Now because we know, it was a most gracious gift of God, that he gave S. Thomas grace to die for his honour: when we desire to be helped by his blood, representing the memory of S. Thomas unto Christ our Saviour, and as it were putting him in mind of his death suffered for his sake, we desire to have God's grace the sooner given unto us through that mercy, which he showed to the said S. Thomas. 
Philip. 1.  Scio quia hoc mihi prouen●et ad salutem, per vestram orationem, & subministrationem spiritus jesu Christi. I know (saith S. Paul) that this thing shall help forward my salvation, by your prayer, and by the help of the spirit of jesus Christ. 
Prayer of good men and Gods spirit joined together in healping us.  Here are joined together two things: the prayer of good men, and the help of the spirit of Christ. They are both uttered by this syllable, per, by or through.  
But what? Is S. Paul become blasphemous, because he joineth men's prayers with God's spirit? No, no. He meant, that the prayer of men might help him, not of themselves, but by God's gift. But the spirit of Christ was able to help him of itself, as being the spirit of God. And yet those two helps so far unlike, are put together in one sentence, and expressed by one kind of speech. But it is not a phrase of speech, which maketh the difference, it is the heart of the faithful, which distinguisheth al. Your words be fair M. jewel, but your heart unwares to yourself doth honour the Idol Caluine, more than Christ jesus. For you are ashamed of Christ's old Church, and deformed spouse, as you think: But the trim strumpet of Caluins setting out, pleaseth you right well. It is that fowl, and blind heart of yours, that shall condemn you, and not letters, or syllables, which in all your books you hunt after. Whatsoever our words be, you may assure yourself, our faith, and heart putteth difference enough between S. Thomas Becket a good man, and Christ jesus God, and man. If it shall please you to confer this prayer touching S. Thomas with a prayer that I shall anonne allege out of S. Ephem, I trust, you will revoke your rash judgement, wherein you condemn the Catholic Church for this, and the like prayers.   
jewel. Pag. 312. 
You in your imagination of the Saints of God have made Idols.  
Harding.  
It is you that have made Idols of the enemies of God, to wit, of Luther, of Calvin, of Peter Martyr your master, and of others the like. As for our honour given to the Saints, it is no greater, than the primitive Church gave to them, that is, that they hear us in Christ, and pray in great charity for us. And so did all the old Fathers believe, as being so taught of the Apostles. S. Irenaeus so nigh unto the Apostles, 
S. Marry the virgin is the advocate of Eue. Irenaeus li. 5.  doubted not to say, that the Virgin Marie obeyed God, Vti virginis Euae Maria virgo fieret advocata. That the Virgin Marie should be made the advocate of the virgin Eue. And yet doth he not make her equal thereby with Christ. For our Lady is in an other sense, and sort our advocate, than Christ is. Christ by right may plead for us, the Virgin Marie by grace may entreat for us.  
S. Gregory Nazianzene, who prayed himself to S. Basil being departed this life, 
Gregorius in monodia. Idem. in laudem Cypriani. Hilarius in psalm. 124. Homil de 40 martyribus.  reporteth thus of S. Cyprian, Virginem Mariam rogavit, ut periclitanti virgini opem ferret. He desired the Virgin Marie to help the Virgin which was in danger.  
S. Hilary saith, we have no small garrison in the Apostles, and in other Saints.  
S. Basil speaking of the forty Martyrs, saith, He that is pressed with any calamity, ad hos confugiat, ut à malis liberetu●. Let him flee to these, that he may be delivered from evil things, hos oret, let him pray unto these, etc.  
S. Hieromes mind is well known writing against Vigilantius. 
Hom. 66. ad populum Antioch.   
S. Chrysostom saith, that the Emperor (the pride of his purple laid a side) stat Sanctis supplicaturus, standeth to make his supplication to the Saints, that they make intercession for him to God.  
S. Augustine showeth it to be a commodity, 
De cura pro mort. gerenda. cap. 4.  that Christian men should be buried nigh to the Saints, that the friends of the dead, eisden Sanctis tamquam patronis susceptos apud Dominum adinuandos, orando commendent: that the friends of the dead may by making their prayer, commend the dead, as clientes to the same Saints, as to their patrons, by them to find help with God. 
Theodorit. De curatio. graecarum affect. li. 8,   
Theodoritus at large treateth of this matter, saying, that they which go on Pilgrimage, pray unto the Martyrs to be their companions on the way, not (saith he) that they make them Gods, but they pray unto the Martyrs, as being the men of God. He showeth moreover, that after their return, some dedicated Images, or figures of Eyes, some of Hands, some of feet made in silver, or gold. S. Paulinus, S. Leo, S. Gregory, S. Bede, and all the other holy and learned Fathers, agree herein.   
jewel. Pag. 313. 
Whereas ye teach the people thus to pray unto the blessed Virgin, Monstra te esse Matrem, command thy son, use thy motherly authority over him, let him know thee to be his mother, this you say, is no blasphemy, but a spiritual dallying. Now verily this must needs be a blessed kind of Divinity, that can turn prayer into dalliance.  
Harding.  
You scoff well, but what say you to my reason, that the spouse in the Canticles dallieth in such sort with Christ her spouse? Why is the word jested at, and the reason let pass? But sir I pray you, who taught you to english, Monstra te esse matrem, Command thy Son. where have ye these words, let him know thee to be his mother? Monstrare, is to show, you know. The English of monstra te esse matrem, 
Monstra te esse matrem.  is, show thyself to be a mother, and it may well be understanded, by relation made as well towards us, as towards Christ: Towards him by nature, towards us by affection.  
But do not the words next following sufficiently declare the matter? Sumat per te preces, qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus. Show thyself to be a mother, let him take prayers by thee, that is, offer prayers unto him who for our sakes was content to be thy son. So that all this notwithstanding, we may demand of you, where it is written, that we bid our Lady to command her son. For which demand you scoff at M. Cope, without wit, 
Pag. 313.  or reason calling him, One of my Beauperes of Louvain. Why you should so call him, I know not, nor yourself, I believe. For Beaupere in french, is a Father in law. And neither I have married his daughter, nor he my mother. You say likewise of him full wisely, that, he as a man carrieing his face in his hand, saith boldly, etc. I doubt how this boyerie may seem to become so old a Minister. But let such toys go.  
Neither did I grant you, that it was so written, but I said in case it were so written, or said, yet it might be well taken, if it came to an honest man's interpretation. For to the unclean, nothing is clean, because their own conscience is unclean.  
Bembus for calling our Lady Deam, 
Pag. 314. Our lady called Dea by Pet. Bembus.  (for which you storm so much) is not commended of us, howbeit it came rather of a poetical, or a Ciceronian spirit, coveting overmuch to use the old Latin profane terms, then of any unbelief, or heresy.  
I think no man called our lady God's fellow, which you impute unto us. The Latin words, which you bring, may be well taken by relation to Christ, to wit, that whereas all others forsook Christ at his passion, yet our lady his mother stood by him, as a most faithful keeper of her sons company.  
If you find fault with the Council of Oxford 
The Council of Oxford.  for leaving out Christ's name, we take it not left out, where his father is named, with whom he is one substance. 
Heb. 1.  Otherwise you may find great fault with S. Paul, who sometimes nameth God the father, without mention of the Son, and them both without the holy Ghost. But where no contempt is, these omissions are not imputed.   
jewel. 314. 
You say, the blessed virgin hath more grace given her, 
De sanctae virginitate. ca 3.  than any creature: except ye can name a greater grace (say you) then to be the mother of God. Verily M. Harding, to be the child of God, it is a great deal greater grace, then to be the mother of God, as S. Augustine saith.  
Harding.  
If our Lady were the mother of God, and not the child of God also, it were somewhat that you bring out of S. Augustine. But sith that she is both, and because I being sure of it, thought you had believed it too: thereupon I said, that our Lady being as she is, was above all creatures in grace. For she is the child of God with many others, but she is the natural mother of God above all others. Now when we tell the excellency of any person, I had thought, we should specially have told that, wherein the same passed all others, and not that, which is common with many others. But a man may well perceive, that M. jewel goeth about to bring the blessed Virgin into contempt, by which way so ever he may bring it about: as though the way to honour the Son, were to dishonour the Mother.   
jewel. Pag. 315. 
But touching the matter itself,  
Harding.  
I cry you mercy M. jewel, have you been a wandering all this while, and now at the very end come you first to touch the matter? In deed you leave it full oft untouched, every where in manner, taking an occasion of some buy word to fall into your peevish gloss, and into your common Phrases, letting pass the chief point of the question. But now touching the matter, what say you?   
jewel. 315. 

Ad Rom. c. 1.  S. Ambrose saith, Therefore we are brought to the presence of kings by Lords, and officers, because the king is a man, and knoweth not to whom he may commit his realm. But to obtain God's favour, to whom nothing is secret, and knowing what every man is meet to have, we need no spokesman, but a devout mind. For where so ever such a one speaketh to God, God will answer him.  
Harding.  
Remember you what you promised? 
Answer to S. Ambrose,  Said you not, you would touch the matter of praying to saints? Verily. S. Ambrose speaketh these words of the unbelieving Gentiles, who despised God, and putting the hope of their Salvation in God's creatures, made to them Gods, and Idols of them, and adored them, and prayed to them, as if there had been many Gods. And they prayed to them so, as though the highest God, (whom they acknowledge by discourse of reason after a sort) had need of their help, as not being able to know all, and to govern all things alone. So that they despising God, adored the Sun, the Moon, the Stars and other Creatures, as S. Paul in that Chapter saith, and S. Ambrose expoundeth.  
But now what say you touching the matter M. jewel? 
Rom. 1.  Would you not know S. Ambroses' mind therein gladly? I dare say, you would not. And if a man might look into your heart, I think he should espy, that you know for certainty, that S. Ambrose thought not of praying to Saints, as you do: Or else verily you are not so well seen in S. Ambrose, as I took you to be.  
Howsoever it be, I will here give the reader a taste of S. Ambroses' mind, touching the very matter of praying to the Saints which live with Christ. 
Ambros. in lib. de viduis. S. Ambroses' mind touching praying to the Saints.  Rogaverunt pro vidua Petrus, & Andreas. utinam existat aliquis, qui tam citò possit rogare pro nobis, vel certè iste, qui pro socru rogat Petrus, & Andreas frater eius. Tunc enim pro affinitate poterant, nunc iam possunt pro nobis, & pro omnibus impetrare. Videtis enim, quòd magno peccato obnoxia minus idonea sit, quae pro se precetur, certè quae prose impetret. Adhibeat igitur ad medicum alios precatores. Aegri enim, nisi ad eos aliorum precibus medicus fuerit invitatus, pro se rogare non possunt. Infirma est car●, mens agra est, & peccatorum vinculis impedita, ad medici illius sedem debile non potest explicare vestigium. Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis, qui nobis ad praesidium dati sunt: Martyrs obsecrandi, quorum videmur nobis quoddam corporis pignore patrocinium vendicare. Possunt pro peccatis rogare nostris, qui proprio sanguine, etiam si qua habuerunt peccata, laverunt. Isti enim sunt Dei Martyrs, nostri praesules, speculatores vitae actuumque nostrorum. Non erubescamus eos intercessores nostrae infirmitatis adhibere, qui & ipsi infirmitatem corporis etiam cùm vincerent cognoverunt.  
Peter and Andrew prayed for the Widow. Would God there were some body, who would so speedily pray for us, yea that it were this Peter, who prayeth for his mother in law, and Andrew his brother: for than they might for their kinsfolk obtain, but now they may obtain for us, and for all others. For ye see, that a woman being thrall to a great sin, is not so fit to pray for herself, at lest to obtain for herself. Let her therefore use some other man's help, and prayer to the Physician (for her). For they that are sick, unless the Physician be brought to them by the means and prayers of others, can not (come and) desire him themselves. The flesh is feeble, the mind is sick, and so entangled in the bands of sin, that it can not set forth her faint and feeble foot towards the seat of that Physician. The Angels are to be called upon for us, who are given unto us to be our Guard. The Martyrs are to be prayed unto, of whom it seemeth we may (as it were) challenge a certain assistance, for that we have their bodies in pledge. They may well pray for our sins, who with their own blood have washed away their own sins, if they had any. For these are the Martyrs of God, our chief Prelates, and the overlookers of our life, and doings. Let us not be ashamed to use them as intercessors for our infirmity, whereas they themselves even then when they wan the victory, knew well the infirmity, and weakness of the body.  
This place M. jewel, showeth, that S. Ambrose, who will not have any man to flee to Idols, would have all faithful men to pray to the Saints for them. And yet you for lack of better stuff, were feign to make your Reader believe, that the words written against the accursed Idols, might be applied by you against the blessed Apostles, and Martyrs. Whereby you show, what good opinion you have of that blessed company of the house of God, who reigning with him in heaven, see in the face of the Lamb our hearts, so far as belongeth to their joy, and our comfort.  
This one place of S. Ambrose might have sufficed, 
The practice of the Church touching the prayer to Saints, and honour to them exhibited  but it shallbe good, that we join therewith the practice both of the Church in those days, and also of the Heretics, that as well the Catholics may see, how the Saints were esteemed in old time, as M. jewel may perceive, that he is not the first heretic, whom it grieved to see God's Martyrs so to be honoured, as they are among the Catholics. Let us then hear what S. Paulinus writeth in the life of S. Ambrose, who lived in his time. 
Paulinus in vita Ambros●.  Per idem tempus sancti Martyrs Protasius, & Geruasius se sacerdoti revelaverunt. Erant enim in Basilica positi, in qua sunt hody corpora Naboris, et Felicis Martyrum. Sed sancti Martyrs Nabor & Felix celeberrimè frequentabantur: Protasij verò & Geruasijs Martyrum, ut nomina, ita etiam sepulchra incognita erant: in tantum, ut suprà ipsorum sepulchra ambularent omnes, qui vellent ad cancellos pervenire, quibus sanctorum Naboris, & Felicis Martyrum ab iniuria sepulchra defendebantur. Sed ubi sanctorum Martyrum sunt corpora levata, & in lecticis posita, multorum ibi Satanae aegritudines perdocentur. Coecus etiam severus nomine, qui nunc usque in eadem basilica quae dicitur Ambrosiana, in quam Martyrum corpora sunt translata, religiosè seruit, ubi 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 sed●ri coepit persecutio quae justinae furori accendebatur, ut Sacerdos de Ecclesia pelleretur. Tamen intra palatium multitudo Arianorum cum justina constitute deridebat tantam Dei gratiam, quam Ecclesiae suae Catholica Dominus jesus 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 judaico 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 daemons, Scimus vos Martyrs: Et Ariani dicebant, Nescimus esse Martyrs.  
About this time the holy Martyrs Protasius, and Gernasius revealed themselves to S. Ambrose. For they were buried in the Church, where at this day are the bodies of the Martyrs, Nabor and Felix. But men haunted very much unto the holy Martyrs, Nabor, and Felix, and as for the Martyrs Protasius, and Gernasius, as their names were unknown, so were also their Graves, where they lay, in so much that men, that were desirous to come to the Grates, wherewith the tombs of the blessed Martyrs, Nabor, and Felix, were fenced from injury, walked upon their graves.  
But after that the bodies of the blessed Martyrs were taken up, and laid in their cofines, that many were there cured of their Diseases, it is well known. 
Severus a blind man by touch of martyrs garment, received fight.  A blind man named Severus, who at this day full devoutly serveth in the same Church, now called S. Ambroses' Church, whither the bodies of the Martyrs were translated: after that he had once touched the garment of the Martyrs, forthwith received his fight. Many bodies also possessed of wicked Spirits were cured, and returned home with great grace. But how much the faith of the Catholic Church by these benefits of the Martyrs grew more and more, so much did the perfidious falsehood of the Arians wax less and less. Finally after this the persecution, which was enkindled by the rage of justina the Empress, which sought to drive Saint Ambrose out of his Church, began to slake. Nevertheless the rabble of the Arians, who were in the Court with justina, scoffed at this great grace of God, which it pleased our Lord jesus to bestow upon his Catholic Church through the merits of his Martyrs. And they bruited abroad that the reverend Bishop Ambrose had hired men with money, that should feign themselves to be vexed with unclean Spirits, and say, that they were as well tormented by S. Ambrose, as by the Martyrs. But this the Arians like very jews uttered, as being (in malice) their own companions. For the jews said of our Lord: He casteth out devils in Beelzebub the Prince of devils. But the Arians said of the Martyrs, and of S. Ambrose the Priest of our Lord, that the unclean Spirits were not cast out by the grace of God, which wrought by them, but that men hired with money, feigned themselves to be tormented. For the devils cried out: We know you to be Martyrs, But the Arians said, we know not them to be Martyrs. Thus far S. Paulinus.  
Do you know your Father M. jewel, if ye saw him? I mean not your natural Father, would God you were so good a man, and of so good a faith, as he was. But I mean your other father, that begote Arius, whose younger brother you are. At that time the Arians mockte at the miracles wrought by the Saints, and that at their Tombs, even as you do now. But at that time the Catholics honoured the Saints, as we do now. If the Arians were heretics, you know your brethren.  

How S. Ephrem prayed for the help of Saints, and to the Saints.  Before I conclude this matter touching praying unto Saints, I would the Reader to understand, what good men thought thereof twelve hundred years ago. It may be conceived by that we find in S. Ephrem that blessed man, whom S. Basil esteemed so much. Thus he saith speaking unto God. Grex tuus electus, 
Ephraem De Compunctione cordis. li. 1 cap. 13.  Monachorum quoque conventus, & omnium Sanctorum, qui placuerunt ante te, qui nunc in Paradiso exultant, iam deprecantur pro me, & obsecrant te solum amatorem hominum. Exaudies quoque eos, & saluabis me obsecrationibus eorum. Ego verò per eos tibi gloriam & laudem offeram, qui exaudisti orationem eorum, & misertus es mihi, & non despexisti petitiones eorum, quae pro salute animae meae profusae sunt.  
Thy chosen Flock, and company of Monks, and of all the Saints, that have been acceptable before thee, who now rejoice in Paradise, at this present do pray for me, and be suitors unto thee the only lover of men. Thou shalt hear them, and shalt save me for their prayers. And I shall offer glory, and praise up unto thee, who hast heard their prayers, and hast mercy of me, and hast not despised their requests, which have been made for the health of my soul.  
Some will say perhaps, This place witnesseth, that the Saints pray for us, but not that we may pray to the Saints. Who so ever is desirous to see this point witnessed by holy Ephrem, let him read a prayer, that he made in praise of our Lady the virgin Marie. Where she is honoured with these high titles, without prejudice of Christ's glory, Regina omnium, spes desperantium, spes Patrun, 
Ephraem. in orati. de Sanctiss. Dei Matris laudibus.  gloria Prophetarum, omnium Princeps, omnium Dux. The Queen of all, the hope of them that be without hope, the hope of the Fathers, the glory of the Prophets, Princess of all, the captain of al. Yea further praying unto her he saith, which M. jewel will evil abide, Per te reconciliati sumus Christo Deo meo filio tuo. Tu peccantium, & auxilio destitutorum adiutrix. Tu portus procella vexatorum, solatium mundi, carcere clausorum liberatrix celeberrim●●. Tu Orphanorum susceptio, tu captivorum redemptio, tu agrotantium exultatio, & omnium salus. By thee we have been reconciled unto Christ my God thy Son. Thou art the helper of them that sin, and be forsaken of help. Thou art the heaven of them that are tossed with tempest, thou art the comfort of the world, the famous deliverer of them that are shut up in the Prison. Thou art the receipt of Orphans, thou art the redemption of them that be taken Prisoners, thou art the rejoicing of them that be sick, and the health of al.  

These petitions stand not in this order together. But they are truly reported.  Item he saith there: Sub alis tuis custodi me, & besiege. Miserere mei, quisum luto inquinatus, qui sceleribus quàm plurimis Creatorem Deum meum, et judicem offendi. Non mihi alia fiducia ô virgo sincera. Imple os meum gratia dulcedinis tua. Illumina mentem ô gratia plena. Keep me, and defend me under thy Wings. Have mercy of me, that am defiled with dirt, that have with very many wicked deeds offended the Creator my God, and judge. I have none other trust, o pure Virgin. Fill my mouth with the grace of thy sweetness. Lighten my mind o full of grace.  
Item there he saith further. Dignare virgo te tuum servum laudare, & dicere: ave Dei splendidissimum, & luculentissimum vas. ave Pax, Gaudium, & Salus mundi: ave vallum fidelium, & mundi Salus. ave progenitoris illius Adam Resurrectio, ave refugium peccatorum, & hospitium, ave propitiatorium laborantium. ave spes omnium proborum adversis casibus afflictorum. ave mundi Mediatrix gloriosissima, ave universi terrarum orbis conciliatrix. ave porta coelorum, ascensus omnium, ave reseramentum portarum Paradisi, ave clavis Coelorum, & regni Christi. ave portus optime huius vita Nautarum, ave animae meae spes bona & fida, ave Christianorum omnium firma salus.  
vouchsafe Virgin, that I thy servant praise thee, and say: Hail the brightest, and clearest Vessel of God. Hail Peace, Joy, and health of the world. Hail Bulwark of the faithful, and health of the world. Hail Resurrection of Adam that first Father of ours. Hail refuge, and herborough of sinners, hail propitiatory of them that labour. Hail hope of all good folk oppressed with adversities: Hail most glorious Mediatresse of the world, hail reconciler of all the round world. Hail gate of heaven, the ascending up of all, hail the unlocking of Paradise gates. Hail key of heaven, and of the kingdom of Christ. Hail the best haven of the Mariners of this life. Hail good, and trusty hope of my Soul. Hail the strong health of all Christians.  
Consider Reader, whether, Tu per Thomae sanguinem, Whereat M. jewel maketh so much ado, may not well seem justified by the prayer of the Ancient Father Ephrem. I deny not, but that if there be such excessive speeches, as seem to attribute to our Lady, or to any Saint, that, which is proper, and belonging to Christ only: they ought by a convenient interpretation, and understanding be drawn unto such a sense, and meaning, as is agreeable unto the Scriptures of God, and faith of the Catholic Church.    

