A TREATISE ENTITLED, BEWARE OF M. JEWEL. BY john Rastel MASTER OF ART AND STUDENT OF DIVINITY. Math. 7. ¶ Beware of false Prophe●●, which come unto you in the coats of sheep, but inwardly are Raven ●●g wolves. etc. RESPICITE VOLA●ILIA COELI. ET PULLOS CORVORUM. ANTVERPIAE Ex officina joannis Foulerin. M.D.LXVI. To the Indifferent Reader. THE Worthiness of a certain book, lately set forth in the name of M. jewel, doth in England perchance, make it to be precious Unto many, but Unto Us that are in these parts of beyond the Seas, the Rarity only thereof, gave a Price and Value Unto it. Inso much that receiving one of them for myself, two months (at the least) after they had been abroad in England, I could not keep the whole altogether to myself, but was feign to divide it in the middle. And yet there was no loss therein, because a friend was gratified with that half which I might spare, and the other remaining with me would keep me so long occupied, Until both of Us might change parts one with the other, and I (if I thought good) continue my reading forward as I had begun without any Interruption or stay at all, But I saw such gear and such store thereof, in the one half only, that I had little mind to go through the other. And now that dividing of the Fooke into two parts which the Rarity thereof occasioned me to make not altogether so willingly, but that I could have wished it better, that same now fell out so happily and agreeably to my purpose, that although I might consider and see, what stuffing were in the whole, yet, of free choice and for good causes, I would meddle with no more than the half. And truly, to choose who can let me, except some such unreasonable▪ Heretic as taketh all free-will away, from a man●▪ Marry to choose any one way, of two that may be taken, that may be reproved in the Chooser, except the causes which he followed, be allowable. In the seeking of which, lest any man should extend his wit so much, that by long discoursing he should make it the lesser and weaker, and imagine with himself, upon Secret Conferences, Policies, Conclusions and Orders made among the Catholics, for the answering of their Adversaries: I will therefore shortly and faithfully tell them myself. First in four Articles only, which occupy well near half the Reply, I found so much matter worth the brief noting, that it would fully serve to the making of a just book. Concerning then the quality of those things, it was so corrupt and infectious, that it required some present and speedy preservative against it. I provided also that the reader should not be wearied through any long process or discourse. Furthermore, if M, jewel himself, in this vacation and leisure of his until D, Harding come upon him again, or if any other of the right jannizers in deed which have fled from the Catholic faith, would make me an Answer: I thought good so to measure out my Book unto them, that they should not put the fault in the greatness thereof, when they do not in convenient time say their mind unto me for it. Byside this, the chief points which I did mind to speak of are such, that if I would have perused the whole Reply, yet I should have brought but more Examples only to the proving of those my Objections against M. jewel, which already are declared by enough and sufficient. And to Conclude I say only BEWARE OF M. JEWEL, that is, I show good causes to the Indifferent Reader, wherefore he should try him thrice, before he trust him once: Other are coming, which shall bring him to more ieobardy, & strike directly at that crafty head of his, as if they should say, NOW M. JEWEL BEWARE. Other causes therefore contrary to these, who so ever shall name, he shall not expound my intent and meaning, but open his own evil mind and suspicions. And I trust, as these seemed probable enough unto me, wherefore I might and should ●ather certain things (what I would myself) out of M. jewels book, and dispose them as I have done, so may any Reasonable man be content with this, which for his warning sake I have noted and never think that M. jewel is not touched because every Article of his is not by me discussed: Or that, for all this which yet is said, he must not be mistrusted, because every line and sentence of his book is not Answered. For every man, as he is well disposed, so may he do: and what so ever way, close or Open, frequented or Solitary, Short or Long, Direct forward, or about, Easy or Intricate, what so ever way be taken, if we come to one end, and meet together in the discovering of Craft or Heresy, the cause of the Catholics is the stronger, the hearts of the Protestants may be the fainter. Some one (perchance) hath a patiented mind to follow M. jewel, Sentence by Sentence: An other will not be bound to go after him