Of the possibility of keeping the commandments of God. The 11. Chapter.  
Harding.  
WIthout the grace of God no one commandment can be done or kept, as it ought. For Christ said, 
joan. 15.  sine me nihil potestis facere: without me ye can do nothing. And the whole Church prayeth continually, 
Grace necessary to the keeping of God's commandments. Math. 6.  forgive us our debts (or trespasses). With the grace of God, the commandments may be so kept, that the keepers of them may attain life everlasting. For Christ said of the commandments, Si vu ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata. If thou wilt entre unto life, keep the commandments. And again, Hoc fac, & vives, do this, and thou shalt live. Non enim auditores legis justi sunt apud Deum, 
Math. 19 Rom. 2.  for the hears of the law be not accounted just before God, but the doers of the law shallbe justified.  
I grant we can not so fulfil the law, that we shallbe without venial sin, and many imperfections of life. None but Christ so fulfilled the law. 
1. johan. 1.  If we say, we have no sin, the truth is not in us, saith S. john. But the fulfilling of the law is not so required of us, that we never serve any whit from the line of perfection, but so as we never turn backward from God (after grace once received) by wilful consent to mortal sin. 
Augu. de Spirit. & lit. ca 27.  Non impediunt (saith S. Augustine) à vita aeterna justum, quaedam peccata venialia, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur. Certain venial sins, without which this life is not passed over, do not let the just man, from the attaining of life everlasting. He than is just, who though he have venial sins, is clear and void of all mortal sins. 
Who is lust in this life? Luc. 1.  Otherwise how should the Scripture say, that Zacharias, and Elizabeth were both just before God, walking in all the commandments, and righteousnesses of our Lord without complaint?  
jewel. Pag. 316. 
Ye seem in some part to renew the Pelagian old condemned error.  
Harding.  
Ye do us wrong to raise that evil surmise upon us. 
Hieronymus ad Ctesiphontem. The Pelagians heresy what was it. August. ad Quoduult Deum. Heres. 88 Ibidem. Heres. 88 A point of heresy common between the Pelagians, and the calvinists. Deuteron. 6. Math. 22. Deut, 17.  We are as far from that heresy, as ye are from the Catholic faith in many other great and weighty points. S. Jerome showeth that the Pelagian heresy was, posse hominem sine peccato esse, si velit, that a man may be without sin, if he wil And S. Augustine saith, Credunt sine gratia Dei posse hominem facere omnia divina mandata: They believe, that a man without the Grace of God, can do all the commandments of God.  
We defy these two opinions. But they had an other erroneous opinion, from the guilt whereof you M. jewel being a scholar of Calvin's school, shall hardly clear yourself. They taught, as S. Augustine doth witness, that infants might have, not in deed the kingdom of God, but yet life everlasting without Baptism. And you teach, that they may have both life everlasting, and the kingdom of heaven without Baptism. Therefore I leave it to be considered, how far ye differ from the Pelagians.   
jewel. 
God saith, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy power. Ye shall not turn, neither to the right hand, nor to the left.  
Harding.  
This precept of loving God with all our heart, etc. was given to us, not as a thing to be fully done whiles we live, but as a thing to be in this life by faith begun, and to be hoped for presently by the help of God's grace, but really, perfitly, and in deed, to be accomplished in the life to come. 
De spiritu & litera cap. 36. Philippen 3   
So saith S. Augustine: Ideo nobis hoc etiam nunc praeceptum est, ut admoneremur quid fide exposcere, quò spem praemittere, & obliniscendo quae retrò sunt, in quae anteriora nos extendere debeamus. Ac per hoc quantum mihi videtur in ea qua penficienda est justitia, multum in hac vita ille profecit, qui quàm longè fit a perfectione justitiae, proficiendo cognovit. Sed dici potest quaedam justitia minor huic vitae competens, qua intus ex fide vivit, quamuis peregrinus à Domino: & ideo per fidem ambulens, non dum per speciem, non absurdè dicitur etiam ad istam pertinerè ne peccet: 
Abacuch. 2. Rom. 1. 2. Cor. 5.  neque enim fi esse non dum potest tanta dilectio Dei, quanta illi cognitioni plenae perfectaeque debetur, iam culpae deputandum est. Aliudest enim totam nondum assequi charitatem, aliud nullam se qui cupiditatem.  
Therefore this also now is given us in commandment (that we love God with all our heart, etc.) to put us in mind what we ought to ask (of God) by faith, whither to send before our hope, and to what things that are before us, we ought to stretch forth ourselves, forgetting the things that are behind. And by this, for so much as seemeth to me, in that righteousness, which is to be performed, he hath profited much in this life, who in profiting knoweth, how far he is from the perfection of righteousness. But there may be named an other lesser Righteousness competent for this life, in which the righteous man liveth of faith, although he be as yet a foreigner (or Pilgrim) from our Lord: 
A lesser righteousness competent for this present life.  and therefore whiles he walketh by faith and not as yet by sight, it is not absurd to say of him, that he belongeth to this (lesser righteousness) that he sin not. For if there can not yet in this life be so great a love of God, as is dew unto that full, and perfit knowledge, it is not to be imputed unto us for a fault. For it is one thing, not to attain as yet the whole Charity, and an other thing, to follow no lust. 
How the precept of loving God with all our power, is fulfilled in this life.   
By these words we learn, first, that the precept of loving God with all our power, is after one sort fulfilled in this life, if doing what we can, we believe, and hope, as we ought, that we shall love God with all our power in the other life. For it is here so set before our eyes, as a mark whereunto we should presently direct ourselves as nigh as were are able, with certain belief, and trust, that if we do here by the help of God's grace that which we are able to do according to the measure that God giveth unto us: we shall in deed attain the righteousness of perfect Charity.  
Again the lack of that perfect righteousness is not now to be accounted in us a sin, 
Human perfection.  but if we do our best endeavour it is a degree of righteousness inferior, and base, then that, which is to come. So that the righteousness of the way, or of this life, albeit it be not the greatest, that ever shallbe, yet it is a certain humane perfection, 
The lesser righteousness. Hierom. lib. 1. adversus Pelagianos.  and fullness, and as S. Augustine calleth it, quaedam justitia minor, a certain lesser rightheousnesse, S. Jerome calleth it, perfectionem secundum humunae fragilitatis modulun, Perfection according to the small measure of humane frailty: the highest degree whereof is a man to bestow his life for his friends, which thing by God's grace many Martyrs have done: who loved God with all their power, as far as in this life of man he could be loved.  

Hieronymus ad Cresiphont.  Of this lesser righteousness S. Jerome saith, justi appellantur, non quòd omni vitio careant, sed quòd maiori part virtutum commendentur. Men are called righteous, not for that they be without all vice, but for that they are furnished with the more part of virtue.  

Hieron. Lib. 1. adversus Pelagianos. Double Perfection.  Again in an other place: Perspicuum est duas in scriptures sanctis esse perfectiones, duasque iustitias, & duos timores. Primam perfectiomem, & incomparabilem veritatem, perfectamque justitiam, Dei virtutibus coaptandam. Secundam autem, quae competit nostrae fragilitati: iuxtà illud quod in psalmis dicitur: non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens, ad eam justitiam, quae non comparatione, sed Dei scientia dicitur esse perfecta. It is manifest, that in the holy Scriptures there are two perfections, and two righteousnesses, and two fears: And that there is a first perfection, and an incomparable truth, and a perfit righteousness, which is to be set with the virtues of God. And that there is a second perfection, which standeth with our frailty: 
A distinction whereby all M. jewels obeictions may soon be answered touching this point. The Pelagians heresy.  according to that which is said in the Psalms: Every one that liveth shall not be accounted righteous in thy sight (as much to say) in comparison of that righteousness, which not in comparison, but in the knowledge of God is said to be perfit. By this double perfection all is answered, what so ever M. jewel bringeth against us, either out of the Scriptures, or out of the Fathers. It is possible to do the law in this life, after that perfection, which belongeth to Pilgrims, but not after that, which belongeth to Heaven. But the Pelagians held, that a man might if he would, perform the perfection, and that by the benefits of nature, and by free will without grace.  
If a man consider the doctrine which we have taught hitherto concerning Perfection, it shall appear, that many things, which M. jewel hath alleged in the Defence, are of us confessed. Whereof then riseth the difference? verily of the words of the Apology, 
In the Apology. Defence, pag. 315.  which are these. We are able by no means to fulfil the law of God in this life. This proposition M. jewel I have confuted. This have you taken in hand to defend. But in all your Defence I find nothing to that purpose. I have now showed, 
By what means we fulfil the la.  that by some means we may fulfil the law, to wit, by present faith, and hope, and by going daily forward in Charity, until we come to perfection in Heaven.  
Furthermore we may die also for God's sake, 
The glad sufferance of death for Christ's sake, is one mean to fulfil Godslaw. Cap. 1. & vlt.  and for the defence of his truth. This is one mean, whereby the law is fulfilled. Therefore your Proposition remaineth still guilty of erroneus doctrine. Besides this, it is not impossible for a man actually to fulfil the law in this life: because God may give a man so much grace as to do it, if it please him, as S. Augustine hath declared twice in his book De spiritu & litera. Therefore by some means we may be able to fulfil the law, and that perfitly, although I confess, we do not fulfil it. But remember, you said not only we do not fulfil the law, but that we are not able to fulfil it by no means. Whereby you abridge the power of God. For God's singular grace, is a mean to perform it. S. Jerome also granted to Pelagius, possibilia mandata dedit Deus, 
Ad Ctesiphont.  & quis hoc negat? The commandments which God gave us, are possible to be done, and who saith nay thereto? Forsooth M jewel in his Apology.    

Of Faith without Works, and of the Merit of good works. The 12. Chapter.  
I Had said, there is a true Faith, which is not lively, but idle. M. jewel after his flourish made at divers Schoolmen, of whom I intend not much to speak, saith thus.  
jewel. Pag. 320. 

1. Tim. 5. Tit. 1.  He that hath no regard to his own, specially such as be of his howsehold, hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel: And again, they, say they know God, but by their works they deny God.  
Harding.  
This is brought to prove, that in every great Sin, at the lest we lose our Faith. Add hereunto that which Martin Luther said: 
In Artic. 35.  Nemo est certus se non semper peccare mortaliter, propter occultissimum superbiae vitium. Noman is sure that he sinneth not always mortally, for the most privy vice of pride. If then at every mortal sin the faith be lost, and noman be sure, but that he is always a mortal sinner, doubtless no man is sure, that he hath any Faith. And so Only faith is brought to no faith at al. 
Only Faith become no faith at al. 1. Tim. 5. Faith denied by evil works. Tit. 1. Double knowledge of God. Of Understanding, and of will, and obedience. Naked Faith. Faith clothed with Charity.  So well these men profit in their Doctrine. But how saith S. Paul, that he who hath not care of his household, hath denied the faith? Surely M. jewel answereth himself out of S. Paul, who saith, They profess themselves to know God, but by their deeds they deny him. For so S. Chrisostome also doth expound the former of these places by the later.  
So that there is a double knowledge, one in the understanding only, which those have that believe in God, and break his commandments by killing, or stealing, or any other mortal sin. There is another knowing of God in will, and obedience of heart, when a man prevented with grace, is desirous to do, and keep God's commandments, which are not heavy, nor grievous to him, that hath grace. The first kind of knowledge, is bare, and naked Faith. The second, is Faith furnished, and clothed with Charity. This later Faith he hath denied, who doth not take care of his howsehold, and of them of his kin, etc. But that notwithstanding the former Faith remaineth, because he may yet believe all the Articles of the Faith, which verily seeing it is a grace of God, and a great furtherance to everlasting life, and yet hath none other name at all ever invented for it, beside the name of Faith: it must needs be a true Faith, though it be not a profitable Faith, as all thieves and Perjured persons are true men in nature, though they be not honest men in manners, nor true men of their deeds. All which words uttered in manner with the same order in my Confutation, M. jewel hath quite stricken out of his book of Defence, because they opened the point of the controversy. There I said, Faith, Hoape, and Charity were three: 
1. Cor. 13.  And that as there is a Faith working by Charity of great profit, so is there a Faith, which may be without Charity, nothing worth to everlasting life.   
jewel. Pag. 320. 

jacob. 2.  S. james saith: Faith without works is dead, but a dead faith is no more a true perfit faith, than a dead man, is a true perfit man.  
Harding.  
Did not you know the answer M. jewel? Nothing is more common. You bely the Scripture, that is the answer to you. And your forefathers even up to Luther have always belied it: and being told of it, will not yet amend no more, than the Devil, whom they follow. A thing may be dead in two sorts, 
Idle faith, i● a faith.  either because it had life in it of his own, or else because it had it of another thing. If a man be dead, he is dead in respect of the life, which belonged to himself. For a man doth consist of body and soul, and not of the one alone. So that when the soul is apart from the body, then is he no more a perfect man, during the time of that separation. But the Body being one part of a man, hath life in it, whiles the soul abideth in it. But that life is not the Bodies own, but it is the life of the soul, giving moving unto the Body. which life when it is taken away, the Body remaineth still a perfit Body in his own nature, although it be unperfit in respect of the soul, which did commend it, and set it forth.  
Now it is to be considered, whether Faith have life in itself, and of his own nature, as a man hath (for then a dead faith is no faith): or else whether faith hath life of another thing, to wit, of Charity, and then a dead Faith is a true Faith in his own nature, albeit it be disgraced for lack of the life, which it was wont to have through Charity.  
The very express word of God hath ended this question. For S. james giveth us to understand, that Faith hath life of an other thing, like as the body hath of the soul, for he saith: Sicut enim corpus sine spiritu mortuum est, ita & fides sine operibus mortua est. 
jacob. 2.  As the body without the soul is dead, so is faith dead without works. Not as the man is dead without the soul, but as the body is dead without the soul, so is faith dead without works: But the body being without the soul, is still a true natural body: Therefore faith being without good works, is still a true real faith. But it is idle, and no more profitable, until good works be again graffed into it. This matter is so plain, that the confirmation of witnesses is needless, and so M. jewel is tried a liar in that he said, an idle faith is in deed no faith at al.   
jewel. Pag. 321. 
We grant good works have their reward, but the same rewards standeth in mercy, and favour, and not in duty. job saith, If a man will dispute with God, he is not able to answer him one for a thousand. I was a afraid of all my works. Although I were perfect, yet my soul shall not know it. etc.  
Harding.  
These witnesses do prove well against your assuredness of salvation, which you warrant to yourselves. But concerning our question, it shallbe good here to lay certain truths confessed of all sides, that the doctrine may be the plainer. First, there is no merit of works at all before faith, or without faith: 
August. epist. 52. Defence. 321.  For else grace were not grace, and thereunto pertain S. Augustine's words by you alleged to an other purpose. After faith no particular man is able to warrant his own works to be meritorious, And that is proved by all the testimonies of Scriptures, and Fathers, which you have brought. For every man is uncertain of his own state, 
Ecclesiastes. 9 Our works considered in themself can not deserve life everlasting.  as not knowing, whether he be worthy of hatred, or of favour. But when we dispute generally, whether those men, who being in grace, in deed are confessed to have wrought well, do merit life everlasting thereby, or no, that being our question: thus I say. No works of man, were they never so good, could of themselves without God's ordinance have merited heaven of God, or have made him debtor of such a reward, or wages due to them. For they are all done in time, and can not deserve an infinite reward, such as is rendered in heaven. 
Rom. 8.  For I judge (saith the Apostle) that the afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glory that shallbe revealed in us.  

In what consideration are our good works meritorious of infinite reward.  But seeing it hath pleased God, not only to give us abundance of grace, whereby our works may be acceptable to him, but also to promise everlasting life to the doers of them, and to make himself a debtor to us of such a reward: this promise of God being put, it were injurious to God, if now we should not say, that our good works deserved life everlasting. For seeing God giveth them freely to th'end we should thereby deserve heaven, who is so void of reason, as to deny, that those works deserve Glory, of which God hath said, the doers of them shall have glory rendered unto them, as their wages? 
Matth. 5.  Merces vestra (saith he) copiosa est in coelis, your wages is plentiful in Heaven. unusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet secundùm suum laborem. 
1. Cor. 3.  Every man shall receive his proper wages according to his own labour. 
Psal. 61.  Thou shalt render to every man (saith the Prophet) according to his works. If then no man's works in no sense deserve glory, it must follow, that God shall render glory to no man: and yet S. Paul saith, 
Rom. 2.  that God will render life everlasting to them, who seek glory, and honour, and incorruption according to the patience (or continuance) of working well. The same word reddere, 
Reddere  to render, or pay, doth import a title and right, that good workers have to demand life everlasting. For as if I promise one ten pound to bring me a cup of fresh water, although before I had promised that wages, the water were not worth one halfpennie, yet if once upon my promise a man do bring me the water, I am bound by my promise and covenant, to pay him his wages: 
Mat. 10.  even so God hath bound himself to give us life everlasting for our good works, saying, Hoc fac, & vives, do this thing, and thou shalt live. Again, he that continueth till the end, shallbe saved. And therefore now he, that hath wrought well even till the end, may require God to keep his promise, who surely is faithful, and will not fail to keep it.  
And this thing is meant by the Parable of him, that hired men to labour in his wineyard (that is, in his Church) covenanting with them for a penny, that is to say, 
Mat. 20.  for life everlasting. To whom, when he paid their wages: he said, Nónne ex denario convenisti mecum? Tolle quod tuum est. Didst thou not bargain with me for a penny? Take that which is thine. And S. Paul testifieth of himself. 
2. Tim. 4.  I have fought a good fight, I have ended the race, I have kept the faith, as for the rest the Crown of righteousness is laid up for me, which our Lord the just judge will render to me in that day. And not only to me, but also to them, who love his coming. Here are first rehearsed S. Paul's works, to fight, to run, to keep the faith: Then is their reward rehearsed, which is a Crown, not only of mercy, but of justice, of righteousness, which God will not only give him, but he will render it to him, and not only to him, but to all that follow his Faith, Hope, and Charity. And yet shall we say, that God rewardeth not works of such duty as himself appointed? That which God promiseth for working, is due to him that hath wrought. And this is the doctrine of S. Augustine, and of all the other Fathers, and Counsels, which might be at large brought forth, but that the scriptures are therein so plain, that they only suffice. For he that believeth not them, will hardly believe the Fathers, or Counsels.  

In what respect is life everlasting freely given, and in what respect it is due for good works. Rom. 6.  Therefore to end this question, if we look to the cause of all our good works, seeing it is not Nature (which was corrupted) but Grace, which hath repaired Nature through Christ: in that respect life everlasting is freely given, and not deserved. And so the Apostle saith, Life everlasting is the grace (or free gift) of God. But if we speak of them, who have already grace by God's gift, and do now work well: to them life everlasting is by promise due for their good works. Hereof no man speaketh more circumspectly, or profoundly, then S. Augustine, 
Augustin. epist. 105. Whether we have merits.  who saith thus. Quae merita iactaturus est liberatus, cui si digna suis meritis redderentur, non esset nisi damnatus? Nulláne igitur sunt merita justorum? Sunt planè, quia justi sunt. Sed ut justi fierent, merita non fuerunt.  
What merits (or deserts) shall he that is delivered boast of, who if he were rewarded according to his deserving, could not be but damned? Are there then no merits of the just? Yes verily there are, because they are just. But they merited not to be made just.  
And again. 
Ibidem.  Quod est ergo meritum hominis ante gratiam, cùm omne bonum meritum nostrum non in nobis faciat nisi gratia, & cùm Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronet, quàm munera sua? & pòst. unde & ipsa vita aeterna quae utique in fine sine fine habebitur (& ideo meritis praecedentibus redditur) tamen quia eadem merita, quibus redditur, non à nobis parata sunt per nostram sufficientiam, sed in nobis facta per gratiam, etiam ipsa, gratia nuncupatur, non ob aliud nisi quia gratis datur. Nec ideo quia meritis non datur, sed quia data sunt & ipsa merita, quibus datur. Et pòst. unde etiam & Merces appellatur plurimis scripturarum locis. What then is the Merit of man before grace, whereas nothing worketh our good merit in us but grace, and when God crowneth our Merits, he crowneth nothing else, but his own gifts? And afterward. Whereupon life everlasting itself, which doubtless at the end we shall have without end (and therefore it is given to the Merits going before) yet because those Merits unto which it is given, be not gotten of us by our own sufficiency, but are wrought in us through Grace, that Life also is called Grace, for none other thing, but for that it is given freely. Nor therefore because it is not given to Merits, but because the Merits themselves, to which it is given, are given. And afterward. It is called also in many places of the Scripture, Wages.  
Thus in effect then the Scriptures, and after them S. Augustine, and with him all Catholics do say: Life everlasting is rendered or paid, as wages, or as a due reward to good works. But because the very same works are not good, but by Grace, therefore the life everlasting is also called Grace. Both these parts we grant, the Heretics deny the one, to wit, that good works merit everlasting life.    

Of the Resurrection of the flesh attributed to the worthy receiving of the blessed Sacrament. The 13. Chapter.  
I Said, the Resurrection of the flesh is attributed in the Scriptures not only to the spirit of Christ, that dwelleth in us, but also to the real eating of Christ's flesh in the eucharist, because in S. john Christ saith, 
joan. 6.  he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting, and I will raise him again in the last day.  
jewel. Pag. 324. 
Where is your real, and substantial eating?  
Harding.  
The eating of Christ's supper was a real eating, and thereto the words of S. john do appertain, as the very circumstance, and also as all the old Fathers declare, namely S. Chrysostom, and Cyrillus upon that chapter.   
jewel. Ibidem. 
S. Augustine expounding the same words, saith, believe, 
In joan. tract. 25.  and thou hast eaten.  
Harding.  
S. Augustine saith it, though not upon those words. But he meant of the spiritual eating by Faith only. You still confound eating by faith, with eating really at the Sacrament.   
jewel. Ibidem. 
Nicolas Lyra, 
Nicol. Lyra in Psal. 111.  one of your own Doctors, saith, these words of S. john pertain nothing to the Sacrament. Thus he saith, Hoc verbum directè nihil pertinet ad Sacramentalem, vel corporalem manducationem. This saying (of the sixth of john) pertaineth nothing directly to the Sacramental, or corporal eating. It was some oversight of your part M. Harding, to seek to prove the eating, of the Sacrament by those words that by your own doctor's judgement pertaineth nothing to the Sacrament.  
Harding.  
But it was a more oversight of you M. jewel to-blemish your credit by belying my doctor, 
Lyra foully belied by M. jew.  if Lyra be my Doctor. For Lyra never said the words, that you allege. Your cotation directeth the Reader to the Psalm: 111. Read th'exposition that Lyra maketh upon that Psalm, who list, he shall find him to say no such thing. In deed he expoundeth that Psalm of the eucharist, and saith quite contrary to your doctrine, 
Lyra in Psal. 110.  In praecedenti Psalmo actum est de Sacerdotio Christi & eius sacrificio, quod est Eucharistia: in isto agitur de Eucharistiae efficacia. In the former Psalm the Priesthood of Christ was treated of, and his Sacrifice, which is the eucharist: in this Psalm the efficacy of the eucharist is treated of. There ye have a plain testimony both of Christ's Priesthood, and of his Sacrifice, which he performed otherwheres then upon the Cross, which you deny. For which cause specially, I suppose, ye call him one of mine own doctors. In consideration whereof all the Doctors of Christ's Church be my Doctors, they be not yours. For that Doctrine is generally taught by them al.  

Lyra understood Christ in the 6. of john to speak of the eucharist. joan. 6.  Tha● Lyra understood the words of Christ spoken in the sixth Chapter of S. john, of the eucharist, it is clear, both by th'exposition of that Psalm, and also of that chapter. In the exposition of the Psalm, to declare the benefit of the Sacrament worthily received, h●… allegeth those words of Christ, Si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in aeternum. If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever. Touching the 6. chapter of S. john, upon these words, Operamini non cibum qui perit, etc. Thus he writeth: Haec autem esca est Christi corpus in Eucharistia, etc. This meat (whereof S. john speaketh) is the Body of Christ in the eucharist, as it appeareth by the letter following, in which he speaketh very diffusely of the Sacrament of the eucharist, showing what is contained in it really. Whereof it is said in this very Chapter hereafter, my Flesh is very meat, and my Blood is very drink. Whereby the error of Berengarius is taken away, who said the Body of Christ to be contained in this Sacrament, as in a Sign. For the which he recanted his saying, as erroneus. Thus Lyra. By these, and by many other words there, Lyra showeth at large, that he was of the opinion, that sundry sayings of Christ, in the 6. Chapter of S. john pertain to the Sacrament. Whereby it appeareth, how falsely you have belied him.  
The words which you allege M. jewel to entwite me of oversight, are not the words of Nicolas Lyra mine own Doctor, as you say, but of one Mathias Doring, 
Mathias Doring.  who wrote Replies against the Additions of Paulus Burgensis printed with Lyras expositions. Wherein as you have deceived your Reader with false forgery, fathering that upon Lyra, that Lyra never said, nor dreamt of: so you have foully corrupted also this poor Doctor Doring, with cutting of his words, pretending him to speak of these words of S. john, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting, and I will raise him again in the last day, which I alleged: whereas in deed he spoke neither of these words specially, nor of Christ's whole discourse in that chapter of S. john in general, but only of these special words of S. john, Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non babebitis vitam in vobis. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, ye shall not have life in you.  
That the truth be known, and your falsehood detected, thus it is. Burgensis had written these words: Licet johannis sexto legatur, 
Purgen. Additione 1. in Psal. 112.  Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, non habebitis vitam in vobis, per hoc tamen secundùm Doctores non imponitur praeceptum necessitatis ad sumptionem huius Sacramenti, prout Augustinus declarat. unde sumptio huius Sacramenti corporaliter quantum ad populum, vel Laicos, cadit sub consilio potius, quàm praecepto. Although we read in the sixth Chapter of S. john, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, ye shall not have life in you, yet hereby after the Doctor's mind we are not charged with a precept of necessity to receive this Sacrament, but only the thing of the Sacrament. (By the thing of the Sacrament is meant the Unity of the Church) as S. Augustin declareth. Wherefore the receiving of this Sacrament bodily, as touching the lay people, is such a thing, as is rather counseled, then commanded. Hitherto Burgensis.  
Now cometh me in Doctor Doring, whom M. jewel would have men believe to be Nicolas Lyra, and findeth fault with Burgensis for alleging the said words of S. john, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, etc. to this sense, 
Mathias Doring in replica in Psal. 110.  that the corporal Communion, as touching the lay people, is a matter of counsel. Per hoc non satisfit Haereticis modernis. The Heretics of our age will not be satisfied with this, saith he. And why? It followeth there: Quia litera non habet illud dictum fundamentum. Because that saying (that the bodily receiving of the Sacrament in lay folk is a matter of counsel) hath not his foundation out of the text. And therefore concerning the Sacramental Communion, it hath not the force of a precept, neither for the Clergy, nor for the laity, as touching all, according to the true understanding of that text. Howbeit in the same place it is declared, of what eating, and drinking it ought to be understanded, to wit, of the spiritual. For it followeth, he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Which S. Augustin expoundeth saying, Hoc est manducare illam escam, & bibere illum potum, in Christo manner, & Christum manentem in se habere. This is to eat that meat, and to drink that drink, a man to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwell in him, which is no thing else, but to be in Charity .. Then follow these words, whereof M. jewel would take advantage. Hoc aunt omnibus indifferenter est praeceptum implicitè, sed nihil directè pertinet ad Sacramentalem, vel corporalem manducationem. Hoc verbum nisi manducaveritis, etc. This is given in commandment to all men indifferently by way of implying: But this saying, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man etc. This word, or this saying, pertaineth nothing at all to the Sacramental, or corporol eating. Thus far Mathias Doring.  
Thus you may understand M. jewel, the words you allege be not Lyras, but one Doringes, and the same have relation not to the place of S. John that I brought, but only to these words, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, ye shall not have life in you. Which words after that Doctors mind import not a precept of necessity of the Sacramental, or corporal eating, and so think I to. And though he judged, they were not aptly alleged of Burgensis to prove that the bodily receiving of the Sacrament is a matter of counsel, and not of precept, because they pertain not to the Sacramental Communion at all: yet the other saying, he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life averlasting, and I will raise him again in the last day, may well be alleged for benefit of the Resurrection of the flesh to redound to the faithful believer, of the worthy receiving of Christ's Body in the eucharist, for which purpose it was by me alleged. You should have seen these things better, before ye had entwited me of oversight.   
jewel. 
How lived then the patriarchs, and Martyrs, and how shall children have life, who never receive the Sacrament?  
Harding.  

Pag. 324.  I make not the real eating of Christ's flesh the only mean of Resurrection to life. And therefore your long talk is to no purpose, which you utter in this place. They shall live by the spirit of Christ, who gave them Faith, and Charity. But doth not therefore S. john speak also of real eating? as though one effect may not be wrought by divers means concurring thereunto? Ego (saith Cyrillus) id est, 
cyril. in johan. li. 4. cap. 15.  corpus meum quod comedetur, resuscitabo eum. I will raise him, that is to say, my body, which shallbe eaten, shall raise him. Thus you see plainly, that touching this point, no less Clerk than Cyrillus teacheth the same, that I said, which you have unjustly, and rashly controlled, as you have done the rest of the Catholic Doctrine.    

That matters of faith, and ecclesiastical causes are not to be judged by the Civil Magistrate. The. 14. Chapter.  
jewel. Pag. 637. 
That a Prince, or magistrate may not lawfully calae Priest before him to his own seat of judgement, or that many Catholic, and godly Princes have not so done, and done it lawfully, it is most untrue.  
Harding.  
I have told you M. jewel, 
Confut. Fol. 299. ae.  that the duty of Civil Princes consisteth in Civil matters, and ever said, that Bishops ought to be obedient to Princes in such cases, whither so ever they call them. And if they make any temporal Decree, the Bishop, who hath temporal goods under the Prince, must obey without grudge, 
Confut. Fol. 302. ae  or gain saying, so far as the Decree standeth with the honour of God. But that in Ecclesiastical causes, and matters of Faith, mere temporal Princes have any authority of themselves to call Bishops and Priests to their Seats of judgement, or ever did it lawfully: we utterly deny. 
Ambrose. lib. 5. Epist. 32. Priests only ought to be judges over Priests by Theosius.  S. Ambrose said to the Emperor Valentinian: Nec quisquàm contumacem judicare me debet, quum hoc asseram, quod augustae memoriae patertuus non solùm sermone respondit, sed etiam legibus suis sanxit, in causa fidei, vel ecclesiastici alicuius ordinis, eum judicare debere, qui nec munere impar sit, nec iure dissimilis: Haec enim verba Rescripti sunt. Hoc est, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit judicare.  
Quinetiam si aliâs quoque arguerelar Episcopus, & morum esset examinanda causa, etiam hanc voluit ad Episcopule judicium pertinere. Neither any man ought to judge me as stubborn, seeing I affirm that, which your father of most renowned memory not only answered in word, but also established by his laws: that in a case of faith, or any ecclesiastical order, he ought to be judge, that is neither unequal in office, nor unlike in right, or authority: For these are the words of the Rescripte. That is, he would Priests to be judges of Priests. And also, if otherwise a Bishop were reproved, and a cause concerning behaviour and manners were to be examined, he would this cause (of manners) also to appertain to the bishops judgement.  
Upon these words of Theodosius, alleged, and allowed by S. Ambrose, 
An argument, proving that a Civil Magistrate may not be judge over Priests in causes ecclesiastical, and matters of Faith.  thus I reason with you M. jewel. He can not be judge of Bishops and Priests, nor call them to his seat of judgement in Ecclesiastical causes, and matters of Faith that is unequal in office, or unlike in right and authority. But the Prince is unequal to the Bishop in office, and unlike unto him in right and authority: (For he hath no right nor authority to sacrifice, to preach, to bind, to loose, to excommunicate, and minister Sacraments) Therefore the Prince can not be judge of Bishops, and Priests, nor call them to his seat of judgement in any ecclesiastical cause, or matter of Faith.  
Again, no man hath authority over his superior: But the Bishop, in matters of Faith, and Ecclesiastical causes, is superior to every Prince: Therefore in those causes the Prince hath no authority over the Bishop. And if he have no authority over him, he can not call him to his seat of judgement.  
Furthermore, were it true, that the Prince were equal with the Bishop in Ecclesiastical causes, and matters of faith, yet could he not call him to his seat of judgement, 
ff. ad S. Trebel. L. ille. § Tempestiwm.  quia par in parem non habet potestatem, because the equal hath no authority, or power over his equal. But to see M. jewels art in facing out this matter, let us consider the authorities, that he bringeth to prove his purpose. And because he blazeth this saying in the top of his margin with great letters. 
What it is to be convented before a Magistrate. Spiegelius in verbo convenire.  A Bishop convented before the Magistrate, let us first define, what it is to be convented before a Magistrate.  
The lawyers say, Conuenire, est aliquem in ius vocare, To convent a man, is to call him into the law: and so Conueniri coram magistratu, est in ius vocari à magistratu, to be convented before a magistrate, is to be called into the law by the magistrate. To call a man into the law, is a judicial act, proceeding of superior authority in him that is judge, both of the party so called, and also of the cause, wherefore he is called. As if the Mayor of London would convent any of the Citizens, he must both have jurisdiction over that Citizen, and also authority to judge in that cause, for which the Citizen shall be convented. But no civil magistrate hath authority by virtue of his temporal office, to be judge our Bishops in ecclesiastical causes, as it is before proved, and shall hereafter appear: Therefore no temporal magistrate can convent any Bishop, or Priest before him, in any Ecclesiastical cause. But let us hear M. jewel. 
Cod. de Episcopis et clericis. L. Nullus.    
jewel. Pag. 637. 
justinian the Emperor himself, who of all others most enlarged the Church's privileges, saith thus: Nullus Episcopus invitus ad civilem vel militarem judicem in qualibet causa producatum, vel exhibeatur, nisi princeps iubeat. Let no Bishop be brought, or presented against his will before the captain, or Civil judge, what so ever the cause be, unless the Prince shall so command it.  
Harding.  
 justinian (as you say) of all others did most enlarge the Church's Privileges, is it likely, that he would most of all others break them? And whereas he made a law, 
Authent. 83. Coll. 6. ut Clerici apud proprios Episcopos.  that, Clerici apud proprios Episcopos conveniantur primùm, Clerks should be convented first before their own Bishops, in causa pecuniaria, in a money matter, and afterward before the Civil Magistrate, if either for the nature of the cause, or for some other difficulty the Bishop could not end it: yet he addeth privilegijs omnibus custodit is, quae reverend issimis Clericis sacrae praestant constitutiones, all Privileges kept, which the emperors laws do grant unto the reverend Clerks, And saith farther, Si verò Ecclesiasticum sit delictum, egens castigatione ecclesiastica, & mulcta, Deo amabilis Episcopus hoc discernat, nihil communicantibus clarissimis provinciae judicibus. Neque enim volumus talia negotia omnino scire civiles judices, quum oporteat talia ecclesiasticè examinari, & emendari animas delinquentium per Ecclesiasticam mulctam, secundùm sacras & divinas regulas, quas etiam sequi nostra non dedignantur leges: If the fault be ecclesiastical, and need ecclesiastical punishment, and discipline, let the well beloved Bishop of God judge and discern it, and let not the honourable judges of the Province intermeddle with it at al. For it is not our pleasure, that Civil Magistrates have at all the examination of such matters, seeing such matters must be examined ecclesiastically after the order of the Canons, and the offenders must be punished by Ecclesiastical discipline, according to the holy and divine Canons, which our laws do not disdain to follow:  justinian hath so ordained, no wise man that hath read his Laws, will say, that either he in fringed those Privileges, or, as one contrary to himself, made a law against the Liberties of the Church, without any mention of the former, that he himself had made. Wherefore justinian in the Law, that you rehearse M. jewel, is to be understanded, to speak of civil, and temporal cases: and that in those cases no Bishop should be brought before the Lieutenant, and Civil Magistrate, except the Prince so commanded it.  
Now, whereas you upon those words say, that a Bishop may be convented before a Civil Magistrate, we grant, and ever so said, that in Civil causes, and temporal matters, of which justinian speaketh, Bishops may be convented before a temporal Magistrate. But that is not our question. But this is that which we say, 
The very point of this Question.  that it is not lawful for a Prince, to call a Priest to his seat of judgement in Ecclesiastical causes. And in this your own author justinian condemneth you. He saith, as you heard before: 
Autent. 83. col. 6. ut Clerici.  Si ecclesiasticum sit delictum, etc. If the fault be ecclesiastical, let the well-beloved Bishop of God judge and discern it. Let the honourable judges of the Province intermeddle nothing at all with it. For we will not, that Civil Magistrates have the examination of such matters. And again. 
Cod. de Episco. & clericis. L. Clericus.  Si verò crimen sit Ecclesiasticum, episcopalis erit examinatio, & castigatio. If the fault be Ecclesiastical, the examination, and pounishing of it shall appertain unto the bishop.  
But peradventure you will reply to this, and say, that justinian in the law by you rehearsed, speaketh not only of Civil, but also of ecclesiastical causes, and willeth a Bishop, in qualibet causa, in any cause, to be convented before the temporal magistrate, if the Prince do so command. If you, or your lawyer make this objection, we answer, that it can not be showed out of all justinian's laws, 
Anthent. 83. col. 6. ut Clerici.  that he willed a Bishop, or Priest to be convented before a temporal Magistrate in an Ecclesiastical cause, or to be punished for any heinous offence, before he were degraded of his Bishop. And hereof, if you had but a mean smattering in the Civil Law, you could not be ignorant.  
Besides that already alleged, you find in the Code this Law: 
Cod. de Episco. & Clericis. L. Statuimus.  Statuimus ut nullus Ecclesiasticam personam in criminali quaestione vel civili trahere ad judicium seculare praesumat contrae constitutiones imperiales, & canonicas sanctiones. We ordain and decree, that no man presume to bring any Ecclesiastical person to the seat of judgement of any seculare Magistrate in a criminal, or civil cause, contrary to the Imperial Constitutions, and canonical Decrees. By this you see, that it is against both the emperors constitutions, and Canons of the Church, that a Bishop should be convented before a Magistrate in an Ecclesiastical cause. As for the vantage which you seek in those words, In qualibet causa, in any cause, it is none at al. Had not you been blinded with malice, and your lawyer with ignorance, you might have learned, 
A Maxima among the lawiers.  that it is a Maxima, and a Principle with the lawyers, that, Leges tales indefinitè loquentes, intelligendae sunt secundùm aliam legem speciatim loquentem. Such laws speaking indefinitely, must be understanded by an other law, that speaketh specially and particularly. Wherefore seeing the law, Clericus, in the Code, and the Antentike, ut Clerici in the new Constitutions, make special mention, that Bishops, and Priests should not be convented before Civil Magistrates in Ecclesiastical causes, and permit no temporal judge to meddle with Ecclesiastical persons, except it be in Civil matters, and that with a Limitation, and a Proviso also: it had been your part, and your blind Lawyers also, to have understanded those words, In qualibet causa, in any cause, spoken there indefinitely, by the other Laws, that speak more specially. But than had you lost a peevish sophistical Argument, and men had not known your worthy skill in the Law: which no doubt will appear great by your practice.   
jewel. pag. 637. & 638. 
The Emperor Martianus commandeth, if the cause be criminal, that the Bishop be convented before the Lieutenant, ut coram Praeside conveniatur.  
Harding.  
For your credit touching Martianus commandment, you refer us to the Code of justinian. 
L. Si qui ex consensu, de Episco. Audient. L. Cum Clericis, de Episco. & Clericis.  As for the first, you may tell your lawyer that he hath foully deceived you, and therefore is not worthy to have his fee. That law, Si qui ex consensu, Cod. de Episcop. Audient. was never made by Martianus the Emperor, but by Arcadius, and Honorius, and requireth neither Bishop, nor Priest, nor Clerk to be convented before the Lieutenant, but declareth, that if any by mutual consent, will have their matter debated before the Bishop as an arbiter, it shall be lawful for them so to do, as every man that either considereth the law, or readeth the Sum set before it, may easily see.  

M. jew. forgeth.  As for the other law, Cum Clericis, although it be Martianus decree, yet hath it not those words, ut coram Praeside conveniatur, that the Bishop be convented before the Lieutenant, nor any clause or sentence sounding to that purpose. For trial whereof I refer me to the book, and to any indifferent man, that can read, and understand it.  
But suppose it to be true, that the Emperor Martianus had given such a commandment, what could it advantage your cause M. jewel? You should prove, that a Christian Prince may lawfully call a Bishop to his Consistory for matters of Faith, and Ecclesiastical causes And not able to do that, you tell us like a Trifler, that, if the cause be criminal a Bishop may be convented before the Lieutenant. And in so doing, you prove that, which no man denieth. As Cranmare archbishop of Cantorburie was called to the Prince's Consistory, 
Cranmare.  and imprisoned in the Tower for treason against the queens Majesty, and afterward degraded, and burned at Oxford for heresy: So any Bishop for like treason, or like heinous and criminal offence, may not only be summoned to the Prince's seat of judgement, but also be cast into prison, and after degradation according to the Canons be deprived of his life. This we do not deny. But that which we deny, and you should prove (for I must tell you one thing often because you are always forgetful of the very point that is in controversy) is, that in matter of Faith, and in Ecclesiastical causes, a Prince may call Bishops to his consistory, as their superior and governor in Ecclesiastical causes. This is the matter in controversy between you and the Catholics M. jewel. Let us hear, how substanrially you prove that.   
jewel. Pag. 638. 
Pope Innocentius 3. himself confesseth, 
De maior, & obedient. ca 2. Innocent. 11. q. 1. Cleric. nullus  that the Pope may make a lay man his Delegate, to hear and determine in priests causes. The like hereof ye may find in your own Gloze, Papa laico delegat causam spiritualem. The Pope committeth the hearing of a spiritual matter unto a lay man.  
Harding.  
If any reason may be forced upon the Authority of Innocentius, and the Gloze to your purpose, it is this: The Pope may make a Lay man his Delegate, to hear and determine Priests causes: Ergo, Bishops and Priests may be convented before the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical causes. But to unrip the rudeness of this Argument, imagine M. jewel, that you were infamous for Simony, and accursed for extorsion and unjust exactions amongst the clergy of Sarisburie Diocese under the name of a benevolence towards the setting up of your house: And that the Metropolitan hearing of it, fearing least great dishonour should rise to your Person, and infamy to the Gospel, as ye call it, would have the matter examined, and to that end, sendeth a commission to the Mayor, and Bailiffs of Sarisburie, and maketh them his Delegates to examine, and inquire of your doings, and that the Mayor, and Bailiffs upon virtue of that Commission from the Metropolitan convent you before them: All this then imagined to be true, shall it be said, that M. jewel was convented in a cause of Simony, and extorsion before the Mayor, and Bailiffs of Sarisburie, as Mayor and Bailiffs of Sarisburie, or as commissioners, and delegates from the Metropolitan? If you confess that you were convented before them, as the metropolitans Delegates, then must you confess, that you were not convented before them, as Mayor, and Bailiffs of Sarisburie, and mere lay Magistrates. In like manner, when the Pope maketh a Lay man his delegate to hear and determine priests causes, the priests cause, which is heard, and determined by that Lay man so delegated by the Pope, can not be said to be heard and determined by a Lay man, as a Lay man, but by the Pope's Delegate. And seeing, 
Extr. de office Deleg. c. Sanè.  Delegatus gerit vices delegantis, a degate sustaineth the steed of him, that giveth him commission, the Bishop, or Priest, who is convented before the Popes delegate, shallbe said to be convented before the Pope himself, and not before the Lay Magistrate, as a mere Civil and temporal Magistrate.  