upon every trifling Occasion, but leaving bymatters and impertinent, gathereth out his Sense and confuteth it: Some again chooseth one Special Article out, and speedily Answereth it, An other is not content with so sew as one or two, and therefore is longer a doing. There is that thinketh it enough to justify the untruths that D. Harding is charged withal. That seemeth not enough to an other, but he noteth M. jewel for his plain lies, and them out of measure. What shall I say more of other? Myself have followed an order much different from any the foresaid, and no doubt, but an other may come after all that is hitherto reckoned, and find more matter against M. jewel with a peculiar disposition thereof. Let the way therefore, which any man taketh be never condemned, but the end to which he bringeth processes, let that be considered. M. jewel (I speak it without flattery) hath a Rare gift in writing, he must not be proud of it. He ventereth so boldly, he fighteth so openly, and is armed so singlely, that if twenty Catholics should at one time encounter with him, no one should need to strike in the same place that an other doth, nor fail so to strike him that his credit and cause should be wounded. Yet, to them that stand a far of from the sight of the matter, he is harnessed so finely, he handleth his weapon so cunningly, he changeth from one hand to an other so readily, yea shrinketh and giveth back so artificially, that he may well seem to have done a great Act, and to make it doubtful at the least, who hath the victory. And so concerning these two points, because of the first, I may lawfully take my vantage: And though in most places I leave him untouched, in other yet, (except he be unsensible) I do enough to make him feel it. Then because of the second, I give thee (Indifferent Reader) lawful warning, that of all men that ever hitherto have written, he is the most Bragging, Deceitful and Impudent. How true this is, it shall appear by my profess: And the profess how ready they are, it is evident in this present Treatise, and shall further appear by an other which is forth coming. Concerning this which is Printed: In the first book thereof, I have brought into a short Table or Sum, (as it were) the State of the Question contained in every of the four first Articles: The Art of M. jewel, in saving himself from Subscription in every one: And the Issue of the Controversy, upon which a more direct Answer is to be required, and more Just reply to be inferred. And in perusing of this part, it will be quickly seen, whether I slander M. jewel, in charging him with Shifting, Falsifing, Corrupting, and Desperate handling of such matters as come against him, Or no. In the second book, I come to more particular points, And declare in several Chapters, by most manifest Examples: That he hath overcharged his Book with Common Places, needless, but harmless. That he starteth into Digressions, Impure and fruitless. That he troubleth Consciencies with other Common places so fruitless, that they will make them faithless. That he perverteth D. hardings meaning. That he disgraceth his Authorities. That he wrangleth with him. That he dissimbleth or Butteth with him. That he refelleth one Truth by an other. That he reporteth of him very uncourteously, By all which Evidences, if it be not sufficiently proved, that he is a man of little Modesty, Truth and Conscience, I will shortly set forth a third book against him. In which, the abusing of sundry Doctors and writers Authorities, to the maintenance of his falsehood and Heresy, &c. shallbe so plainly exemplified, that (I trust) it will be considered as a true and profitable Conclusion: BEWARE OF M. JEWEL. But now, after all these pains taken, sometimes gladly, sometimes patiently, but always faithfully and that to this end, that Truth might be known, And falsehood detected, And that the new Doctrine of the late Gospel might, either best of all be forsaken, or else be better examined: Are there none or very few, that will take the pains to read our Books? Or if there be, that would gladly read them, or with indifferency judge of them, is it not lawful to bring some in for them? What have the Catholics done of late, so unnaturally, or unreasonablye, that from hencefurth they must write no more against the Challenger? Or fear, that if they do write, the Vates shall be searched which bring in the Books, and the Books not examined, that bring in the Arguments? Is it for our person sake or our cause sake that we are so excluded? Is the place from whence we write, or the matter which we write, condemned of you. It is objected unto us, that we are young divines. The Objection were good if we followed the devices of our own heads, and not the learned Commentaries of most