M. jewel beguileth his Reader with false allegations.  But what mean you M. jewel thus to beguile your Readers with false allegations? Innocentius hath no such words, as you report, the Mayor. & obedient. cap. 2. Innocent. Neither is the Decree that is there registered, the Decree of Innocentius, but of Gregorius, and nothing at all God wot to the purpose, for which ye allege it. More over the Gloze brought out of the 11. cause, and first question, saith not, Papa Laico delegat causam spiritualem, the Pope committeth the hearing of a spiritual matter unto a Lay man, but, Si Papa, if the Pope do commit a spiritual matter to a Lay man. And what then M. jewel? Forsooth in that case a Clerk may be convented before a temporal judge. But that temporal judge is the Popes delegate, and deriveth his authority from him, as the Commissioners in London have their authority from the Queen. So that the exceptions there alleged by the gloze, prove, ius commune esse in contrarium, that the common law is to the contrary, that is, that no Bishop, or Priest ought to be convented before a Civil Magistrate.   
jewel. Pag. 638. 
Yea, further ye shall find even in the Pope's own Decrees, that the Pope hath committed a spiritual matter in a cause of Simony, to be heard, 
2. q. 5. Mennam.  and ended by a woman: and that Brunichildis, being a woman, by Virtue of the Pope's commission, summoned a Bishop to appear, and solemnly to make his purgation before her.  
Harding.  
If the Pope did ever commit any spiritual cause to a woman, 
What was that Brunichildis had to do in the cause of Menna by commission of S. Gregory.  as you tell us he did to Brunichildis Queen of France: then was the Queen of France by your Confession, the Pope's commissioner in that cause, and Delegate, to hear, and end that matter of Simony. But what if we can not find in the Pope's Decrees, to which you refer us, that the Pope ever committed a spiritual matter in a cause of Simony, to be heard, and ended by a woman, and that Brunichildis had neither commission from the Pope to summon a Bishop, neither ever summoned a Bishop to appear and solemnly to make his purgation before her? What then shall we say, but that M. jewel is a shameless falsifier, a deceiver of all that believe him?  
The words of that Decree, being the words of S. Gregory, 
Grego. lib. 11. epist. 8. 2. q. 4. Mennam.  stand thus. Mennam verò reverendissimum fratrem & coëpiscopum nostrum, post quàm ea, quae de e●… dicta sunt requirentes, in nullo invenimus esse culpabilem: qui insuper ad Sacratissimum corpus beati Petri Apostoli, sub jure iurando satisfaciens, ab ijs quae obiecta fuerant eius opinioni, se demonstravit alienum: reverti illum purgatum absolutúmque permisimus: quia sicut dignum erat, ut si in aliquo reus existeret, culpam in eo canonicè puniremus: Ita dignum non fuit, ut eum adiuuante innocentia, diutius retinere, vel affligere in aliquo deberemus. Purgationem tamen antè duobus sibi sacerdotibus iunctis, ubi accusator cessaverit, eundem ex se praebere tuo commisimus arbitrio. We licenced our most reverend brother, and fellow Bishop Menna to return home, after he had made his Purgation, and was assoiled of the crime laid to his charge, specially, sith that after long inquiry made concerning those things, which were reported of him, we found him culpable and blame worthy in none: And he himself besides making satisfaction upon his oath at the most holy body of the blessed Apostle S. Peter, hath declared himself to be free, and clear from all those things, that were objected to impair his good name. For as it was convenient, that we should severely have punished him according to the Canons, if he had been guilty in any thing: So it was not meet, that we should stay him, or trouble him any longer, seeing his own innocency did so help him. Notwithstanding we have given charge, that he himself, taking before two Priests unto him, make his purgation, when the accuser hath given over his action, before you at your arbitrement. Thus far S. Gregory.  
But this proveth not your intent, and purpose M. jewel. For I beseek you Sir, 
M. jewels forgeries.  where is it said in all this Decree, that the Pope committed a spiritual matter in a cause of Simony to be heard, and ended by a woman? Where is it said, that Brunichildis being a woman, by virtue of the Pope's commission, summoned a Bishop to appear, and solemnly to make his purgation before her? In the text it is not, nor in the gloze, that you so solemnly allege. Or if it were, had your lawyer forgot to tell you, or were you so simple, that you could not conceive, that (which is commonly said) Maledicta est Glosa quae corrumpit textum, it is a cursed gloze, that corrupteth the text? But seeing you build so much upon the Gloze, let us see, what the Gloze saith.   
jewel. 638. 
In your Gloze upon the same place, it is noted thus. Fuit tamen hoc nimium papaliter dispensatum. The Pope was to Popelike in this dispensation.  
Harding.  
To let pass your scoffing and ministerlike interpretation, let us come to the matter. 
M. jewel corrupteth his Gloze by nipping away the end of the sentence alleged.  What dispensation is it, that the Gloze speaketh of? Why suffered you not the author of the Gloze to tell forth his whole tale? Ye always make your advantage among the unlearned of falsifying and corrupting your testimonies.  
It followeth there, Quòd Episcopus expurgatus coram Papa, cogitur adhuc coram muliercula se purgare: that a Bishop having made his purgation before the Pope, is forced to purge himself before a woman. And this is the dispensation, that the Gloze misliketh, as to popelike, according to your interpretation. But if either the Gloser had considered the reason that moved the Pope, or you, that follow the Gloze, would have marked the little cause, that standeth by the Gloze in the margin in the last print of Paris, where it is said, hoc totum ideo fuit, ut fama eius clarior appareret: all this was done (by the wisdom of S. Gregory) to the end his good name might appear more clear: neither he would so rashly have controlled S. Gregory's order in that behalf, nor you so fond alleged it. And of a word spoken in jest, as the canonists sometimes speak, you take a weak hold, as of a matter spoken in great sooth.  
Notwithstanding you will say, the words of the Decree are plain, tuo commisimus arbitrio. We have given a commission to your arbitrament, that he purge himself before you. If you make this objection, we answer, that if the words were exactly sifted by the true and grammatical construction, you would hardly maintain this interpretation. But I will not contend about words. Let it be, as you would have it. Let Brunichildis have a commission from the Pope to see, that Bishop Menna made his purgation before her. Your purpose and saying is nothing proved by it. For first you say, The Pope committed a spiritual matter in a cause of Simony to be heard, and ended by a woman. And this is a vain tale, and untrue fancy of yours, not able to be gathered by any word of that decree. For the cause of Simony whereof Menna was accused, was heard, and ended by the Pope, and he not found faulty in it, was absolved, and sent home. And a cause once heard, and determined by the Pope, is not wont to be committed afterward to the hearing, and determination of a woman.  
After this, as though this lie had not been loud enough, you tell us, that Brunichildis being a woman, by virtue of the Pope's commission, summoned a Bishop to appear, and solemnly to make his purgation before her: and for your credit you refer us in the margin to Gratian. 2. q. 5. Mennam. 
It is. 2. q. 4.  But that Brunichildis did either summon a Bishop, to wit, Menna, to appear, or required him to make his purgation before her, it is not to be found there, nor any where else, that M. jewel hath alleged, or can allege, as I doubt not. For Brunichildis Queen of France being so holy, so virtuous, so religious a Lady, as S. Gregory reporteth she was: it is to be presupposed, that she would not disquiet a good and an innocent man, nor put him to farther trouble, who, when his cause was heard, and ended by the Pope, was found in nullo culpabilis, blame worthy in nothing that was laid to his charge, by the evident testimony of S. Gregory declared in his epistle sent of purpose to Queen Brunichildis. Wherefore M. jewel these fantasies of yours are but wanton and vain, employed to none other end, but to deceive the unlearned.   
jewel. Pag. 638. 
The Emperor Constantinus written thus unto the Bishops, that had been at the Council of Tyrus. Cuncti, 
Socrates. lib. 1. c. 34  quotquot Synodum Tyri complevistis etc. All ye that have been at the Council of Tyrus, come without delay to our camp, and show me plainly, and without colour, how upprightly ye have dealt in iudgemement, and that even before myself, whom ye can not deny to be the true servant of God.  
Harding.  
These letters were written by the Emperor Constantinus to Arian Bishops, that had made a false conventicle or conspiracy, (and not a lawful Council M. jewel) at Tyrus: and they were written unto them upon the complaint of S. Athanasius that worthy Patriarch of Alexandria, made both against the injuries, and violences, that Flavianus Dionysius the emperors Lieutenant attempted against him, and also against the slanders, that his enemies the Arians had wrongfully laid to his charge. And these slanders were not of Faith matters, but that Athanasius had murdered one Arsenius, 
Ruffin. in Histor. Eccles. li. 10. cap. 17. Socrates. Li. 1. c. 29.  and had committed a foul rape with a woman, and that with an Arm cut of from Arsenius body, he practised Witch craft: for the which crimes these Arians sought Athanasius death. Wherefore no marvel, if that good Emperor being God's minister to see justice ministered, and the Violences, and injuries of his Lieutenants and Officers punished, and these civil causes of Felony, Murder, and Rape to be truly and thoroughly examined, ad vindictam malorum, to the revenge of malefactors, wrote his letters to all them, that had been at the foresaid conventicle at Tyrus, and required them to appear before him, as before the sincere minister of God, and to render account of their dealing against Athanasius in those Civil cases. 
Of this matter See the Return. Art. 4. Item the Countreblast. lib. 2 Cap. 2. &. 3  For he might well do it, and nothing further M. jewel in proof of his desperate cause, that a Bishop was convented in matters of Faith, and ecclesiastical causes, before the Civil Magistrate, as his lawful, and ordinary judge.   
jewel. Pag. 638. 
justinian the Emperor in the law, that he maketh touching the public prayers of the Church, saith thus, we command all Bishops and Priests to minister the holy oblation, 
Authentica constit. 123.  and the prayer at the holy Baptism, not under silence, but with such voice, as may be heard of the faithful people, to th'intent the hearts of the hearers, may be stirred to more Devotion, etc. afterward he addeth further. And let the holy Priests understand, that if they neglect any of these things, they shall make answer therefore at the dreadful judgement of the great God, and our Saviour jesus Christ, And yet nevertheless we ourselves understanding the same, will not pass it over, nor leave it unpunished. Hereby we see, that Godly princes may summon Bishops to appear before them, even in causes Ecclesiastical, to receive such pounischement, as they have deserved.  
Harding.  
For answer to this, or any thing that you can bring out of justinian, for brevities sake, I refer you to justinian himself. By whose constitutions, and Godly laws, it may easily appear, how far he was from claiming superiority over Bishops, or government, as supreme judge in causes Ecclesiastical, as he who decreed according to the definitions of the 4. general Councils, that in Spiritual causes the Pope of the elder Rome should be taken for the chief of all Priests, and advertised Pope john, that there should be nothing moved pertaining to the state of the Church, but that he would signify it to his Holiness, being Head of all Churches, and declared, that in all his Laws, and doings for matters Ecclesiastical, he gave place to the holy Canons made by the Fathers, and willed, that when any Ecclesiastical matter were moved, his Lay officers should not intermelde, but suffer the Bishops to end it according to the Canons.  
In this very Constitution which you have alleged, with these special words he committeth the judgement, and punishment of all sorts of offences committed by them of the Clergy, to such as the Canons have put in authority. 
Authentica constit. 123.  Thus he decreeth. Quotiescunque aliquis vel Sacerdotum, vel Clericorum, vel Praesulum, vel Monachorum, vel de fide, vel de turpi vita, vel quòd contra sacros aliquid Canones peregerit, accusatus fuerit, si quidem is, qui accusatus, Episcopus fuerit, huius Metropolitanus, ea, quae proferentur examinato: Si verò Metropolitanus, beatissimus Archiepiscopus, sub quo censetur: si Presbyter, aut Diaconus, aut alius Clericus, aut Praesul Monasterij, aut Monachus, Religiosissimus Episcopus, sub quo hi censentur delata in accusationem examinato, & veritate comprobata, unusquisque pro modo delicti Canonicis censuris subijcitor judicio eius, qui causae examinationem accommodat. As often as any either of the Priests, or of the Clerks, or of the Prelates, or of the Monks is accused, either of faith, or of filthy life, or that he hath done aught against the holy Canons, in case, he that is accused, be a Bishop, let his Metropolitan examine the things, that shall be laid to his charge: if he be a Metropolitan, let the archbishop, under whom he is, have the examination: If he be a Priest, or a Deacon, or some other Clerk, or a Prelate of a Monastery, or some Monk, let the Bishop, under whose jurisdiction they are, examine the things that be laid in accusation. And when the truth is tried out, let every one abide the Censures of the Canons for the rate of the fault by the judgement of him, that sitteth upon the examination of the matter.  
Again how far he was from the mind and will that Bishops, or any other whatsoever Ecclesiastical persons should be summoned to appear before him, or his temporal officers in judgement for any Ecclesiastical cause, this express Decree, which there also ye might have found, sufficiently witnesseth. Si Ecclesiasticum negotium sit, nullam Communionem habento Civiles Magistratus cum ea disceptatione, sed Religiosissimi Episcopi secundùm sacros Canones negotio finem imponunto. If the matter be Ecclesiastical (that is to be judged) let the Civil Magistrates have nothing to do with it: But let the most Religious Bishops make an end of it according to the holy Canons.  
By these, as also by the purport of sundry other justinian's constitutions, ordinances, and decrees, all men may see, that he neither challenged any supreme dominion over Bishops, and Priests in Ecclesiastical causes, nor enacted this, nor any other law, as chief Governor of the Church, but followed the holy Counsels, and willed the Canons to take place, and confirmed that, which was decreed by them.  
For special answer then to this special objection made out of the 123, constitution, I say that justinian threatened to punish them with the severity of temporal laws, who would not be contained in their duty by Ecclesiastical discipline, and order of the Canons, that fear might force, where love and conscience could not bind. Which policy we do not mislike, seeing (Duo vincula fortius ligant) two bonds bind faster than one.  
To be short, justinian leaveth the correction of Clerks offending in any thing against the Canons, to the censures of the Canons. And if any refuse to abide the order appointed by the Canons, and utterly shake of the yoke of the Canons: then, that is to say, in the case of extreme stubborness, and contempt of the Canons, like a Godly prince, he threateneth revenge, and punishment. In which case the Church doth now call, and always hath called for the aid of the Seculare Arm against those, that utterly refuse to be corrected by the censures of the Church, and seem incorrigible.  
So neither by the laws of justinian, neither by the example of Brunichildis, neither by the Gloss, that you so solemnly allege, it can not be seen, that Godly Princes might ever summon Bishops to appear before them, to receive any punishment at their hands, as their superiors and supreme governors in ecclesiastical causes. Peradventure if we put on eyes of better sight, we may see it hereafter, if we diligently attend, what you say. Forth therefore M. jewel.   
jewel. Pag. 638. 
The Emperor Constantinus in his letters to the people of Nicomodia, 
Theodorit. li. 1. c. 19  speaking of the wilful errors and heresies of Priests, and Bishops, saith thus: Illorum temeraria praesumptio, mea, hoc est, ministri Christi, manu coercebitur. Their rash attempts shallbe repressed by my hand, that is to say, by the hand of Christ's servant. 
August. contra epist. Parme. li. 1. cap. 7.  So likewise S. Augustine saith to the Donatists: An fortè de religione fas non est ut dicat Imperator, vel quos miserit Imperator? Cur ergo ad Imperatorem legati vestri venerant? Is it not lawful, that the Emperor, or the emperors deputy should pronounce in a case of Religion? Wherefore then went your own Ambassadors to the Emperor?  
Harding.  
If you had said M. jewel that Constantinus in his epistle to the Nicomedians, had threatened to punish Bishops, and Priests, that were Arians, that is, cursed, and abominable heretics, you had in some part said the truth. But where you say, that he spoke of the wilful errors, and heresies of Priests and Bishops, and add not Arian Priests, and Arian Bishops, you conceele part of the true Story, and declare your malicious heart against Priests, and Bishops. But to leave that cankered spite of yours to the judgement of God, why do ye not report the emperors words, as they are in your author Theodoritus? 
M. jewels corruption  Will you never leave this your accustomed vile corruption? Theodoritus saith not as you report, but thus: 
Theodorit. lib. 1. cap. 19  Quòd si quis audacter inconsultéque ad memoriam & laudem pestium illarum exarserit, illius statim audacia, ministri Dei, hoc est mea executione coercebitur. If any man be inflamed boldly and incircumspectly at the remembrance and commendation of those wicked and pestilent heretics, his boldness shall be repressed straightway by execution done by me, that am the minister of God. And these threatening words of the Emperor are to be referred to the people of Nicodemia, for to them the epistle was directed. And having temporal jurisdiction, as power of life, and death over them, he put that terror into their hearts, that they should be neither in love, nor in admiration of those accursed Bishops, whom he had banished for the Arian heresy. Or if M. jewel will have those words of the Emperor to be referred, as well to the Bishops, and Priests, as to the lay people: Let him understand, that, as it is lawful for any Prince to punish heretics that are excommunicate by the Church, and delivered to the secular power, be they Bishops or priests: So it was lawful for Constantine to punish these wicked Arian Bishops excommunicated, and accused by the. 318. Bishops in the Council of Nice. And as the prince that now as an executor of justice pounisheth heretics by death, is not for that consideration, neither judge in causes of heresy, nor supreme governor of the Church: So Constantine at that time had no jurisdiction over Bishops in ecclesiastical causes, albeit he banished them, and threatened them other pounishment, if they fell in love of those cursed Arians. For the princes threatening of punishment for heresy, is no argument to build a superiority in ecclesiastical causes.  
As for the place which you bring out of S. Augustine, you brought it before in your Reply, to prove, that Emperors might receive Appeals in ecclesiastical causes. 
Art. 4. fol. 104. 105, 106.  And a sufficient answer was made unto it in the Return of Untruths upon you. Why conceele you that? If you had been studious of the truth for God's sake, you should have yielded unto it, or if you had judged it false, have confuted it, and not let it pass in silence, and now trouble the Reader with the same stuff again.  
But peradventure you will say, that you never saw that book, and therefore that you dissemble not the answer. If it were credible, that you would not see a book written directly against you, and one that toucheth you so near, this excuse were tolerable. But seeing it hath no colour of truth, there can be little pretended to save you from the guilt of dissimulation and hypocrisy in this case. I answer you therefore, as he did S. Augustine spoke in that place against the stubborn Donatists, of whom Parmenianus was one, which complained that the Emperor Constantine, (eos ad campum, id est, ad supplicium duci jussit) commanded them to be brought forth into the field, that is, to punishment. And in reasoning against him, he took advantage of his own doings, not as allowing the Appeal to the Emperor, but as proving him unreasonable, who for advantage would appeal to the Emperor, and when the Emperor had pronounced sentence against him, would strive and repine at the sentence, and say, that he being a temporal prince, ought not to punish Bishops. Like as if you M. jewel (having made the Queen supreme governor of your Church) should say, in case you were condemned of heresy, or of Simony by the Prince, Her grace ought not to condemn me in these cases: a Catholic that flattereth her not with that title, would reason against you, and say: No sir? Is it not lawful for the Queen to condemn you in a case of heresy, and Simony? Why then made you the Queen supreme governor of your Church? Even so did S. Augustine reason against the Donatists. And because by their appeal to his Majesty they had chosen him judge in their cause, and after said, he could not condemn them: S. Augustine used their own weapon against them, to convince their folly, and said as you say. Is it not lawful, that the Emperor, or the emperors deputy should pronounce in a case of Religion? Wherefore then went your own Ambassadors to the Emperor? etc. But as the Catholic reasoning in such wise against you, can not be said by that to allow the Queen's supremacy: So S. Augustine in this talk against the Donatists, can not be said to allow the emperors authority in condemning of Bishops, and other ecclesiastical causes. For he answering an other Donatiste that said, 
Augustinus epist. 162.  Non debuit episcopus proconsulari judicio purgari, a Bishop ought not to make his purgation before a temporal magistrate, said, If he be worthy to be blamed, whom the temporal judge hath absolved, whereas he himself did not require it, how much more are they to be blamed, which would have a temporal prince to be judge in their cause? By this it appeareth that he thought, that Princes could not be judges over Bishops.  

Ibidem.  Moreover he reporteth, that Constantine, who appointed judges to hear their cause, did it, à sanctis Antistitibus veniam petiturus, as minding to ask pardon of the holy Bishops for his fact. And the same Emperor seeing their importunity in repairing to him as judge, said, 
Optatus li. 1. contra Parmen.  O rabida furoris audacia. Sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerunt. Oh see the desperate boldness of rage and fury. As if it were in the suits of Heathens, and Pagans, so these men have put up their Appeal.  
Now sir, if he had been of the mind that you imagine, or had thought it lawful for Constantine to hear, and determine ecclesiastical causes, or a right appertaining to his Imperial estate: he would not have told us, that he thought it a fault to intermeddle in such matters, and therefore asked pardon of the holy Bishops. Neither would so wise an Emperor, seeing those bishops appealing in that cause, have detested their doings, and cried, O rabida furoris audacia, oh the desperate boldness of rage and fury. Wherefore M. jewel, neither this fact of Constantine, nor that authority of S. Augustine, can further your pretended convention of Bishops before Civil Magistrates. Let us see what followeth.   
jewel. Pag. 638. 
But what speak we of other Priests, and inferior Bishops? The Popes themselves, notwithstanding all their universal power, have submitted themselves, and made their purgations before kings and Emperors. 
2. q. 7. Nos si. Gerson in Serm. Paschali.  Pope Liberius made his humble appearance before the Emperor Constantius. Pope Sixtus before Valentinian. Leo the third before Carolus Magnus, Leo 4. before Lews the Emperor. john 22. was accused of heresy, and forced to recant the same unto Philippe the French king.  
Harding.  
The higher every good man is, the more humbly he behaveth himself. If then the Pope's having an universal power over Christ's Church, did submit themselves to Princes, and Emperors, they showed much humility in their hearts, and confidence in their causes: and prove against you M. jewel, that if this submission had not been made voluntarily by them, nor King, nor Caesar could have had authority, or power to have been judges over them: as you may see by the example of that good Emperor Constantine, refusing to be judge over Bishops, and saying, 
Sozo. lib. 1 cap. 17.  Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis dedit de nobis judicandi, & ideo à vobis rectè iudicamur, vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari, God hath appointed you Priests, and given you power to judge of us, and therefore we are rightly judged of you, but ye can not be judged of men, that is, of lay men, and men (as S. Ambrose reported of Theodosius, which I declared before) that are unequal in office, 
M. jewel failing of his purpose, falleth from the Pope's purgation before Emperors, to their appearance before Emperors, which no man denied. Liberius appearing before Constantius. T●●odorit. Eccles. Hist. lib. 2 cap. 16. Pope Sixtus after what fort he made his purgation and for what cause.  and unlike in authority, and right. Of such, Bishops may not be judged.  
The Pope Liberius, you say, made his humble appearance before Constantius. It is true. But appearance is not purgation M. jewel. You promised to tell us of Popes, that submitted themselves, and made their purgations before kings and Emperors, and beginning with that good Pope, you forget yourself, and for making of a purgation, you tell us of making appearance. Whereby we gather, that either you pass not what you say, or remember not what ye promise. Liberius dealing with Constantius the Arian Emperor at that appearance, was such, as became a Bishop of the Apostolic See. For in that cause he would neither be overborne by the authority of the Emperor, nor yield unto his wickedness against Athanasius for a long time, much less acknowledge him for his superior, or judge.  
As for Pope Sixtus, it is certain, that he made his purgation before the Emperor Valentinian. But he did it M. jewel in Concilio, in a Council of bishops, and not in a court of the Prince. And he did it of humility to avoid the suspicion, and malice of his adversaries, and not to give any Precedent to others to do the like, nor to prejudicate the authority of the Apostolic See. These are his words in the place, that yourself allege. Understand ye, 
2. q. 4. Mandastis. Nostra authoritate.  that I am falsely accused of one Bassus, and unjustly persecuted. Which the Emperor Valentinian hearing, commanded a Synod by virtue of our authority to be assembled. When the Synod was assembled, I satisfying all with great examination, albeit I might otherwise have escaped, yet avoiding suspicion, I made my purgation before them all, discharging thereby myself from suspicion, and from emulation and envy, Sed non alijs, qui hoc noluerint, aut non sponte elegerint, faciendi formam dans, But not giving a precedent to others to do the like, that either shall not be willing, or will not voluntarily choose this kind of purgation.  
Lo M. jewel, your own author condemneth you. Pope Sixtus made his purgation, not only before Valentinian, but, coram omnibus, before all Bishops, and others assembled in the Synod. And he did it not by compulsion of any superior Authority, but of humility, to declare his innocency, and not to give any other a precedent to do the like. And by this ye may perceive, that the Emperor had of himself nor authority to call that Council, nor power to summon the Pope to his judgement Seat, nor any jurisdiction to force him to make his Purgation before his Majesty. For all was done by the submission of the Pope. He consented to the emperors calling of that Council: he gave him licence to hear his purgation, and to be judge in that cause. And he that giveth an other authority and commission, is by natural reason higher: and of greater power in that case, than he that receiveth the authority, and commission. Wherefore Pope Sixtus making his purgation before the Emperor Valentinian, can not be said to have been convented before a lay Magistrate, as his superior, and lawful judge.  

Leo 3. and Leo 4.  Concerning Leo the third, and Leo the fourth, their case is like. When they made their Purgation, the one said even in the place, that you allege: hoc faciens, non legem prascribo caeteris, 
2. q. 4. Audite. 2. q. 7. Nossi.  doing this, I do not prescribe a law to force other men to do the like. The other gave the Emperor licence to appoint Commissioners, to hear his cause, and submitted himself to their judgement, and therefore we say the Emperor was not their judge, nor superior by any princely authority, but by these Pope's permission, and appointment.  
As for Pope john the 22. (of whose error you make much a do in so many places of your books) I have said sufficiently before, in the Answer to your View of your Untruths. Fol. 64. & sequent. Where I have declared, how falsely you bely him, and wherein he erred touching the state of the Souls of the just after this life. And here I say again, that it is most false, that ever he recanted any heresy before Philippe the French king. In deed the error which he held, as his private opinion, was condemned at the sound of trumpets in presence of that king, as Gerson writeth: but that was done, before he was Pope.   
jewel. 639. 
Your own Gloze saith, 
Dist. 63. In Synod. in Glos.  Papa potest dare potestatem Imperatori ut deponat ipsum, & sese illi in omnibus subijcere.  
The Pope may give the Emperor power to depose himself, and may in all things submit himself unto him.  
Harding.  
Be it that our Gloze saith so M. jewel, your Gloze I might rather say. For the Gloser seemeth to be your chief Doctor. There was never Divine, that served himself with the stuff of the Gloze, so much as you do. What infer you upon it? If you can like a good Logician frame this argument upon that Gloze: The Pope may give the Emperor authority to depose himself, Ergo, the Pope may be convented before the Magistrate, as one that through virtue of his temporal office, is his superior in Ecclesiastical causes: let us have it in writing, and we will return you the like with as good consequence, and say: The Queen may give any of her Lords, and subjects power to depose her from her royal estate, and to transfer it to an other: Ergo, she may be convented before that Lord and subject of hers, as one that hath authority to depose her of himself, without commission and authority from her grace. And if you find fault with the sequel of this, find fault with the sequel of you own. For they are both like. 
Dist. 93. cap. ultim. in Glossa.  The Law saith: Ex alterius persona, quis consequitur, quod non habet ex sua. A man getteth of an other-mannes' person, that, which he hath not of his own. Wherefore the Emperor having authority of the Pope to depose him, 
Extr. de off. judicis Deleg. c. Sanè.  hath not that authority of himself, or any his Imperial power, but of the Pope. And seeing judex delegatus à Papa gerit vices Papae, a judge delegated of the Pope, occupieth the room of the Pope, the Emperor in this case shall not depose him as Emperor, but as the Pope's Vicegerent, and Delegate.   
jewel. Pag. 639. 
Franciscus Zarabella saith, 
De schemate, & Concilio. It is, de Schismate pontificum.  Papa accusari potest coram Imperatore de quolib●t crimine notorio: & Imperator requirere potest à Papa rationem fidei: The Pope may be accused before the Emperor of any notorious crime, and the Emperor may require the Pope to yield an account of his faith.  
Harding.  
Neither Franciscus Zarabella, nor Franciscus Zabarella (for so is his true name) saith as you report, that, Papa potest accusari coram Imperatore de quolibet crimine notorio, 
M. jewel falsifieth his Doctor by addition of his own to help his matter.  The Pope may be accused before the Emperor of any notorious crime. Those words (coram Imperatore) before the Emperor, are of your own interlacing, and be not in the Author. You ought to be ashamed so foully to corrupt your authors, and deceive the people.  
Again Zabarella saith not, Imperator requirere potest à Papa rationem fidei, the Emperor may require the Pope to yield an account of his faith, They are your words Master jewel. That, which Zabarella saith is thus. 
Zabarella made to say, What pleaseth M. jewel  Si Papa est de haeresi suspectus, potest (Imperator) ab eo exigere, ut indiret quid sentiat de fide. that is, if the Pope be suspected of heresy (the Emperor) may require of him, that he declare, what he thinketh of the Faith. Now sir, to require a man to yield an account of his Faith, and to require him to declare what he thinketh, are two diverse things. For the one can not be done, but by Superior authority: the other by way of friendship and common charity.  
But as for Superior authority, 
In what case of necessity the Emperor may intermeddle with matters of Faith and religion, after the mind of Zabarella  Zabarella alloweth the Emperor none over the Pope, nor granteth, that he may intermeddle in Ecclesiastical causes, but in an extreme necessity, to wit, if there were two Popes at one time (as there were when he wrote this Treaty whence you fetch your falsified sentences) and neither would yield unto the other, nor the Cardinals take order for the quiet government of the Church in procuring a General Council, and if he saw the Antipape to give over his usurped Authority: then the Emperor, whose duty is to defend the Catholic Faith, may intermeddle in Ecclesiastical causes, saith Zabarella. His words are these.  
Cùmergo deficit Papa, vel Cardinals, 
Francis. Zabarella de Schismate pontificum.  qui subrogantur Papae in Congregatione Concilij, ut dictum est in praecedenti quaestione, ad ipsum Imperatorem, qui pars post praedictos est praecipua, Concilij spectat Congregatio. Nec quenquam moveat, quòd Imperator est Laicus, ut ex hoc putet esse inconueniens, quòd se intromittat de clericis. Non enim semper prohibetur judicare de clericis: sed tunc prohibetur, quando non subest ratio specialis. Nam propter specialem rationem permittitur, ut ratione feudi. Hoc autem casu subest ratio specialis, imo specialissima, ne fides Catholica ruat, quod nimium periclitatur, diu permittendo pluralitatem in summo Pontificatu. In quo maximè est Imperatoris, & praecipuam habet potestatem. Nam permittere plures in Papatu, est offendere illum fidei articulum, unam sanctam Catholicam, etc. Therefore when the Pope faileth, or the Cardinals, who are next in room unto the Pope substituted to the Pope in assembling of a Council, as it was said in the next question before, the assembling of a Council appertaineth unto the Emperor, who after the Pope, and the Cardinals, is the chief part. Neither it ought to move any man to think it inconvenient, that the Emperor, in that he is a lay man, should intermeddle with matters belonging to clerks. For he is not always inhibited to judge of Clerks. But then he is forbidden, when there is no special cause. For it is permitted for some special reason, as in consideration of fealty. And in this cause there is a special, yea a most special reason, that the Catholic Faith come not to ruin, because it is in great danger by long suffering of plurality in the Popedom, that is to say, of more Popes than one. In which the Emperor is the chief doer, and he hath the chief power. For to permit many Popes in the Popedom, is to offend that article of the Faith, I believe one holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  
By this and the whole discourse, that Zabarella your author maketh there, it appeareth M. jewel, that the Emperor hath not the authority you pretend, but in that case of extreme necessity. And by your advocate in the Law, if he had not been half in a frenzy, you might have learned, 
L. Nam ad ad ea. ff. de legibus. ff. de regu lis juris.  that, ex ijs quaeraro accident, lages non fiunt, of those things, that happen seldom, laws are not made. And, Quae propter necessitatem recepta sunt, non debent in argumentum trahi, those things, that are received for necessity, ought not to be drawn to an argument, or precedent to be followed. Wherefore ●●ither upon the doings of the Emperors in that great and lamentable schism of the Church, neither upon Zabarella you can build, that Bishops may ordinarily be convented before a civil Magistrate in ecclesiastical causes.  
But sir, seeing you thought it convenient for your purpose to use the authority of Zabarella (although you have foully falsified, and misreported his words) tell us by what reason, you may refuse his authority, if we can allege it against you. He saith in the same treaty that you allege, Papa est universalis Episcopus, 
Zabarella M. jewels own doctor alleged against M. jewel.  Papa non habet superiorem. Papa habet jurisdictionem, & potestatem super omnes de iure. Sedes Apostolica errare non potest. The Pope is the universal Bishop: The Pope hath no superior: The Pope hath jurisdiction, and power over all by law. The Apostolic See can not err. Why admit you not this? Is it reason that you should admit an authors saying, the which he spoke, and allowed in a case of necessity, for avoiding of a greater danger, and not admit the same authors saying in the same treaty, which he speaketh according to received, and approved doctrine of the Catholic Church? Ask your advocate, 
L. Si quis. Cod. de testibus.  and he will tell you, that reason, and law faith, That si quis usus fuerit testibus, ijdemque testes producantur adversus eum in alia lite, non licebit personas eorum excipere. If one use witnesses (in a cause) and the same witnesses be brought against him in an other controversy, it is not lawful for him to make exception against their persons. And if either reason, or law could prevail where heresy hath entered, you should not only admit this, but also that, which he saith in an other place ●●●●stas 〈…〉 immediate pendat à Deo, 
joan. 21.  per illa verba, Pasce 〈…〉 Papa habet potestatem supra omnes quic omnes sunt ●●●s. Papae vicem Dei gerit in terris, 
Zabarella in Clement. de Sentent. & reiudicata cap. pastoralis. Ibidem in Clement. de magistris cap. Inter. de Sentent. excommu. cap. ex frequentib.  The power of the Pope dependeth immediately of God, by those words; feed my sheep. The Pope hath power over all, because all be sheep. The Pope beareth the person of God in earth. For he spoke this with as good advise, as he spoke the other. And this is generally allowed, and that but in a case. Wherefore if his authority be good in the one, ought it not to be good in the other?  
Now therefore M. jewel I report me to your indifferent judgement, how true it is that you say, that a Prince or a civil magistrate may lawfully call a Priest before him, to his own seat of judgement, and that a Bishop may be convented before the Magistrate, as his lawful and superior judge in ecclesiastical causes. No one example, or sentence that ye have yet alleged, doth prove that vain assertion of yours: Neither could ye have had any advantage by them, if ye had truly reported their words, and declared the circumstances why, and wherefore they were spoken. But that liked you not. Wherefore referring your corruption, and false dealing in these matters of weight to the judgement of God, and examination of the indifferent and wise, I conclude against you, with S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, and all other Catholic Fathers, that it is not convenient, 
Extr. de Maiorit. & obed. cap. 2. in mark  nor lawful for a king to call priests before him to his own seat of judgement, as their superior in ecclesiastical causes. As for the note glossed in the decretals, which ye bring to prove that priests are exempted from the emperors jurisdiction by the Pope's policy, and the prince's consent, and not by the word of God: we tell you, that such glossed notes declare you to be a very Gloser, and argue that your store is far spent, when you rest upon such marginal glossed notes. Were it granted (which in no case we grant) that bishops, and priests were exempted from the emperors jurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes, only by the Pope's policy, and consent of princes, for confirmation whereof they have made divers laws, and given out large privileges: yet these laws standing unreapealed, and privileges unauthorised, they can not be convented lawfully before the civil magistrate. For it standeth not with the Majesty of a prince to do against his own laws, and break the privileges by himself granted to others, before he hath with as mature advise, and consideration revoked them, as he did first grant them.    

That the canonists are wrongfully charged by the Apology, with teaching the people, that Simple Fornication is no sin. The 15 Chapter.  
The words of the Apology. Defence. Pag. 357. 
They be the Pope's own Canonist●● which have taught the people, that Fornication between single fo●●● i● no sin.  
Harding.  

A slander uttered by the Apology against the canonists, not recanted in the Defence. touching the thing, but only touching the error of the name.  IN my Confutation I say, that this is a grievous offence, and worthy to be punished, in process I say to the make●s of the Apology, How prove ye it? They allege for it, one john de Magistris. How be it M. jewel hath recanted that error, and confesseth himself to have been deceived. For he granteth, it was Martinus de Magistris, whom he meant, or should have meant. He should do well to recant divers other the like his errors. For he hath not only been deceived by his note books, or his Notegatherers, in naming john de Magistris, for Martinus de Magistris, but also in the names of sundry other men, as it shall be declared in the next Chapter.  
But touching the slander of the canonists, if Martinus de Magistral had so taught, yet the matter is not clear, for he w●● no canonist, but a School Doctor of Divinity. Against, he ●●●●ht not the people, as our Masters of the Apology ●●e, but only wrote of that matter after the Scholastical manner, from understanding whereof the people's simple capacity is far of.  
Well, let these three errors, Lies, or oversights, be ●in●●ed at. Hitherto the canonists are not touched, but slandered. What shall we answer for Martinus de Magistris? Certainly neither that Doctor taught either the people, or any other person, that ungodly, and false Doctrine. Certain it is, that in this Treaty, De Temperantia, quaestione 2. he taught the contrary, where he proveth very sufficiently, and copiously, that simple Fornication is mortal sin. 
Alphonsus contra haeres. li. 5. Coitus Defence. pag. 362.  But Alphonsus chargeth him with saying, that to believe the Contrary, is not a point of Heresy. And thereof M. jewel in the Defence taketh hold, giving over all his other false holds. Let it be as Alphonsus saith. Yet will it not thereof follow, that the Popes canonists, or Divines taught the people, it is no sin.  
By Alphonsus, whom M. jewel allegeth, this Doctor Martinus de Magistris saith two things. That Fornication is deadly sin, and yet that to believe the contrary, Non sit haereticum, is not heretical, or a case of heresy. The first he proveth substantially: The second he proveth not sufficiently, as it appeareth to Alphonsus. The reason, whereby he would prove it, is this, Quia testimonia scripturae sacrae non sunt expressa, 
The variety of meaning betwixt Martinus de magistris and Alphonsus de Castro, touching simple Fornication.  because the testimonies of the holy Scriptures are not express, that is to say, because simple Fornication is not expressly so called. And though it were so, yet may it otherwise be plainly, as it is most plainly signified. Now this question riseth between Martinus, and Alphonsus, whether to believe, that Fornication is not mortal sin, be a case of Heresy, or no. Alphonsus saith it is, Martinus saith it is not. And what if he say it be not a case of heresy so to believe, yet it ma● be a wicked opinion so to believe, and a more wicked thing to commit the crime, which Martinus doth not only not deny, but affirmeth, and proveth very earnestly, and that pertaineth to the present purpose. Every false belief maketh not a case of heresy, but whosoever stubbornly holdeth, and maintaineth a false belief contrary not only to the bare letter, but also to the sense of the Scripture, specially if it be determined, and published by the Church, is to be accounted an heretic. How soever it be, and whether Alphonsus impute that saying to Martinus de Magistris, as erroneous, or no: Hitherto M. jewel proveth not, that the Popes canonists have taught the people, that Simple Fornication is no sin. Let us see with what other testimonies he can prove it.   
jewel. Pag. 360. 

Dist. 34. Is qui.  Thus it is noted in the Decrees, Qui non habet uxorem, loco illius Concubinam debet habere. He that hath not a wife, in steed of her must have a Concubine.  
Harding.  
Is it likely, that any Christian ever wrote so? It was never so written, and that M. jewel himself knew well enough. 
Concil. Tolet an. 1. cap. 17.  For he confesseth the printed book, that so reporteth, to be a false copy. Wherefore then would he allege it? Like will to like. False manners seek to be defended by false head. For of true dealing they can procure themself no relief. But se● Reader what pleasure he hath in Untruth.   
jewel Pag. 360. 
Ye will say, there is error in the prints. Be it so, yet t●●● 〈…〉 extant i● many Copies. And it is well agreeable to your common practice. For the best that you can make of the same place, is this: Is qui non habet Vxorem, et pro Vxore Concubinam habet, à Communione non repellatur. He that hath no wife, and in steed of a wise hath a Concubine, let him not be removed from the Communion.  
Harding.  
What shame is it to allege the error of a false book, that hath either crept in by the negligence, or put in by the malice of the printers Compositour? The most, and truest Copies have otherwise, and that could you not be ignorant of directing the Reader by your cotations unto Gratian, and unto the first Toletan Council, from whence the testimony is taken out.  
And what say you sir, doth not this place prove, that the pope's canonists teach Simple Fornication to be no sin? For this is the thing, which you have taken upon you to prove. If you fail in proof thereof, you may not blame us, if we account you for a Liar, and a slanderer. O say you, lo, here a man is allowed to have a Concubine. For in as much as he is not to be repelled from the Communion, that hath a concubine, 
The keeper of a concubine not repelled from the communion, and yet simple fornication not allowed, by the Council of Toledo.  how is not a man allowed to keep a Concubine? And shall we not say, that they which teach this doctrine, teach Simple Fornication to be no sin? If all this were granted you, yet how truly have you burdened the canonists with this Doctrine? For these words you know, be not the words of the canonists, but the words of the first Council of Toledo, that was above a thousand years ago.  
Here is good gear M. jewel for you to juggle withal. And how can it be, but that yourself do know, that you do impudently? You pervert the text, you misconstrue it, you leave out that goeth before, and 〈…〉 followeth immediately after. Because you know this place might serve your purpose to deceive the unlearned, who can not espy your falsehood, you thought ye might be bold, as you are in many other places. And so without blushing you slander Christ's Church, burdening it with the allowance, and maintenance of Concubines. You play like a shrewd boy of the Grammar school, who having a Theme appointed him by his Master to dilate, and write upon, purleth, and gathereth out of every book, as many sentences, as he findeth to have one word of his Theme, or sounding toward his Theme. So have you here, or your coadjutor, done, to find somewhat in the writings of the Catholics, that might seem to allow simple Fornication and the keeping of Concubines. And here ye bring us forth a piece of a Canon concluded in the first Council of Toledo. But in good sooth it maketh asmuch for your purpose, as that sentence, Divinum auxilium maneat semper nobiscum, made for his purpose, that being among others demanded a pretty sentence concerning Wine, after all had said their sentences, alleged this for his part, because in the word, Divinum, the first syllable taken away, 
what is meant by a concubine in the council of Toledo, in the Civil and Canon la, and other where.  there is Vinum, which signifieth Wine. In much like sort you have done here, dissembling the Circumstance of the place, and omitting the Chapter, that in Gratian goeth immediately before, In which Chapter he declareth, what in that place, and certain other there by him alleged is meant by a Concubine, saying, Concubina autem hîc intelligitur, quae cessantibus legalibus instrumentis unita est, & coniugali affectu ascistitur. Hanc coniugem facit affectus, 
Dist. 34. Omnibus. Concubine.  Concubinam verò lex nominat. By a Concubine here (to wit, in certain Canons alleged in the former Distinction 33.) is understanded such a woman, as is coupled unto a man without any formal writings according to the Civil Laws, and is taken with intent and affection of marriage. This woman the intent and affection maketh a wife, but the law, (that is to say, the Civil law) nameth her a Concubine. Yea the Canons also do name such a Woman a Concubine sometimes, and not a wife, until the Marriage be solemnized, not that she is a whore, but that with the reproachful name of a Concubine, as it were with a secret rebuke, such persons be driven to solemnize, and publish their marriage in the face of the Church. Now let it be judged by the Learned, what you are worthy to have for dissembling this much.  
Gratian had alleged certain Canons, 
Dist 33. c. Laici. etc. Fin.  wherein mention was made, that they might continue in holy Orders, and minister, who before they were made Priests, had had Concubines. In this sentence therefore that now I translated, he expoundeth, how the word Concubine is to be taken in those Canons, asmuch to faith, for a wife taken privately without public Solemnisation. For saith he, the Civil law taketh not for a wife, but nameth a Concubine (which is a base and a more reproachful name) her, which a man taketh, and useth for his wife without any solemn and public instrument made concerning the dowry, and other matters accustomed to be agreed upon between the man and wife. And this with divers other solemnities, to take away occasion of strife, 
30. q. 5. c. ●. 3. & 4.  and sin was politicly ordained by the Civil Law, and Canon also. But assoon as that writing was made, and public Solemnite performed, the children borne before, were accounted lawfully borne, and the Concubine to have been a wife from the beginning. And this woman the law nameth in the mean time a Concubine, 
§ Nec non justin. de nuptijs. Concil. Toletan. 1. cap. 17.  and not a whore.  
And Gratian to prove this exposition to be true, and good, alleged the Council of Toledo, saying, De hac dicitur in Concilio Toletano, Is qui non habet, etc. Of this Woman it is said in the Council of Toledo, he that hath not a wife, but hath a Concubine for a wife, let him not be put back from the Communion. Which words, you bring to prove, that the Church doth allow Concubines. Wherein it is plain, that the word, Concubine, is taken for a wife taken privately, and not openly married with due solemnity in the face of the Church, yet kept in bed, and at bird, as a wife, with intent of wedlock, which was in old time very common in Spain, and yet is in some places. And the Council there holden doth not repel from the Communion those that have such women in that sort. Whereas if the word Concubine signified a whore in that Canon of the Council of Toledo, as it doth most commonly in other places, the Council would not have winked at that sin, nor suffered such persons to come unto the Communion, but would have repelled them, 
Dist. 56. Toto titulo & ext. le filijs presbyt. 3. Reg. 12  as by many other Decrees the Church doth, and also repelleth their children, and bastard brood, from the holy order of Priesthood, whereunto ye admitt● the rascals, and the outcasts of all the people to further your carnal Doctrine, as jeroboam admitted the like, to bring the people of Israel to Apostasy, and Idolatry. 
Dist. 34. Audite. Aug. li. 50 homiliarun homi. 49.   
That the Church alloweth not Concubines taken in the worse sense, even in the same place, it is witnessed by S. Augustine alleged in the Decrees, in whom thus we find. Concubinas habere non licet vobis: & si non habetis uxores, tamen non licet vobis habere Concubinas, quas postea dimittatis, ut ducatis uxores, tantò magis damnatio erit vobis, si volueritis habere uxores, & Concubinas. It is not lawful for you to have Concubines: Albeit ye have no wives, yet it is not lawful for you to have such Concucubines, as which afterward ye may put away to the end to take wives: so much the greater shallbe your damnation, if ye will have both wives, and Concubines.  
And this signification of Concubina, is not strange, that when a man mindeth to marry a woman, she be called a Concubine, which in deed is a true wife before God, though she be not known so to be in the public fame of the people, till the marriage be solemnized. 
A concumbine is a wife secretly taken with out solemnity of marriage  It may please you to look on your brother Mathias Flacius Illyricus in his book entitled Clavis Scripturae, in the word Concubina. And you shall find the word taken in this sense, and the same proved by divers authorities.  
joannes de Turre Cremata a man right well learned upon the Chapter Omnibus before alleged, saith thus. Abraham praeter Saram habuit Agar ancillam uxorem, sic enim dicitur Genes. 16. Dedit Sara ancillam viro in uxorem Suam, post mortem verò Sarae, accepit Abraham Ceturam uxorem, ut legitur Gen. 25. Et quia istae non fuerunt acceptae cum illa solennitate, quamuis essent uxores affectu, & in veritate, dictae tamen sunt Concubinae, ut Genesis. 25. ubi dicitur, dedit Abraham cuncta quae possidebat, Isaac, filijs verò Concubinarum, munera. In libro etiam judicum idem habetur, videlicet quòd uxor vocetur Concubina, ut patet judic. 19 etc. Abraham beside Sara, had Agar to wife, that was his wives maid servant, for so it is said in the 16. Chapter of Genesis, Sara gave her maid unto her husband to be his wife. And after the death of Sara Abraham took Cetura to be his wife, as we read in Genesis the 25. chapter. And because these women were not taken with that solemnity, as the wives were, although they were wives in affection, and in truth, yet were they called Concubines, as in Genesis 25. Chapter, where it is said, Abraham gave all the things, which he possessed, to Isaac, but to the sons of his Concubines, he gave gifts. The same is also to be found in the book of the judges, that a wife is called a Concubine, as it appeareth judges 19 chapter. etc. This therefore proveth not your slander M. jewel, wherewith you burden the canonists, as defending Simple Fornication to be no sin. Let us see, whether your other stuff be any better to that purpose. 
Constit. Othonis Boni decon cubinis clerico remonendis, licet ad pro sugandun. in glossa. In eadem glossa.    
jewel. Pag. 360. 
Likewise it is noted in the Gloze upon the constitutions of Otho Bonus: Videtur quòd crimen meretricij Ecclesia sub dissimulatione trasire debeat. It seemeth, that the Church ought to pass over the crime of whooredom under dissimulation (and not to see it). In which Gloze ye shall find these words, Si non castè, tamen cautè: If ye do it not chastely, yet do it charily.  
Harding.  
You mistake your mark M. jewel naming Otho Bonus, for Otho. They were divers men, as you might have seen in the Constitutions, that you allege: wherein your skill in the Canon law appeareth. If you had laid forth the place wholly, as true and upright dealing requireth, it should soon have appeared, upon how small a matter you pike so great a quarrel. Thus it is. johannes de Athon, who wrote the Gloze upon the Constitutions Legatine of Otho, having declared how a Clerk (by which word is not meant only a Priest, as you always interpret, but any that is within Orders, be they the lesser, or the greater) is to be punished for having a Concubine, at length after his manner demandeth this question. Sed quid dices de punitione ipsarum Concubinarum, si ad suam excusationem coram judice ecclesiastico se asserant publicas Meretrices quaestu corporis viventes? But what wilt thou say of the punishment of the Concubines themselves, if for their excuse they say before the ecclesiastical judge, that they are common whores living by the gain of that filthy service of their body?  
Now immediately there followeth the answer, which M. jewel bringeth against the canonists, not without a little point of falsifying by nipping away this word, Hoc, an ordinary mark of his workmanship. 
Hoc nip away by M. jew. a word of important si●uification.  Videtur quòd Hoc crimen Meretricij sub dissimulatione transire debeat Ecclesia. It seemeth, that the Church ought to pass over this Crime of whoredom under dissimulation, that is to say, to dissemble it. The cause why the Church ought to dissemble this crime in such women as profess public whooredom, which the author of that Gloze saith not precisely, but speaketh it as an opinion, and as a thing that seemed to some men reasonable, I had rather M. jewel heard it of an other man, then of me. Certainly he may judge, it is not altogether without cause, that all Christendom over, whereas all other women be punished for the sin of the flesh, only the common and public whores be let alone under dissimulation. Yet it argueth not, that simple fornication is made no sin. If M. jewel would have read further in that Gloze, he should have found these express words, by which the canonists are cleared, and he further charged with a false slander. Dic tamen quòd hoc peccatum prosequi debet Ecclesia ut mortale. 
Ibidem.  Yet say thou (by which words he signifieth his own opinion) that the Church ought to pursue this sin, 
unde illud vulgar, Si non castè, tamen cautè.  as deadly sin. Whereof it followeth, that continuing in such life, they might not be admitted to the Sacraments of holy Church.  
As for those other words, which we find in the Gloze, Si non castè, tamen cautè, they are there rehearsed, as a common saying, not as a rule, or a precept of the Canon Law, neither pertain they to clerks, more than to the lay sort. The circumstance of the place considered and weighed, all things may seem there to be well, and discreetly said. Of two that commit Fornication, he doth less evil, that doth it secretly, than the other, that doth it openly. For the open fornicator increaseth the offence by his ill example, by the offence the people take of it, and by the contempt of his own fame and good name. Of such a one it is said there out of the Law, quòd famae suae prodigus, etiam quoad homines suspensus est, licet occulta fornicatio quoad Deum, turbet bonam conscientiam, that being a reckless loser of his own fame, he is suspended also as concerning the estimation of men, although the privy Fornication do trouble a good conscience, as touching God.  
So than if it be an ill thing a man to be suspended among men, and to lose the fame of his honesty, 
Crudelis est, qui famam contemnit.  if he be accounted cruel, and desperate, that careth not for his good name, if it be dangerous to the soul also, to provoke others to offend by ill example, all these evils following the public, and open fornicator, though secret fornication ought also heartily to grieve and vex the conscience before God: how shall not that vulgar saying seem to give good counsel, Si non castè, tamen cautè, whereby a man is not animated at all to do ill, but (if he hap to do his unclean lust, 
If not chastely, yet charily.  or will not be stayed from it) is admonished to do it charily, though not chastened. And if there were any ill meaning in this vulgar saying, as there is not, though it may be abused to cast some shadow upon evil livers, the judgement of the canonists were not to be reproved thereof, but the custom of the world, from whence it proceeded.   
jewel. Pag. 360. 
Likewise saith Petrus Ravennas, one of your notable canonists, 
Extra de immunitate Ecclesiarum. Pet. Ravennas.  upon the decretals: Quamuis tactus & oscula sint praeludia incontinentiae in Laicis, secus tamen est in Clericis. Nam Clericus praesumitur ista facere pro charitate, & bono Zelo. Notwithstanding handling, and kissing in lay persons be the occasions, or beginnings of incontinent behaviour, yet in Priests it is, far otherwise. For a Priest is presumed to do● these things of Charity, and of good zeal.  
Harding.  
Yet Petrus Ravennas saith not, that Simple Fornication is no sin, That is the thing, you have taken in hand to prove against the canonists. When touch you the point? In Italy, where this lawyer lived, to kiss a woman is taken for a certain earnest of a wanton bargain promised, and therefore openly men kiss not women at first, and last salutations, as the use is in England. But because that thing may be in itself divers, according to the divers manners of Countries, and therefore may be deemed good, no less then evil, men being bound to judge the best of that which may be well done, or is at least indifferent: the Lawyer considering the virtue, and degree of a Clerk, saith, that an evil presumption is not lightly to be taken thereof, but willeth it to be taken for courtesy, and charitable salutation, as it is taken in England, and in sundry other countries. 
Extra de Prebend. c. nisi in principio.  For the quality and state of the person doth oftentimes purge the suspicion, that otherwise is wont to rise of any act. Let us hear what other Gloss this Gloser bringeth for his purpose.   
jewel Pag. 360. 