Ancient Fathers. But now the person is young, the Conclusion is old. And again, the youngest divine among us that have written, might five years sense, have proceeded (without Grace ask) and have gone for a Doctor (if it had so liked him) in any of this Ages heresies for any exception that would have been made, against his Age or learning. Not only as Doctors are made in the Country abroad, where he that can Read best, Or say without Eoke most Or Roll in Terms most fast, Or rail (in deed) most loud, is Created a Doctor for his labour: but as Doctors also are made at these days in Universities by Disputing, Answering and Grace taking. But we are not the wisest of all the Catholics. We may borrow then of our own Company, and never be in your danger for lending us any. And yet that alone which we have, is not so simple but we are able well to perceive, where the best of your Arguments faileth. But we are the disconted of Louane. If Louane itself be contented with us, the Testimony of such an University, should be no reproach unto us. As again, who can blame any Catholic in all the world, for misliking the ꝓceding of heresy? It will be said we are fugitives. We are not of that kind, of the which it is written, Fugit nemine persequente, Prou. 28 he fleeth when no man pursueth him. Again, we are not fled so far yet, as Geneva is. Nor fled in heart or behaviour from the Catholic Faith of all christendom, Or from one heresy unto an other. And further it will be objected, we live in disorder. In deed we live not under an hedor warden, deprived of our Colleges, without any our fault against the Statutes: neither are there here such Offices, Charges, Rome's, or Places Vacant, by taking of which the persons which in England fulfilled the like very worshipfully and virtuously, might declare how they be able to rule themselves, and also to keep other in Order: yet we live under the Rule of the holy Commandments of God, and the approved Canons of the Catholic Church, And the laudable Customs or policies of the places where we remain. And further yet, we shall be said to write for corrupt and private gain. But we are not (we trust) so il frynded that we need it, or so il disposed that we mind it. Again, they which have forsaken great and sure livings in England, of one, two, or three hundred pound yearly, they thought not (I believe) to set up a shop beyond sea, and by making of new books, and selling them for x. pence, or xii. pence a piece to rear up both Private and Corrupt gain unto themselves. To be short, we shallbe accounted unnatural, whether for saving our head, when a blow is coming at it? Or, for leaving our Commodities utterly? Or chainging of the less for the Greater? Or for Loving and Fearing of God more than Man? Some are so kind to their Country that rather than abide the lack of it, they care not how far they go from God. And there have been in times past some so faithful to their Princes, that (whether in Sport or Ernest) they have said it, he is not worthy of the favour of his Prince, that would stick to go to Hell for his Prince. But he believed, perchance there was no Hell at all. And so night venture boldly, where (by his judgement) there was no danger. Otherwise if he had so much light of Eaithe, as to confess an Hell, and yet so great blindness of Affection, as to love any Creature so much, that he would cast away his own soul for ever the ꝓpprely was unnatural, and his saying is Intolerable. As for us, God be merciful, and geave us the Grace to love him best, nay to love him without comparison. And after him to love them best, which come nighest unto him, either by Image of Virtue, or Similitude of Power and Office, every one yet in his degree and place. But all these Objections (I suppose) are Personal, and may be made either of Idle heads for their fantasy, or by Adversaries, for some Anger, Or of Gentlemen merchants for their pleasure, or of men right worshipful, upon sad report made unto them. But yet, what is any of these unto the question: whether in the six hundred years after Christ, there were any Sole Receiving or Receiving under both kinds: And so forth in any other of the Challengers Articles? nothing at all undoubtedly. For be they true, be they false, (because we will not spend much time about it,) they concern private men's Conditions, and not the Catholic Religion. And they are (as it were) a spotted Coat upon a Reasonable man's back, but they prove not, that he hath no Reason at all which weareth the Coat. Wherefore it becometh not us, so basely to think of their judgements that consider of our Books, that because of the Author's small favour, the book itself should be out of favour, or because the person is Condemned, that immediately the Book is answered. Some cause