11. quaest. 3. Absit, in Glossa.  Likewise it is noted in your Gloze, Si Clericus amplectitur mulierem (Laicus) interpretabitur, quod causa benedicendi eam hoc faciat. If a Priest embrace a woman, a laieman must judge of it thus, that he doth it to the intent to bless her. Where also ye shall find this special note set out in the margin for the purpose, Clericus amplectens mulierem praesumitur benè agere. A Priest embracing a woman is presumed to do well.  
Harding.  
It can not be proved by all these Gloss, that the canonists teach the people, that simple fornication is no sin. And therefore they stand you in no stead otherwise th●n to seoffe. How be it if the meaning of this Gloze were well considered, it could not seem very fitly to furnish you with any good matter of scoffing. Gratian alleged a saying out of S. Jerome under the name of Pope Antherùs. 
Hieron. ad Heliodorum 11. quaest. 3. Absit.  Absit ut quicquam sinistrum de his arbitremur, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus Sacro ore conficiunt, per quos nos Christiani sumus, qui claves regni coelorum habentes, ante judicij diem judicant. God forbidden that we should think any sinister thing of them, who succeeding the Apostles in degree, with their sacred mouth do consecrate the body of Christ, by whom we are Christians, who having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, judge before the day of judgement.  
This sad and grave saying you could not well brook. It liked you better therefore to pearl in the Gloze. Now lay all that the Gloze saith, together, and let it be judged, how much it maketh for your scoffing humour. God forbidden, saith S. Jerome, we should think any ill, or sinister thing of them, that with their holy mouth consecrate Christ's body. Tpon this word, Sinistrum, the Gloze saith. Hoc est verum in ijs quae possunt trahi ad bonum, & ad malum, ubi semper in meliorem partem est interpretandum. Si ergo Clericus amplectitur mulierem, interpretabitur (Canon) quòd causa benedicendi eam hoc faciat. This is true in those things that may be drawn to good, and to evil, where always we must interpret (that which is done) in the better part. Therefore if a Clerk embrace a woman (or lay his arms over her) this Canon will interpret it, that he doth it to bless her. These words, a lay man must judge of it thus, be your own words, the Gloss word, interpretabitur, doth not so signify. Neither is it to be understanded of the secret judgement, which a man conceiveth in his own heart to himself, of such a deed beholden with his eyes, but of the interpretation made of it to others, for so doth interpretari signify. This then is the sense of that Gloze. If a clerk or a Priest embrace a woman, for so much as it may be drawn to good, that is to say, it may in a case be done to good purpose, as to bless her, to pray over her, or to do the courtesy of salutation according to the manner in some countries: the Canon will interpret it, that is to say, if we follow the mind and devotion of S. Jerome, whose words that Canon containeth, we shall (he saith not judge) but interpret it, as done to th'intent to bless her. Why I make Canon nominative case to the verb interpretabitur, it is not to be marveled at, for so the Gloze itself teacheth me, where immediately it followeth, tamen quandoque Canon solam confabulationem interpretatur in deteriorem partem. Yet sometime the Canon doth interpret the only talking (with a woman) in the worse part.  
To be short, if a Priest may embrace any woman with honest, and good intent, if it be not of itself utterly unhonest, and unlawful: when he is seen so to do, by the godly Counsel of this Canon, which is the faying of S. Jerome, and by the exposition of the Gloze, the fact is to be taken and interpreted, not in the worse, but in the better part, for so the order of charity requireth, and so specially the honour of the Apostolic Degree, whereunto Priests be admitted in making or consecrating the precious body of Christ, requireth. Now as the sin of a Priest is more heinous than the same sin in a lay man, so when he doth a thing that may be both well, and evil done, for the reverence, and honour of that high and holy order, it is to be reported with the better interpretation. And thus that Gloze maketh nothing for defence of Fornication between single folk, for proof whereof, to the reproof of the canonists it is by you alleged. Now let it be indifferently judged, how just cause you had, thus to triumph.   
jewel. Pag. 361. 
These be your canonists: these be your Schoolmasters: these be your Doctors, M. Harding: thus they write, not only in the singular, but also in the Dual, and plural number. They would never so lightly have judged hereof, if they had thought, your Simple Fornication had been sin..  
Harding.  
Blow your trumpet, and make your Triumph, when ye have won the victory, and obtained a true conquest.   
jewel. Pag. 361. 
Somewhat it must needs be, 
Concil. Basilien. Sess. 20. Erasmus in Enchiridio militis Chris. cap. 14.  leave commissum, neutiquam refugiunt.  that in your Late Council of Basile, enforced the Bishops there to decree, that Fornication should be sin.. Erasmus saith, a great many of them, whom the common sort taketh for good and godly men, not a whit abhor simple Fornication, and a sober use of pleasure, reckoning it to be but a little petite fault.  
Harding.  
The Bishops of the Council of Basile made no such Decree, that Fornication should be sin.. That was before decreed by God. And so much the Council itself in that very place, unto which you direct us by your cotation, signifieth most plainly. For thus it saith: 
Sess. 20.  Cùm omne fornicationis crimen lege divina prohibitum sit, sub peccati mortalis poena necessariò evitandum, (Concilium) monet omnes Laitos tam uxoratos, quam solutes, ut similiter à concubinatu abstineam. Nimis enim reprehensibilis est, qui uxorem babet, & ad alienam mulierem accedit. 
1. Cor. 7.  Qui verò solutus est, si continere nolit, juxta Apostoli consilium uxorem ducat. Whereas the whole crime of Fornication is forbidden by God's law, of necessity to be avoided under the pain of mortal sin: the Council admonisheth all lay men, as well married, as single, that in like sort they abstain from keeping Concubines. For he is very much worthy to be rebuked, who hath a wife, and yet haunteth the company of an other woman. As touching him that is single, if he be not disposed to contain, according to the Apostles counsel, let him take a wife. By these words they decreed not that Fornication should be sin, but they admonished men as well married, as unmarried to forbear the company of concubines, because it was mortal sin by the law of God.  

Erasmus.  As for that you allege out of Erasmus, whom you call a man of singular learning, and judgement, which the Divines find not in him, it helpeth you nothing. Only he as his common manner is, accuseth the lose life of some whom the people nameth good, and godly men. You have falsely turned his words, for he saith not, as you make him to speak, that they reckon Fornication to be but a little petite fault: He saith, ut leave commissum, neutiquam refugiunt, they flee it not, as if it were but a light offence.  
jacobus de Valentia, 
jacobus de Valentia.  whom also you allege, maketh quite against you. For naming jews, and Saracenes, and il Christian men expressly, he seemeth not to mean the Popes canonists, whom here you burden with mainetenance of Fornication, which sort●… of men he would not have letted to name, had the matter been so clear, as you slander them.  
Touching that you tell us out of Antoninus, and Alexander de Hales, It is not worth the answering. Marry a● for that you bring us S. Augustine, because worthily he is of great authority, it is well to be weighed, what he saith. Thus you make him to tell his tale, or rather your own tale. For his it is not, as you set it forth.   
jewel. Pag. 361. 
And likewise S. Augustine, Illa Fornicatio, quam faciunt, 
August. in quaest. in Exod. question. 20.  qui uxores non habent, cum foeminis, quae viros non habent, an prohibita inveniri possit, ignoro. That kind of fornication, which Single men commit with Single women, whetber it be forbidden, or no, I can not tell. Thus you have M. Harding, not only what your canonists, but also what your School Doctors have taught, and thought of Simple Fornication.  
Harding.  
What M. jewel, 
M. jew. maketh S. Augustin to be ignorant, whether Simple Fornication be forbidden, or no.  are you so far become the devils slave, that now he may use your service, not only to persuade men to believe false Doctrine, but also to lead a wicked life? And the rather to perform this, make you S. Augustine to say, that he can not tell, whether Simple Fornication be forbidden, or no? Who is to be believed, if S. Augustine be not? And if he being so great a learned man, as ever Christ's Church had, could not tell, whether Simple Fornication be forbidden, or no, who is he that can tell? And if there be no man that can tell us, it is forbidden, the same once persuaded, the inclination to the fulfilling of fleshly lust being in mankind so general: what a window, yea what a wide gate shallbe opened to men to rush in, and without all conscience● to follow filthy pleasure?  
But where hath S. Augustine this saying? Your cotation hath thus. August. in quaest. in Exod. quaest. 20. Certainly in that short Chapter he saith no such thing. What, may we think, that of purpose you have l●ad your Reader away from the place, least your falsehood should be espied, and lest you should be taken, as they say, with the manner: Truly it is not unlike. O M. jewel though we bear with you in your common custom of falsifying the places ye allege, yet think not, that we may wink at you, when by the use of that sleight you open a way unto so great wickedness, and edify unto hell.  
The place from whence you took these words, is in S. Augustine, Quaestoinum super Exodum, lib. 2. quaest. 71. To open, and set forth the circumstance of the points, whereof he disputeth there, it were very long. The learned may read him. Having said, that the woman committeth advowtry, which hath carnal company with a man, that is not her husband, though he have no wife, and that the man likewise committeth advowtry by sinning with her, that is not his wife, though she have no husband: 
How fornication is forbidden in the Decalogus.  He addeth further, Sed utrum si faciat, etc., But if one do this, who hath no wife, with a woman, that hath no husband, whether (in this case) both be holden for transgressors of the precept (he meaneth this precept, Thou shalt not commit advowtry) The Question is for good cause moved. For if they be not guilty of transgression, 
Moechia, advowtry called Fornication in the Scriptures.  then is not Fornication forbidden in the Decalogus, that is to say, in the ten Commandments, but only Moechia, that is advowtry, howbeit all advowtry is understanded to be Fornication, as the Scriptures speak. For our Lord saith in the Gospel, whosoever putteth away his wife, 
Scriptures.  the cause of Fornication except, causeth her (Moechari) to commit advowtry. This he calleth Fornication, if she sin with an other man, that hath a husband, which thing is Moechia, that is (Adulterium) advowtry. And so all (Moechia) advowtry in the Scriptures is called also Fornication.  
But (on the other side) whether all Fornication may be called (Moechia) advowtry, 
whether fornication be called adultery in the Scriptures.  in the same Scriptures I can not yet call to my mind the example of such a speech. (Now follow the words, that M jewel would seem to allege, and hath alleged falsely) Sed si non omnis Fornicatio etiam Moechia dici potest, ubi sit in Decalogo prohibita illa Fornicatio, quam faciunt viri, qui uxores non habent, cum foeminis, quae maritos non habent, utrum inveniri possit, ignoro: but if it be so, that all Fornication can not be called also (Moechia) adultery, where that Fornication, which men commit, that have no wives, with women, that have no husbands, is forbidden in the table of the ten commandments, whether it can be found, or no, I can not tell.  
This is that (M. jewel) S. Augustine confessed he could not tell, whether Simple Fornication were forbidden, 
what is that properly that S. Augustine here confesseth, he knew not.  or no, as you tell us, for he knew right well it was forbidden: but whether, if all fornication be not contained in the name of Moechia, adultery, which word is expressed in the ten commandments, that kind of Fornication which men having no wives commit with women having no husbands, can be found forbidden (he saith, not all, but) in decalago, in the table of the ten commandments. This is that, and none other thing, whereof S. Augustine in that place confesseth himself to be ignorant.  

Ibidem. Fornication forbidden under the name of adultery. Robbery forbidden under the name of theft.  Now that such kind of Fornication is to be thought to be forbidden under the name of (Moechia) aduouteri●, with these words he declareth there immediately his determinate sentence, and judgement. Sed si furti nomis ne benè intelligitur omnis illicita usurpatio rei aliena: non enim rapinam permisit, qui furtum prohibuit, sed utique à part totum intelligi voluit, quicquid illicitè rerum proximi aufertur, profectò & nomine Moechiae, omnis illicitus concubitus, atque illorum membrorum non legitimus usus prohibitus debet intelligi. But if all unlawful usurpation of a thing, that is an other man's, be meant by the name of theft: for he that forbade Theafte, hath not permitted Robbery, but would the whole to be understanded by the part, what so ever thing of the neighbours is unlawfully taken away: verily likewise we ought to understand, that under the name of (Moechia) advowtry, every unlawful carnal act, and use of those parts not allowed by God's law, is forbidden.  
The effect of this whole discourse is this. S. Augustine confesseth the name of that which we call Simple Fornication, not to be found expressly in the Table of the ten Commandments. Nevertheless he saith, that it is to be understanded in the name of advowtry, which is there expressed, and that so it is forbidden under that name, as also every unlawful act, and use of those parts, that serve to the Generation. And all this proceedeth of like reason, as we ought to judge, that (Rapina) Robbery is forbidden, though in that Table it be not expressly named, as also every unlawful taking away, and detaining of an other man's things, as being understanded in the name of theft in that Commandment only expressed, as oftentimes by reason the whole must be understanded in the name of a part. 
Saepe intel ligitur à part totum.  For else we should think it lawful to rob, and commit ravin, whereas Theafte only is by express term forbidden: wherein we are controlled by reason itself, without further advise of Gods written word. Mow judge good Reader what reward M. jewel is worthy to have in a well ordered common wealth, for such abusing of S. Augustine's name, and authority, to the Defence, and maintenance of Simple Fornication. Certainly the liberty, that through this pleasant Gospel the world is now grown unto considered, it was little need to teach such Doctrine in open Books at these days.    

A Comparison of Errors, with which M. jewel chargeth me, and I on the other side, charge him. The 16. Chapter.  
Because Reader M. jewel to excuse a few errors, with which I charged the Author of the Apology, chargeth me likewise with errors, and oversights, committed in my Confutation, and in my first Rejoinder, that it may appear evidently unto thee, who standeth more charged, he, or I, both in respect of the number, and also of the weight of the matter reported in the errors: I will here truly and plainly rehearse those heinous errors, which he layeth to my charge, and then also I will lay forth certain of his errors, as they came to hand. Certain I say, for to lay forth so many as by search I might easily find, it would require the charges of an other book. These than be the great and weighty matters, wherein I seem to M. jewel worthy of great blame.  
jewel. in the View of his Untruths. B iij. b. 
M. Harding may remember, 
Confut. 4. 6. a. Confut. 312. b. Confut. 47. a. Rejoinder. fol. 287. a. Confut. 332. a.  that he himself in steed of the Prophet Osee, hath alleged us the noble joshua: and that by an other like oversight, he hath alleged the 8. book of Socrates Scholasticus where●s Socrates never written but seven. M. Harding himself in hi● Confutation of the Apology, in steed of the 22. of Luke, hath printed the 2. of Luke. Likewise in his rejoinder, in steed of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be hath printed, and sent us quite the contrary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To be short, M. Harding in this self same book, in steed of these words, lulled a sleep, by error hath printed, lulled a sheep.  
Harding.  
Of all these great and dangerous errors, I acknowledge but one to be mine, which is, that by oversight I named joshua, in steed of Osee. And o that there were no greater sin in me, for which I ought to cry God Mercy. And yet that it is an error, and a fault too, I confess: would God, you M. jewel would as readily confess yours. As for the rest, you must quarrel with the Printers servants, with whom I am offended: not only for these faults, but also for many more, no less than you. Were they diligent and true workmen, I perceive touching this case, you should have little to say. Now let the indifferent Reader compare these my errors, or rather this my one error, which in so many places you have objected unto me, and which only after so long search you have found, with a few of yours noted out of your late book, entitled The Defence of the Apology. Sure I am for your excuse, you can not lay the fault upon your Printer, nor by any other means justify them. Thus among other infinite Untruths, you say.   
jewel. Pag. 634. 
Ye may remember that two of the principal pillars of your Chapter (at Trent) Petrus a Soto, and Catharinus, dissented even there openly, and shamefully, and that in great points of Religion: and written the one mightily against the other: the one charging the other with error and heresy, and could never be reconciled.  
Harding.  
Here I must tell you M. jewel that you affirm more, than you are able to abide by. By this also, as by other infinite places, ye give your Reader to understand, what a sure card you are to trust unto, 
Catharinus, and Petrus a Soto be lied by M. jewel.  For Catharinus and Petrus a Soto, were never together at the Council of Trent, as any doers there, much less as principal pillars. Yea Catharinus was dead ten years before Petrus a Soto came to the Council, as one to have any doing there. For Catharinus died Anno 1552. and Petrus a Soto came to the Council Anno 1562. 
Sixtus Senensis in Bibliotheca sancta. lib. 4.  Wherefore I marvel that you are not ashamed so precisely to affirm an open and shameful untruth. For if they were not at the Council together, how could they dissent there openly, and shamefully, as you term it.  
Hereunto you add an other great Untruth, that they wrote mightily, the one against the other. For I am well assured, you can not prove, that ever they wrote the one against the other at al. Albeit I will not say, but that Petrus a Soto peradventure doth disallow some certain erroneous opinion of the others in some part of his works. That you say, they could never be reconcilied, is most false in your meaning. Howbeit in a contrary sense it may be truly said. For Reconciliation presupposeth a falling out. But where there was never falling out (as between them there was not, as far as it can appear by their writings) there could not be any Reconciliation.  
To like effect, and with as little truth you speak of them both Pagin. 350. In deed some such thing there was between Dominicus a Soto and Catharinus. Albeit their Dissension was not so outrageous, as you would have it seem. I marvel that you should so much, and so often after one sort be overseen, especially if you have read their books, as you pretend, or else if you have read Illyricus de Sectis, with stuff out of whose drags you have somewhat enlarged your volume, as it appeareth both otherwise, 
Illyricus Luther's great defender, a special Doctor of M. jewels.  and also by your own quotations out of that work. Yet he allegeth always there, and in other of his such the like rash and false scriblinge, Dominicus à Soto by his right name. But this error, or ignorance might peradventure be ascribe to some of your gatherers of stuff, and coadiutours, saving that you will needs take upon you all the fault yourself, and discharge all others thereof, as you have admonished the reader in your View of Untruths, where thus you say: what soever error shallbe found in any my writings, I will discharge both my Clerk, and the Compositour, and the Printer of the same, and take the whole upon myself.  
Moreover to show your constancy in this error, 
B. iij. b.  you do allege, Pag. 499. Petrus à Soto de natura & gratia, whereas he never wrote any such work, but Dominus à Soto. And herein it is to be noted also, that you neither quote the number of the book, nor of the Chapter, where that saying is to be found. But by like you went by heresaie, and report, and so left your reader to seek at adventure, that he should either not find, or else so hardly find, that he would be loath to take the pains to look for it.  
You tell me in an other place, that my friend Catharinus saith, I can not tell what, of School writers: 
Pag. 571.  and you refer me in the Margin to a book of his against Petrus a Soto. But I am sure you never saw any such book against that person. Well it might be against Dominicus a Soto. A man may think, that you read these things with spectacles of a false sight, that you were never able to discern Dominicus from Petrus, or else that you wrote, you knew not what, in a dream.  

Pag. 169. Alphonsus de Castro mistaken by M. jewel for Alphonsus Viruesius Bishop of the Canaries.  You allege unto me about vows, one of my greatest Doctors (as you call him) Alphonsus de Castro Philippica. 19 How great soever he be with me, it may be justly said, that you are greatly beholding unto him, if he make so often for you, as you allege him. For he hath helped you with stuff even for your own tooth, as you have handled the matter. But I pray you, did you ever see his Philippicas, because you allege the 19? I know not what spectacles you use: but if you read no better, and were in case, as some be, who have not murdered so many bodies, as you have souls, you might be put to a hard disstresse in time of need, at the Sessions, and be refused for not reading ut Clericus. For as it appeareth your reading is quite beside the book. Show me any such book of Alphonsus de Castro, and you shall be quit by Proclamation of all your false reports, which are more and greater than a man would ween, that is not acquainted with your writings. I remember that one Alphonsus Viruesius Episcopus Canariensis made such a work against Philip Melanchton, and called the Treaties of it, Philippicas, as I have told you before.  

Pag. 345.  Endeavouring to disgrace, as much as you can, godly and perfit obedience, you do contemptuously speak your pleasure, 
Cassianus lib. 4. cap. 27. de Institutis coenobiorum. Pag. 51. Zarabella de Sectis, alleged by M. jew. whereas he never written any such book. M. jewel allegeth Illyricus the heretic, under the name of zabarella, whom he meaneth by zarabella. Defence. Pag. 618. joannes Camotensis, a Doctor of M. jewels, never known. Confu. so. 286. Defence. pag. 613.  and yet because you would not seem to speak unto us without some authority, you bring in Cassander lib. 4. cap. 27. But certain it is, you miss the cuishon, and have mistaken your mark, in not discerning between Cassianus, and Cassander, and naming the one for the other, which fault might be laid to the Printer, but that ye have taken the matter in hand yourself.  
In purling in the canonists for sayings that might be wrested against the Pope, you tell us a tale out of Franciscus Zabarella de Sectis 115. Whether you have seen any author called Zarabella, by which name you always allege him, I do more than doubt. It may be, that you mean Zabarella, for that is his right name. But yet can you not show us any book that ever he made de Sectis. I wis M. jewel you should have written Illyricus De Sectis, your own great friend. You do also allege in three divers places. Videlicet pag. 639. 648. 694. your the same Zabarella the Schemale & Concilio. I would ask you, what is meant there by those words de Schemate. Should it not be, trow you, de Schismate?  
About joannes Camotensis you play and dally, even as a fish with the hook, till he be caught fast by the jaw. You seem to please yourself much in controlling my guess. But therein at length you bewray your own ignorance, and prove yourself not to be so wise, and well learned, as you would be taken, in your own authors alleged. Because I said, what worshipful Doctor, you mean by Camotensis I know not: You added in the margin, If I knew him no●, I might best blame mine ignorance. But how justly you are to be blamed of ignorance in the self same matter yourself, wherein you take yourself to be so great a doctor, let every upright Reader judge. After you have a while scornfully told me, whom I might have guessed this author to be, as Fulbertus Carnotens●●, or joannes Sarisburiensis, otherwise called by some (as you say) Rupertus Carnotensis, you pronounce at length the definitive sentence very sadly with these words: But in deed this writer's name is joannes Carnotensis, alleged by Cornelius Agrippa. 
Cornel. Agrippa.  As for Agrippa's allegation, it maketh no force: for he is not of so honest same, but that exception may lawfully be taken against his person, and therefore he is meeter for your purpose, Albeit in this case it may be, that the Printer was in fault, and not Agrippa himself. And how easily Camotensis is made of Carnotensis, by change of rn into m, who perceiveth not? And so would Agrippa say, were he alive, there is no doubt. But you affirm plainly without all doubt, that in deed it is joannes Camotensis, that was a Bishop. And there you do very odiously without all cause make a comparison between him, and certain others, only to serve your own scoffing humour.  
But Sir I pray you, for as much as you will have him in deed to be a Bishop, 
Cornel. Agrippa de vanitate Scientiarum. cap. ●1.  be so good as tell us, whether he be called Camotensis of his country, or of his Bishopric. Your great substantial Doctor Cornelius Agrippa seemeth to signify (if the Printer have not deceived him) that he had that name of his Bishopric, calling him joannes Camotensis Episcopus. But whether he beareth that name of the one, or of the other, it maketh no great matter. If it be so, it remaineth, that you can tell us, in what part of the world, whether in Asia, in Aphrica, or in Europa, or in the new found lands, there be any place of that name. I think you must be feign to look over all the Geographical tables, and books you have, and borrow some of your fellows too, and put on your spectales of the best sight, and yet for all that (I warrant you) not find it, except it be in Utopia.  
Well M. jewel, that you may understand, that the more occasion you give me to seek, the more I find matter of Untruth and ignorance to charge you withal, I tell you in deed, that you have named joannes Camotensis in steed of joannes Carnotensis, if you have respect to his Bishopric. 
joannes Camotensis, must be joannes Sarisburiensis, who was Bishop of Chartres in France, and thereof in Latin called Carnotensis. Defence. pag. 613.  But if you will have his Country signified, then must you call him joannes Salesberiensis (or Sarisburiensis, choose whether) as you have done Pag. 132. I might say that this joannes Sarisburiensis was a Bishop in all respects far better (to use your own words, not, than Leontius, Hippolytus, or Clemens, as it liketh you to scoff at those learned and blessed Bishops, but) than john jewel of Sarisburie, if you, naming yourself john of Sarisburie, could justly be accounted any Bishop at al. But between a Bishop, and no Bishop in this behalf, there can be no comparison.  
This is not the first time, that you have alleged your witnesses by a blind guess, hearsay, or report, not having seen their books, nor knowing what the Authors were. You can say much by rote, and prou● little by skill, as in many other places, but here most evidently it appeareth. For if you had known, that your joannes Camotensis, is the self same joannes Sarisburiensis (otherwise named Carnotensis) for that he was in his time Bishop of Chartres in France, 
Pag. 132.  named Carnotum in Latin, which you have alleged before out of his work entitled Polycraticon, but never declaring out of what book thereof, being eight books in the whole, or what Chapter (because ye never read the place in the Author himself, but received it by the way of alms of friar Bale, Flacius Illyricus, or some such other): if, I say, you had known so much, as you might, if you had taken the pain to peruse the Polycration yourself, you would never have made so much a do about so small a matter.  
Now for your better instruction, and fuller satisfaction, may it please you to understand, that he which is misnamed in Epitome Bibliothecae Gesneri, joannes Camotensis, is in Partitionibus eiusdem Gesneri tituli. 5. fol. 95. rightly called joannes Carnotensis. And that your joannes Camotensis is by you blindly mistaken for joannes Carnotensis, it evidently appeareth by the sentences alleged by your own Necromantical Doctor Cornelius Agrippa, and by an other of the Spritish sort of your gospel Paulus Scalichius in his railing Libel De Choraea Monachorum, 
Paul. Scalichius.  and by lying Illyricus in Catalogo testium veritatis, which are ascribed by Bawdy Bale 2. Centur. Scriptorum Britanniae, pag. 212. too joannes Carnotensis out of his Polycraticon. And in deed they are there to be found, albeit not to that purpose, that all the pack of your holy brethren have untruly alleged them for. And therefore never a one of you all hath quoted either number of the book, or Chapter, where any of those sentences are to be found, lest your falsehood might have been espied, and that by reading the whole discourse of the places, your evil purpose should have been nothing furthered, but much hindered. But if it will please either you, or the Reader to peruse the 16. chapter of the 5. book, and the 24. of the 6. book of the said Polycraticon: you for your part shall have occasion to understand your error and folly, and the Reader for his part, not to be deceived with your blind report. 
Pag. 51. Cusanus sowly, and ignorantly belied of M. jew.   
You bear your Reader in hand pag. 51. that Nicolaus Cusanus wrote a book, entitled, de Auctoritate Ecclesiae & Concilij, supra, & contra Scripturam: Of the Authority of the Church and Council, above and against the Scripture. And as though you had seen the book, and well perused it, you refer your Reader thereunto in 14. more places of this your pretenced Defence, as it shall appear to him, 
A false forged book odiously attributed by M. jew. to Cardinal Cusanus in xv. Sundry places.  that will take the pains to turn to these pages here truly quoted. 53. 55. 78. 157. 331. 438. 439. 474. 558. 593. 665. 674. 704. 724.  
Now M. jewel notwithstanding all these quotations of yours, if you be able to show us any book of Cusanus so entitled, either in print, or in authentic written hand, I will say, that you will prove yourself a truer man, than ever I took you to be.  
But because this may little move you, I will more add on the contrary side, if you be not able to show the same after so many allegations out thereof, it will consequently follow, that you are a shameless man, I might say, a false harlot. If a man were disposed to dally with you in a matter most certain, as you use to do with others, when you think you have gotten any small shadow of some counterfeit advantage (for an undoubted example whereof I refer the readers to the page 414.) he might perchance dash you quite out of countenance, and deface you for ever, yea even before your friends, and the flattering upholders of your doings, which would grieve you at the heart. Now might one challenge you, and say: M. jewel, if you be able to show any book, or half book, oration, or epistle, or any little pamphlet, whereunto Cusanus hath given this title, then will the Catholics grant you more than ever you were able to get yet at their hands. If you have all the books in your study, either of your own, or of other men, that you allege, then bring the book with this title forth, and you shall discharge yourself of a most impudent lie, and slander. And if you be able so to do, than I pray you let it be proclaimed by you with your book in your hand at Paul's cross, (as you have done at other times, to your worship forsooth) that all the world may bear witness thereof. Verily M. jewel it appeareth, that you have read more, than you understand, or at least than you have list to understand: and yet you allege more, than ever you read in the books whereunto you refer us, as it may well be proved by this present example, and many other the like. You may beshrew him, to whom you gave so light credit herein. Covet not praise by making great books. Writ fewer words, more truth. Trust not every pelting book, that seemeth toothsome unto you, yea writ nothing but truth, and ye shall ease us of much pains. Now a man's life will not serve him to discover the multitude of your Lies, to such impudency ye are grown. What man is there, having any spark of shamefastness, that would refer us so often, and so confidently to a book by a title, which it never had, ne never was any such written? And therefore until you bring forth your author hereof, you must be content to bear all the blame of a slanderous and impudent Liar.  
It had been an easy matter for you to have vowed Tritemius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, Conradus Gesnerus Bibliotheca, or his Epitome, or elles Cusanus works printed at Basile anno 1565. which was out almost two years before your Defence was published, where you should have found, that he never wrote book of any such title. What is to be thought hereof, but that, either you have maliciously invented this Lie of yourself, to deface the author withal, or else that you have unwisely received it of some other, who is not able to abide by it? If of yourself, then, maius peccatum habes, if of any other, then bring him forth a Gods name, to discharge yourself of malice, albeit not of folly.  
I do guess, that you will peradventure bring forth a great Stoareman of yours, who furnisheth you with such gay stuff, and maketh you a great Truant, a fellow meet for the purpose, that will never fail such a false merchant at a need. I take him to be that sures be of yours, Mathias Flacius Illyricus. For you declare yourself, that you, beside other books of his, have been busy with his Norma Concilij Tridentini. And there I find written: 
In altera part clavis Scripturae. pa. 541.  Nicolai Cusani, post quam factus est Cardinalis, sententia, de auctoritate Ecclesiae, & Concilij supra, & contra Scriptutam. But yet this will not discharge you of malice. For he saith not, that he entitled his book so, as you do affirm, but doth pretend to recite Cusanes mind of that matter, as this word, Sententia, declareth. Now one may gather an other man's mind concerning any matter out of his writings, though he never made any work of that title.  
Neither doth Illyricus specify in that place the work out of the which he hath drawn that, which he there allegeth, and which you received of him again at the second hand. So that I can not perceive, but that the blame both of folly, and of malice must rest still upon your own person. For I suppose you will not have yourself taken for so ignorant, as to think Sententia is latin for a book: or if you will, then why do you so brag, as it were, and boast of your great reading and learning?  
Moreover you have not only given us a false title of your own imagination to Cusanus writing, but also of an Epistle you have made a Book. That your good intent and plain dealing herein may be more evident, I will recite the title of thal Epistle, as it is to be found among his works printed at Basile Anno 1565. Pagin. 851. 852. Epistola 7. Nicolai de Cusa Cardinalis ad Clerum, & Literatos Bohemiae, and thereunto in the top of the leaf is added, De amplectenda unitate Ecclesiae. Let both these Titles be conferred, and your malicious intent in so wilfully depraving the authors words, to bring him out of credit, must most manifestly appear.  
Well, perchance you will say, though the title be altered, yet his words out of that same Epistle be truly recited, wherein consisteth the chief effect, and principal purpose. If you so say, you will be proved no less a Liar, and false reporter herein, than you have been in the rest. And for example hereof I will bring even the very first place that you have alleged out of him. You tell us page. 55. that, thus he saith. Sequuntur Scripturae Ecclesiam, & non è converso: 
Cusanus foully falsified by M. jewel.  The Scriptures of God follow the Church: but contrariwise the Church followeth not the Scriptures.  
You have here clipped the Authors sentence, and quite altered the sense. His words are these. Ecclesia igitur, sicut recipit Scripturam, ita & interpretatur. 
Pag. 858,  Sequuntur Scriptura Ecclesiam, quae prior est, & propter quam Scripturae, & non è converso: The Church, as it receiveth the Scripture, so doth it expound the same. The Scriptures therefore do follow the Church, which is the former, and for the which the Scripture is ordeiined, and not contrariwise.  
What odds is betwixt this sentence of Cusanus, and that which you have fathered upon him, any mean witted man may ealsily perceive. For Cusanus words in their right form do both stand well, and have a good meaning. But your false changing of them causeth them to import an intolerable Derogation to the Scriptures without any colour of truth. For as it is most true, that the Church was before the Scriptures (that is to say, the written word of God) and that the Scriptures were ordained and appointed for the Church, but not contrariwise the Church for the Scriptures: so is it very false, that the Scriptures do follow the Church, and the Church not the Scriptures. For why hath the Church received the Scriptures, but to follow them, and put them in execution both in our inward belief and in our outward actions? Do you not blush M. jewel thus wilfully to pervert that with your false juggling, and conveying away of those words quae prior est, & propter quam Scripturae, which before had a right good sense? You thought by like, you should never hear thereof again, nor be called to any reckoning: or else you would have had more regard ro your good name and honesty. You can pretend no tolerable excuse, as that you had not Cusanus works at hand. For even Illyricus, upon whose credit you have taken up all that you have out of this epistle, doth not otherwise report the same, 
Pag. 544. in 2. part Clavis Script.  than they are to be found in the author. But you thought you would pass him an ase in falsehood, although he be his crafts master therein.  
How foully you have overshoot yourself in falsifying sentences, and misreporting author for author, and book for book, that which hath hitherto been declared, may be sufficient instruction to any man, that is willing and desirous to understand the truth, and not content to be lead into wilful blindness and error. Howbeit to make the matter a little more sensible and plainer and also to give you occasion the better to know your folly, and not to exalt yourself overmuch with pride, vain glory, and presumption, of I can not tell what extraordinary knowledge, as you seem to do: I will set before your eyes such a glass of your gross oversight, ignorance, and blindness to look in, as you may, and peradventure will be ashamed thereof, if you be not altogether past shame already. Many times either to hide your ignorance, or to weary the searcher, or to cover your falsehood, you bring us in such general quotations without number of Book, or Chapter, as a man shall be little the nearer. For examples whereof, Pag. 15. 158. 265. August. Pag. 51 August. de Civitate Dei. Pag. 50. 267. Cyprianus Pag. 37. Eusebius. Pag. 29. Theodorit. in Histor. Ecclesiast. Pa. 11. Theodorit. de curand. Graec. affect. Pag. 482. 532. Baldus. pa. 486. Eckius. Pag. 564. Hieronymus. 629. Fortalitium fidei. Iten 401. 313. Antoninus. 498. Liriensis Episcopus. 447. Eusebius Emissenus. Pag. 13. You refer us to a Council of Carthage as you remember, you can not tell which.  
In all these and such like places, a man hath occasion justly to suspect your covert dealing: that either the place maketh nothing for your purpose, if it were considered, or that there be no such words there at all, or at the least, that you do not speak of certain knowledge, but by some guess, or upon an other man's report. But where you are so bold, as to quote unto us the Chapters, there it were to be supposed that you should speak ex speciali scientia, of your precise knowledge, and so much the more, as you oft inculcate one place. And yet for all that it is to be proved, that even in such places you do but set a great look on the matter, to outface your readers, and gainesaiers withal. Example most notable hereof is to be taken of your quotations of one Heruaeus de Potestate Papae, a great and familiar Doctor with you. About 37. times, and every where (saving in two places, that is to wit Pag. 331. 608.) you have quoted unto us precisely the Chapter, and yet he hath not divided his book into any Chapters at al. Therefore by like you had a good sight, that could so often see so many, and distinct Chapters, where there be none. Yea which is more, that you could recite so many sentences out of him, and some of them not without loathsomeness oftentimes repeated, and yet never a one of them to be found in such form of words in all the book. This may seem a very strange matter unto them, who took you to be the chief Doctor, and the most precious jewel of all our Ministers of this English Congregation. And therefore they will surmise, that I speak this in a dream of you. But that they may know I speak not of report, but by trial and experience, I will here set out before the Readers eyes the Pages, where Heruaeus is quoted in the margin of your book, that if he can come by the book, which is in deed of an old print, he may by conference prove, whether I have said herein otherwise then truth.   


All these here following, are not in Heruaeus, but in one johannes de Parisijs.  Pagina. 119. Cap. 13. 162. 12. 399. 13. 400. 12. 13. 401. 19 405. 13. 13. 528. 16. 532. 16. 533. 20. 536. 11. 12. 13. it should be 14. Pagina. 537. Cap. 19 538. 19 544. 12. it should be 13. 607. 14. 615. 18. 651. 18. 652. 8. 653. 18. 660. 18. 692. 17. 694. 13. 696. 18. 15.  
Now is never a one of all these places in Heruaeus, but in joannes de Parisiis. Whom M. jewel maketh a distinct Author from the other: and yet doth he recite out of the self same book of his divers sentences, and referreth them unto him, as it may appear.  
Pagina. 53. Cap. 3. 102. 3. 467. 3. 535. 5. 649. 5. 652. 5.    

A Note of certain places of the text of my Confutation, left out by M. jewel in his Defence.  
GOod Reader, I have here set before thee a brief Note, or Table of certain places, of purpose, and guilefully left out by M. jewel in his recital of the text of my Confutation, printed in the book of his Defence, which places in making this Detection I had occasion to express. By the same thou mayst see, and as in a few have a taste (for to note all it would amount to a just volume) how he deceiveth thee in the rest, bearing the countenance of one, that hath answered the substance of the whole Confutation. For so much he telleth thee himself with these words.  
To answer M. harding to every parcel of his Book, being so long, it would be tedious. 
M. jewel in the beginning of his De, fence. Pag. 2.  Wherefore leaving many his impertinent speeches, and unnecessary and waste words, I will touch only so much thereof, as shall bear some show of substance, and may any way seem worthy to be answered.  
How well and truly M. jewel hath kept this promise, and how at the first greeting, and entry of his Book he beguileth thee, by these few places here noted, and in this Detection at large set forth, thou shalt see and perceive. For trial therefore of his truth, have recourse unto the leaves of this Book here quoted, and look what places of the Text of my Confutation there recited, be comprehended within two stars (as I do also there in the Margin warn thee) assure thyself, that all those, and an infinite number of such other places, are by M. jewel in this his Defence quite left out, as if no such thing had been written. And then whether such places by him so left out, be but impertinent speeches, and unnecessary and waste words, or right worthy to be answered, I leave it to thine own indifferent judgement to discern. Verily if it may be lawful thus to deal in the handling of Controversies, it shall not seem hard to confute the works of any write●, be they never so learned and substantial.  
But now to the Note, wherein I direct thee, to the leaves and Pages of this my Detection, in such order, as by occasion such his false sleights have been by me detected.  

The first place. fol. 3. b. line. 27. until. fol. 4. a. line. 9  
The ij. fol. 21. b. line. 31. until. fol. 22. a. line. 3.  
The iij. fol. 43. b. line. 7.  
The iiij. fol. 45. a line. 6.  
The v. fol. 121. b. line. 28.  
The vj. fol. 129. a. line. 16.  
The seven. fol. 129. b. line. 8.  
The viii. fol. 193. a. line. 22.  
The ix. fol. 193. b. line. 4.  
The x. Ibidem. line last.  
The xj. fol. 194. a. line. 29.  
The xii. fol. eodem. b. line. 10.  
The xiii. and xiv. fol. 195. a line. 7. and line 28.  
The xv. fol. eodem. b. line. 17.  
The xuj. fol. 196. a. line. 11.  
The xvij. fol. eodem. b. line. 13.  
The xviij. fol. 197. a. line. 15.  
The nineteen. fol. eodem. b. line. 2.  
The xx. fol. 198. a. line. 2.  
The xxj. fol. 230. a. line. 24.  
The xxij. fol. 278. b. line. 4.  
The twenty-three. fol. eodem. line. 24.  
The xxiv. fol. 279. a. line. 18.  
The xxv. fol. 279. b. line. 23.  
The xxuj. fol. 280. a. line. 6.   

M. jewels most shameless and most notorious Lies, (other common untruths of false alleging and false translating, omitted) noted in such order, as they lie in this Detection confuted.  
The first lie. fol. 1. b. line. 27.  
The ij. fol. 3. a. line. 15.  
The iij. fol. 4. a. line. 17.  
The iiij. fol. 6. a. line. 5.  
The v. fol. 6. b. line. 25. and 7. a. l. 17.  
The vj. fol. 7. b. line. 12.  
The seven. fol. 8. b. line. 15.  
The viii. fol. 9 b. line. 12.  
The ix. fol. 10. b. line. 19  
The x. ibidem. line. 28.  
The xj. fol. 12. b. line. 25.  
The xii. fol. 13. b. line. 9  
The xiii. xiv. and xv. fol. 15. a. line. 3.  
The xuj. xvij. and xviij. fol. 16. b. line. 5.  
The nineteen. and xx. fol. 19 a. line. 2. and 17.  
The xxj. xxij. twenty-three. xxiv. xxv. and xxuj. fol. 20. b. l. 6.  
The xxvij. fol. 45. b. line 30.  
The xxviij. fol. 46. a. line. 28.  
The xxix. and thirty. fol. 47. a. line. 4. and 26.  
The xxxj. fol. 48. a. line. 20.  
The xxxij. fol. 62. a. line. 22.  
The xxxiij. fol. 63. a. line. 13.  
The xxxiiij. fol. 64. a. line. 25.  
The xxxv. fol. 66. b. line. 10.  
The xxxuj. fol. 67. a. line. 24.  
The xxxvij. fol. 74. b. line. 28.  
The xxxviij. and xxxix. fol. 75. a. line. 10. and 18.  
The xl. fol. 78. b line. 14.  
The xlj. fol. 81. a. line. 17.  
The xlij. fol. 81. b. line. 26.  
The xliij. fol. 82. b. line. 9  
The xliiij. xlv. and xluj. fol. 83. b. line. 23. 28.  
The xlvij. fol. 84. b. line. 8.  
The xlviij. fol. 85. b. line. 1.  
The xlix. fol. 87. b. line. 20.  
The l. fol. 88 a. line. 17.  
The lj. fol. 93. a. line. 22.  
The lij. fol. 95. a. line. 23.  
The liij. fol. 96. a. line. 11.  
The liiij. fol. 98. a. line. 10.  
The lv. conteniing more than v. petit Untruths in it fol. 99 a. 100 a. line. 9  
The luj. fol. 100 b. line. 3.  
The lvij. fol. 101. b. line. 13.  
The lviij. fol. 102. a. line. last.  
The lix. fol. 103. a. line. 7.  
The lx. and lxj. fol. 106. a. line. 2. 3.  
The lxij. fol. 108. a. line. 27.  
The lxiij. most vile and filthy. fol. 120. a. line. 24. 121. lines 16. & sequent.  
The lxiiij. fol. 128. b. line. 17.  
The lxv. 145. a. line. 17.  
The lxuj. and lxvij. fol. 169. b. lines 14. and 15.  
The lxviij. lxix. lxx. and lxxj. fol. 171. a. lines. 24. 25. 26. and 27. Item fol. 171. b. and 172. a.  
The lxxij. fol. 172. b. line. 3.  
The lxxiij. fol. 186. b. line. 21.  
The lxxiiij. fol. 187. b. line. 16.  
The lxxv. fol. 189. a. line. 21.  
The lxxuj. fol. 207. a. line. 22.  
The lxxvij. fol. 209. b. line last.  
The lxxviij. fol. 215. a. line. 21.  
The lxxix. fol. 229. b. line. 8.  
The lxxx. fol. 232. a. line. 6.  
The lxxxj. most Impudent. fol. 232. b. line. 20.  
The lxxxij. fol. 234. a. line. 2. b. 18.  
The lxxxiij. fol. 245. b. line. 20.  
The lxxxiiij. fol. 249. a. line. 24.  
The lxxxv. fol. 249. b. line. 20.  
The lxxxuj. fol. 251. a. line. 14.  
The lxxxvij. fol. 253. b. line. first.  
The lxxxviij. fol. 255. b. line. 19  
The lxxxix. fol. 256. b. line. 12.  
The xc. fol. 262. b. line. 28.  
The xcj and xcij fol. 263. a. lines. 5. and 15.  
The xciij. and xciiij. fol. 263. b. lines. 17. and 21.  
The xcv. and xcuj. fol. 264. a. lines. 7. and 18.  
The xcvij fol. 265. b. line. 15.  
The xcviij. fol. 266 a. line. 3.  
The xcix. fol. 266. b. line. 25.  
The c. fol. 268. b. line. 2.  
The cj fol. 269. a. line. 18.  
The cij. fol. 271. b. line. 1.  
The ciij fol. 282. b. line. 3.  
The ciiij fol. 283. b. line. 23.  
The cv. fol. 285. a. line. 18.  
The cvj. fol. 285. a. line. 24.  
The cvij fol. 285. b. line. 28.  
The cviij. fol. 286. a. line. 17.  
The cix. fol. 287. a. line. 3.  
The cx. fol. 287. b. line. 6.  
The cxj fol. 288. a. line. 19  
The cxij fol. 288. a. line. 21.  
The cxiij. fol. 290. a. line. 17.  
The cxiiij. fol. 296. b. line. 25.  
The cxv. fol. 299. b. line. 15.  
The cxuj. fol. 302. a. line. 17.  
The cxvij. fol. 303. a. line. 15.  
The cxviij. fol. 305. a. line. 7.  
The cxix. fol. 305. a. line. 22.  
The cxx. fol. 306. a. line. 10.  
The cxxj. fol. 308. a. line. 16.  
The cxxij. fol. 309. a. line. 25.  
The cxxiij. fol. 321. b. line. 22.  
The cxxiiij. fol. 322. a. line. 14.  
The cxxv. fol. 323. b. line. 28.  
The cxxuj fol. 327. b. line. 7.  
The cxxvij fol. 333. b. line. 20.  
The cxxviij. fol. 335. a. line. 1.  
The cxxix. fol. 342. a. line. 14.  
The cxxx. fol. 345. a. line. 6.  
The cxxxj. fol. 347. a. line. 26.  
The cxxxij. fol. 352. a. line. 14.  
The cxxxiij. fol. 356. a. line. 4.  
The cxxxiiij. fol. 357. b. line. 2.  
The cxxxv. fol. 358. b. line. 13.  
The cxxxuj. fol. 360. b line. 3.  
The cxxxvii. fol. 370. b. line. 6.  
The cxxxviij. fol. 373. b. line. 2.  
The cxxxix. fol. 380. b. line. 4.  
The cxl. fol. 381. b. line. 20.  
The cxlj fol. 382. a. line. 16.  
The cxlij. fol. 383. a. line. 19  
The cxliij. fol. 387. a. line. 13.  
The cxliiij. fol. 391. b. line. 15.  
The cxlv. fol. 392. b. line. 19  
The cxluj fol. 399. a. line. 21.  
The cxlvij fol. 401. a. line. 31.  
The cxlviij. fol. 402 b. line. 23.  
The cxlix. fol. 404. a. line. 12.  
The cl. fol. 406. b. line. 2.  
The clj fol. 410. a. line. 15.  
The clij fol. 412. a. line. 18.    
FINIS.   

A Table of the chief matters treated of in this Book.  

A  
AErius his heresies. fol. 133. b.  
agreeing in Communion, where is disagreeing in opinion. fol. 272. b.  
Almaricus. fol. 111. a.  
Almaric and Abailard Heretics. fol. 102. b.  
Alphonsus impudently belied by M. jewel. fol. 63. a.  
Alphonsus shamefully abused by M. jewel. fol. 6. b.  
S. Ambroses' mind touching praying to Saints. fol. 362. a.  
Anacletus his Decree expounded. fol. 60. b. 61. a.  
Answer to special words of discourtesy noted by. M. jew. fol. 45. a.  
Answer to M. jewels View of his untruths. fol. 56. b.  
Angels and archangels. fol. 142. b.  
Anacletus not conunterfeite. fol. 227. b.  
Ancyran Council answered touching the continuance of married Deacons in the ministery. fol. 298. b.  
Anselmusmade wrongfully a spokesman for priests Marriages. fol. 308. a.  
Apostasy of the Protestants. fol. 35. b. 36. a. b.  
Apostata, who so is, and what it signifieth. fol. 35. b. 236. a.  
The Apostates married of the English Congregation. fol. 36. b.  
Application of Christ's merits to others in the Mass. fol. 355. b.  
Appollinaris the elder not married after he was priest. fol. 304. b.  
Arguments hanging from heaven to earth. fol. 142. a.  
An Argument proving this new Congregation not to be the true Church. fol. 92. a.  
Augustine falsely alleged by. M. jewel. fol. 113. a.  
Augustine's Doctrine of General Councils. fol. 113. b. 114.  
Augustine's place to Dardanus expounded. fol. 117.   

B  
Baptism of Infants necessary. fol. 336. a.  
Bastard works printed with good authors. fol. 58. b.  
Bawdy Bale worthily so called. fol. 37.  
Beno partial, holding with the Emperor against the Pope. fol. 57 a.  
S. Bernard rejected by M. jew, fol. 12. a.  
Berengarius words as he lay dying. 105. b. his heresy condemned. fol. 105. a  
Beza persuaded Poltrot to kill the Duke of Guise. fol. 85. a.  
Bigamy lawful rather then commendable. fol. 279. b.  
bishops only in Councelle have sentence definitive. fol. 99 a.  
Bishops not doing their duties are yet Bishops. fol. 181. 182.  
Bishops and Priests different. fol. 133. b.  
bishops be Bishops though they be negligent. fol. 181. a.  
A Bishop above a Priest. fol. 235. b.  
The Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter. fol. 273. a.  
A Bishop is not able to do his duty the better for that he is married. fol. 309. b.  
Blame, a word of honest meaning changed by M. jew. in to Handle a word of filthy meaning. fol. 121. a.  
Brentius the first deviser of laying together the adversaries sharp words. fol. 25. b.  
Brentius chargeth Bullinger with sharp speech. fol. 26. a.  
Brentius the author of the heresy of the ubiquitaries. fol. 116. b.  
Browne the head Minister of the Puritans. fol. 336. a.  
Brunichildis Queen of France. fol. 382. a   

C.  
CAnonical Election of M. jewel to the See of Sarisburie. fol. 232. a.  
Capon Bishop, no Protestant. fol. 243. a.  
The Catholic Church. fol. 272. 273. 274.  
Catholic what by Lirinensis. fol. 124. b.  
Catholic Church standing in two persons by M. jewel. fol. 126. a.  
Cathecumenus interpreted by M. jewel an heathen. fol. 342. a.  
Celestinus Pope slandered. fol. 253. b.  
Cham's brood. fol. 37. a.  
Character what it signifieth in the Sacraments. fol. 268. a.  
Christopher Goodman's Traitors. fol. 84. b.  
The Church standeth in multitude of persons. fol. 125. b. 126.  
Christ is the Rock, and Peter is the Rock, and how each. fol. 174. b.  
Church a plainer teacher than the Scriptures. fol. 328.  
Christ a consecrated priest. fol. 3, 2. b.  
Christ touched of us in the eucharist. fol. 340. a.  
Christ's body received of us with mouth. fol. 341. a.  
Church how it is resolved in doubtful cases. fol. 352.  
The clergy of this new Congregation what worthy men it hath. fol. 262. b.  
Clerks bound to Continency. fol. 279. a.  
Communion in one or both kinds. fol. 343. b. & in sequent. b.  
communicatory letters. fol. 223. b.  
Concupiscence without consent is not properly sin. fol. 337. a.  
Continuance of the Church without intermission. fol. 31. a. 89. 90. 91. 92.  
Council of Laterane a great assembly. fol. 105. a.  
Councils of later time in authority. fol. 108. 109. a. b.  
Councils not contrary one to the other. fol. 109. b.  
Councils later preferred before the former fol. 114. b. 115. a.  
Concupiscence in married men, without which generation is not performed, is an ill thing. fol. 283. a.  
Consecration of a Bishop. fol. 240. b.  
Confession of sins necessary. fol. 274 b. 275. 276. 277.  
Contradictions of M. jewel. fol. 98. a. 101. b.  
Cranmer no Successor of S. Thomas. fol. ●04. a.  
Cranmer how dealt withal for heresy and treason. fol. 380. b.  
Cyrillus falsified by M. jew. fol. 280. a.  
Cyprian nipped foully by M. jewel. fol. 269. a.  
Cyprian alleged by M. jew. in an ill cause. fol. 271. b.   

D.  
DAmasus made by M. jewel to write of things done after his death. fol. 287. a.  
Degradatio. fol. 7. a.  
Deposition of the Clergy what it is, and how. fol. 69. b. 70. 71.  
Dioscorus condemned by Bishops, not by the Civil magistrate. fol. 72. 73.  
Dissensions among the Protestants. fol. 33. 34. 35. 151. 152.  
Donatists error renewed by M. jewel. fol. 92. a.  
Dorman defended. fol. 295. a.  
Double holiness. fol. 203. b.  
Drink ye all of this, in what sense it was spoken. fol. 343. b.   

E.  
ERasmus against the Protestants. fol. 163. b.  
Erasmus and Agrippa bely the Greek Church touching priests marriage. fol. 307. a.  
Ephrem prayed for the help of Saints, and to saints. fol. 364. b.  
Error of S. Cyprian. fol. 271. b.  
Error of Pope john 22. what was it. fol. 64. b.  
Errors that M. jewel may be induced to acknowledge. fol. 77. a.  
Errors the greatest that M. jewel could find in my books. fol. 77. b.  
eucharist ministered to Children at Baptism. fol. 241. a.   

F.  
Faith in England made changeable. fol. 23. a.  
Faith without works. fol. 369. b.  
Faith of the later thousand years as good, as that of the first five hundred years. fol. 94, b.  
Faithful wives have been cause of the coversion of their unfaithful husbands. fol. 315. a.  
Fathers charged by M. jew. with oversight for zeal and heat. fol. 295. b.  
Figurative body, and figurative eating. fol. 333. a.  
Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Luther compared. fol. 108.  
Flesh is a mean whereby grace passeth into the Soul. fol. 339. a.  
Formosus Pope. fol. 139. b.  
Fornication how it is punished in the Clergy. fol. 69. 70. 71.  
Fornication ever punished by the Church. fol. 81.  
Fruit of the Vine. fol. 353. b.   

G.  
GErmanie for many parts remaining Catholic. fol. 96. a.  
Gerson impudently belied by M. jewel. fol. 64. a. 100 b. 101. a. b.  
Goodman's traitorous writing. fol. 14. b.  
Gospel cometh unto us by Tradition. fol. 326. b.  
Gratian'S words alleged by M. jev. for the Council of Carthage. fol. 59 b.  
Grace necessary to the keeping of the commandments. fol. 366. b.  
Gregory Nazanzenes saying touching a married Bishop expounded. fol. 61. b. 313. b.   

H.  
HEad of the Church one. fol. 136. b. 137. & seq.  
Henry of Luxenburg how he died. fol. 57 b.  
Henry the eights body bruited to be taken away. fol. 140. a.  
Henry the sixth his body taken up. fol. 140. a.  
Heretics, it booteth not to strive with them. fol. 215. b.  
Heretics have not to do with Scriptures. fol. 216. a.  
Heresy hath idolatry annexed. fol. 261. b  
Hildebrand Pope. 57 b. acquitted by grave writers. fol. 256. b. 257. a.  
Jerome of Prage heretic recanted. fol. 104. a.  
Hieromes place ad Euagrium, expounded. fol. 165. b. 166. 167.  
Hilary a wicked man sainted by M. jewels Canonization. fol. 173. a.  
S. Hilaries verdict of S. Peter's pre-eminence. fol. 173. a.  
S. Hilary married by M. jew. fol. 28. a.  
Holiness of degree, and of offite. fol. 203. b.  
Honorius Pope no public teacher of heresy. fol. 253. b. 254. & seq.  
Hostiensis foully corrupted by M. jewel. fol. 67. b.  
Husse said Mass a little before he was burnt. fol. 104. a.  
Hussites heretics. fol. 83. a. b. 103. a. b.  
huguenots of France. Gues of the low Country. fol. 37. a.  
Hypsistarij what men they were. fol. 314. a.   

I.  
M. jewels dignity, and degree, no Bishop. fol. 39 a.  
M. jewels especial Doctors. fol. 8. a. 213. b. 228. b. 229. a. 251. b.  
M. jewels scoff against Christ himself. fol. 8. b.  
M. jewel mangleth his adversaries text in infinite places. fol. 9 b. 17. b.  
M. jewels grave sentence pronounced against S. Bernard. fol. 12. a.  
How M. jew. may be pleased. fol. 38. b.  
Flowers of M. jewels modest speech. fol. 50. 51. 52.  
M. jewels scoffs, and scorns against God, his Church, and his Saints. fol. 52. a. b.  
M. jewels sacramentary scoffs. fol. 52. b.  
M. jewels scoffs against the Pope, Bishops, and Priests. fol. 52. b. 53. a.  
M. jewels general, and particular scoffs. fol. 53. 54.  
M. jewels Outcries, and scoffing O's. fol. 55. b.  
M. jewels modest marginal Notes. fol. 54. b. 55. a. b.  
M. jew. playeth many untrue parts at once fol. 68 a.  
M. jew. falsifieth my answer made in the Confutation. fol. 44. b. 45. a. 68 b. 69. a. 128. b. 141. a. 147. a. 153 b. 180. b. 223. a.  
what it is to confute M. jew. writings. fol. 76. b.  
M. jew. repeateth objections and allegations already answered and confuted, dissembling utterly all answer made. fol. 83. b. 84. a 226. a. 227. b. 248. 249. 253. b. 255. b. 256. b.  
M. jewel defendeth open rebellion, and treason. 86. a. b. 88 a. Item 183. and 184. in defending wickless traitorous heresy.  
M. jewel reasoneth against the Church, even as the Donatists did. fol. 90. b. 91. a.  
M. jew. blasphemously maligneth the conversion of infidels to the faith. fol. 96. b. 97. a.  
M. jew. contrary to himself. fol. 98. a. 101. b.  
M. jewels extreme impudency. fol. 106. b. 160. a. & b. 221. a.  
M. jewels. deceit in equivocation of terms. fol. 119. a. 134. a.  
M. jewels fond limitation against Lirinensis. fol. 124. b. 125. a.  
M. jew. fond conditions, to admit one head of the Church. fol. 138. a.  
M. jewels vain skoffing. fol. 141. b. 150. b.  
M. jewels negative arguments fol. 143. a. 226. b.  
M. jew. allegeth objections of the Doctors made against the Truth: as Truths avouched by the Doctors. fol. 144. a.  
M. jewels way to continue wrangling fol. 147. b.  
M. jewels ridiculous and lose Arguments. fol. 143. a. 152. b. 155. b. 160. b. 161. a. 162. a. 184. b.  
M. jewel falsely allegeth the Father's sayings. fol. 6. b. 113. a. 156. b. 157. a. 166. b. 173. b. 208. a. 240. b. 269. a. 286. a. 333. b. 387. a.  
M. jewel falsifierh the holy Scripture. fol. 160. a. 202. a. 222. a. 265. a. 266. b.  
M. jewels dissembling shift. fol. 163. a.  
M. jewel misseallegeth the Civil Law. fol. 168. b. 169. a. 380. b.  
M. jewel missealleageth and falsifieth Gratian, and his Gloze. fol. 169. a. b. 190. a. 191. a. 204 b. 383. a  
M. jewel falsifieth the Counsels. fol. 183. a. 189. a.  
M. jewels forging of the Father's sayings. fol. 185. a. 186. 290. a. b. 203. b. 209. a.  
M. jewel chargeth me with three main Lies. 189. b. Item with more Lies. fol. 287. a. 285. a. 295. b. 316. b. 303. a. 285. b. 310. b. 374. b.  
M. jewel a scatterer, no Successor of any one Bishop. fol. 203. a.  
M. jewel falsifieth all his Testimonies against Succession. fol. 206. b.  
M. jewel playeth the very part of Antichrist. fol. 210. b. 245. a.  
M. jewel falsifieth Bitontinus. fol. 213. b.  
M. jew. continually allegeth those men's sayings for him, whose deeds he knoweth to be against him fol. 213. b, 229. a  
M. jewel never ordered Priest, nor Bishop. fol. 230. b. 222. a. b.  
M. jewel sticketh not to say untruly, I was present, and consented to his Election. fol. 232. b.  
M. jewel can show no one Predecessor of his Religion in the See of Sarisburie. fol. 241. 242. 243.  
M. jewel bewrayeth his lurking heresy. fol. 244.  
M. jewels day, and night. fol. 246. b.  
M. jewels Lying, and Rhetorical addition of words, and sentences to his Authors sayings. fol. 199. a. 201. b. 203. b. 204. a. & b. 205. b. 208. a. 258. a. 265. a. 302. a. 313. b. 305. a.  
Intercession to Saints to pray for us. fol. 358. a.  
john the. 22. his error. fol. 64. b. 65. 66 255. b.  
john Huss. fol. 83. a. b. 103. b  
john of Sarisburie. fol. 258. 259. 260.  
john 22. charged by M. jew. with the error of john. fol. 23. 66. b.  
john of Constantinoples' ambition. fol. 141. a.  
joshua mistaken for Osee confessed. fol. 143. b.  
jovinians heresy making Marriage and virginity of equal merit. fol. 296. a.  
Iwenalis' and Thalassius not condemned in the Council of Chalcedon. fol. 73. b. 74. a.  
just, who may be called in this life. fol. 367. a.   

L.  
LAteran great Council. fol. 105. a. 110. b.  
Lady Interpreter noted of presumption. fol. 120.  
The Law by what means it is fulfilled. fol. 369. a.  
Leaders away of the Flock who be they. fol. 202. b. 267. b.  
A legend of Leo alleged by M. jewel a fond fable. fol. 251. a.  
Lenten Fast a custom of the Church, fol. 327. a.  
Leo the first defended from Arianisme. fol. 172. b. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 251. 252.  
Liberius defended from Arianisme. fol. 62. a. b. 250. a.  
Life everlasting how freely given, and how for good works. fol. 372. b.  
Light not put out in the Church for a thousand years. fol. 90. a.  
This term, my Lord, used of the Antiquity. fol. 175. a  
Lose Apostates, whether the divisers of this new Gospel may not so be called. fol. 35. b.  
Luther's dog eloquence. fol. 127.  
Lutherans and zwinglians dissension. fol. 322. b.   

M.  
MAcabees book Canonical among the faithful. fol. 321. b.  
Magistrate Civil not judge in Ecclesiastical causes. fol. 377. a.  
Manichees heresy denying Christ's true flesh. fol. 345. a.  
Marry the Virgin advocate for Eue. fol. 359. b.  
Marry our Lady Queen of all, hope of the Fathers. etc. fol. 365. a.  
Marcellinus Pope Martyr. fol. 248. b.  
Marcus calidius an Orator. fol. 42. b.  
Marriage after Vow of Chastity, what the Fathers have judged thereof. fol. 278. b  
Married twice may not be made bishops. fol. 279. b.  
Marriage after holy Order ever accounted unlawful among Catholics. fol. 280. a.  
Married Priests in England in Anselmus time. fol. 280. b.  
Marriage unlawful in two cases. fol. 281. a.  
Marriages three good things. fol. 284. a.  
Married Priests in old time called Apostates. fol. 296. b.  
Marriage a let unto perfecter life by S. Chrysostom. fol. 305. a.  
Matrimony a Sacrament that giveth grace. fol. 328. b.  
Mass said by john hus in his last days. fol. 83. a. b.  
Menna absolved. fol. 382. a. b.  
Merit changed by M. jewel into pre-eminence. fol. 163. a.  
Merits of Christ's death be not received by faith only. fol. 356. b.  
Merits of works. fol. 369. b. & sequentib.  
Ministers of Tourney. fol. 85. a.  
Monica. S. Augustine's mother laboured to convert her husband. fol. 315. a.  
montanists heresies. fol. 327. a.   

N.  
Nestorius' a scatterer of the flock. fol. 203. a.  
Nicephorus belied by M. jew. fol. 303. a.  
Nilus' a late Greek Schismatic. fol. 225. a.  
Nipping of Doctors by M. jewel. fol. 305. a.  
North parts converted to the faith in these later ages. fol. 94. b.   

O.  
Odds between the Protestants and Catholics. fol. 30. a. 107. b.  
An Oration forged in the name of Pius. fol. 4. 97. b.  
Order of Popes at the first succeeding one an other. fol. 219. b.  
Ordination, and Confirmation, divers. fol. 227. b.  
Origen falsified by M. jewel. fol. 286. a. 333. b.  
Orders Ecclesiastical. fol. 134. b. 135. a.   

P.  
Papistry can not be showed when it began. fol. 106. b  
patriarchs. fol. 180.  
Peter Martyr in Strasbourg a Lutheran, in England a Zwinglian. fol. 34. b.  
Peter Martyr and dame Catherine his wife. fol. 36. b.  
Peter Martyr at variance with Brentius. fol. 117. b.  
Peter's authority and prerogative. fol. 174. a. 175. 176.  
Peter over the Christian Gentiles. at Rome. fol. 221. 〈…〉  
Peter when he came to Rome. fol. 221. b.  
Peter the feeder of all sorts in the flock. fol. 148. b. etc.  
Peter's humility. fol. 153.  
Peter offended twice. fol. 157.  
Peter followeth the rest, yet head of all, by S. Augustine. fol. 158.  
Peter received into indivisible unity with Christ. fol. 174. a.  
Peter joined with fol. Leo. 176. a.  
Pelagius heresy maintained by the calvinists. fol. 367. a.  
Perfection, double, one of Pilgrims, the other of heaven. fol. 368. b  
Petitio principij, much used by M. jewel. fol. 89. a.  
Platina no flatterer of the Pope. fol. 257. b.  
Pope the Head of the Church. fol. 130. b.  
The Pope's Supremacy proved. fol. 146. 147. 148. 149. 159. b. 179. 186. a. b.  
The Pope Prince of Pastors. fol. 177. b 178. a.  
The Pope left the Vicar of Christ's love towards us. fol. 148. a.  
The Pope's confirming of Bishops. fol. 223. b. 224. & seq.  
Popes charged with heresy, and other enormites', defended. fol. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258.  
The Pope Peter's Successor. fol. 273. a.  
The Pope lawfully called the Princ●… of Pastors. fol. 177. b.  
Possibility of keeping Gods Commandments. fol. 366. b.  
Priesthood double. fol. 239. a.  
Priest above a Deacon. fol. 164. b.  
Priests of England are Votaries. fol. 290. b.  
Priests of Greece, in what sense they are Votaries. fol. 298. a.  
Priests and religious men, whether they may be dispensed to marry. fol. 300. b.  
priests only judges over Priests. fol. 377. a.  
Praying for the dead, taught by S. Paul. fol. 326. b.  
Protestants descent not only one from an other, but also from themselves. fol. 34. a.  
Protestants vary from the Primitive Church. fol. 270. b.  
Protestants be Apostates. fol. 336. b.  
Protestants are proved by an invincible Argument, to be no part of Christ's Church. fol. 90. a. b. 92.  
Puritans. fol. 139. a. 332. a.   

R.  
RAymeris made king of Arragon, of a Monk, and married by dispensation. fol. 301. a.  
Real presence clearly witnessed. fol. 79. a. proved. 339. & sequentib.  
Rebellion against Princes maintained by M. jewel. fol. 86. a.  
Religious men married, the first founders of this new Gospel. fol. 36. b  
Reservation of the Sacrament. fol. 331. b.  
Righteousness competent for this life. fol. 368. a.  
Round capped Ministers. fol. 86. b.  
Ruffianrie of M. jewel detected. fol. 120. b.  
Ruffinus belied by M. jew. fol. 285. b.   

S.  
SAbellicus falsified by M. jewel. fol. 139. b.  
Sacraments means to receive grace. fol. 330. a.  
Sacraments seven. fol. 334 a.  
Sacrament of the Altar called our maker, and Lord by S. Augustine. fol. 346. a.  
Sacramentaries persecuted by the Lutherans. fol. 95. b. 96. a.  
Sacramentaries condemned by the Lutherans. fol. 104. b.  
servus serworum Dei, the Pope's style. fol. 187. b.  
Severus a blind man by touch of a Martyr's garment recovered sight. fol. 364. a.  
Shaxton Bishop, no Protestant. fol. 241. b.  
Shaxton and Capon Bishops of Sarisburie, repent. fol. 194. a.  
Shaxton B. not of M. jewel side. fol. 242. b.  
Sharp words found in the Scriptures. fol. 27. b.  
Sheep of three sorts. fol. 149. a.  
Siritius and Innocentius were not the first ordeiners of clerks continency. fol. 279. a.  
Sozomenus, Gregory, Nazianzen, and Eusebius belied by the Apology. fol. 309. a.  
Sophistry of M. jewels shifting from the Scriptures to God's word. fol. 323. a.  
Spiridion made Bishop of a married lay man. fol. 285. a  
Sylvester. 2. Pope. fol. 249. a.  
Succession of Bishops treated of at large. Lib. fol. 4.  
Succession of Bishops, a certain rule to know the Church by. fol. 198. b. 199. & sequent.  
Succession can not lack the Truth. fol. 199. 200.  
Succession lawful can not be taken away by man. fol. 211.   

T.  
Tertullian of a married man made a Priest. fol. 285. a.  
Tertullians' error. fol. 239. 240.  
Three ways of writing against an adversary. fol. 42. b.  
Tradition. fol. 270. a.  
Traditions belonging to Sacraments may not be changed, Ceremonies may. fol. 326. a.  
Traditores what they were in the primitive Church. fol. 91. a.  
Transubstantiation. fol. 110. b. treated of. 346. b.  
This is my Body, meant properly. fol. 339. a.  
Turk's invasion bridled. fol. 266. a.   

V  
VAriance of opinion between two Ministers of Valencenes in the time of the Siege. fol. 84. b.  
Victor the Pope his death. fol. 58. a  
Virgilius Pope his Constancy. fol. 200. a  
Unity can not be without a supreme head. fol. 140. b. 141. a. 152. 153. a.  
Universal Bishop truly attributed to the Pope. fol. 185. b. 186. 187. 188. & sequent.  
Votaries may not conveniently marry by M. jewel. fol. 289. a.  
Vow breakers in what danger they stand. fol. 278. a.  
Vow of Chastity annexed to holy Orders. fol. 291. a.  
Vow of Chastity made in fact, though no words be spoken. fol. 292. b.  
vow made in what case marriage holdeth, or holdeth not by the determination of the Church. fol. 294. b  
Vrspergensis set out by Melanchthon only. fol. 57 b.   

W  
WAldenses heresies. fol. 102. b.  
wedlocks ill thing is inordinate lust. fol. 283. b.  
Wickleff his heresies. fol. 82. b. 63. a.  
wives that coverted their unfaithful husbands. fol. 61. b. 350. a.  
Words of God not written. fol. 270. a.  
Works, how meritorious of infinite reward. fol. 371. b.    

Faults escaped in the printing.  
Fault. leaf line Correction my 27. a. 27. may - 38. a. 12. sorry Golfridus 83. b. 25. Galfridus lustily 135. b. 23. lusty famofum 170. b. 9 fumosum to 179. b. 28. lut it out least 180. b. 28. left S. of 198. a. 19 of S. In the margin. 202. a.  a note superfluous   

Liber hic D.M.N. Thomae Hardingi lectus & approbatus est à viris Anglici idiomatis & Theologiae peritissimis, ut sine periculo imprimi & publicari possit, Quanquam alioqui & ipse D. Hardingus mihi tàm probè notus est, ut de eius cruditione, fide & prudentia nihil sit dubitandum.  
Cunerus Petri, Pastor S. Petri Lovanij. 21. Maij. An. 1568.