therefore undoubtedly there is, in the Books themselves, for which they are misliked? But what is that? Is it for the Untruths sake which are contained in them? Is it for the wresting and Racking of the Scriptures? Is it for misalleging, jewel in his Preface to the Reader. misconstrueing, corrupting, or altering the holy Fathers etc. These things in deed are directly objected, to D. Harding, by M. jewel but (I trow) the search is not therefore appointed, that no Answer should come in against them. Yet except this only be the cause, wherefore else is the bringing in of them so dangerous? Is there any thing in them, against the Obedience and Fidelity due to a Sovereign? Is there any one blast in them against the Government of women? Do they move the Commons to take weapons against the Nobility? Or do they instruct the Nobility how to let the Commons of their liberty? In one word to speak it, do we meddle with the proper matters of Weastminster Ilaule, parliament house or civil Policy, and not only entreat of Articles proponed in Schools, meet for Convocations, and General to all Christendom? Take (for example) any one, what so ever you will, of the Articles proponed by M. jewel. He denieth: we affirm. He cotrarieth us: we again resist him. Before any man encountered with him, he Reigned in peace and was Magnified. It was thought, no man was ever able to match him, and therefore for very despair of any succour, many submitted themselves unto him. But now, sense there have been found, which have met with him, it is perceived that he had no certain victory. And if it seemed so before, yet now the battle beginning a fresh, there is stirred up a closer attention in every man's mind, to mark how truly it is fought. And in marking diligently, he is now and then found to be justly noted of Hypocrisy, Foly, Heresy, and other faults, Now they which read not the Books can not mark so much: Yet they also, of others that have reader and considered, may learn. It cometh then at length to the knowledge of many. And, the very nature of Truth or dispositions of men so giving it, many are confirmed, many are warned, many are troubled, every one is moved. Some see it manifestly, M. jewel is confuted, other look not so narrowly but say, I will better think of these matters, Other be loath to change their opinion and are grieved to hear of aught said against him: So that somewhat is wrought, I think in every man one way or other about these matters. This by likelihood then, is the Sedition, which our Books are said to move: They confirm some in the Truth, that they be not lightly removed from it: They direct other unto the Truth, that they pretend not lack of Instruction: they confound and confute other by the Truth, that they may take less pride in their Chivalry: and they stir up a General attention, to mark on whose side the Truth shall stand, and who shall most Faithfully behave himself in the matter. Are the Authors then of this manner of Sedition▪ to be punished? Or the books, by which Lies, deceipts, and Heresies be detected, are they to be condemned? If Protestants may be suffered, to write as largely as they will, shall they be permitted also to write as falsely as they will? Or if no Privilege, be it never so Special, doth licence them to print any Slanders or Lies yet if afterwards they be found out, and marked in their Books, may no man freely tell them of it, but he shall incur the danger of the Law, and further displeasure? Surely this case is very hard, to call first, into Question, those Truths of which the Catholic Church would have no doubt feared: And then, to grant the Protestant such favour, that he might always deny and still drive the Catholic to prove, And further (as long as the Catholic made a stay of yielding so much to his Adversary) to draw that to an Argument of a weak cause and a faint heart, and to incline to the new Gospelers side: And now last of all, (when the Catholics answer them, and so answer, that they make the other, every day more and more to be taken in their craft and heresy) now, (I say) to forbid the Catholics to Answer for themselves, Or to speak any more against such faults as they find, this surely is a case very straying and hard: So hard undoubtedly, that what to answer unto it we can not tell. For if our Adversaries will have the matter tried by Learning, our Divinity (the end shall declare it) is much truer than theirs: but if they will now defend themselves by force of Authority, One extraordinary Argument made by a new and fresh Searcher, shall more dissuade, than a whole shiplode of our Books can move, when the reading of them it taken away. But is it not possible, to find favour in his sight, which hath the Ordering of these matters committed unto him? yes verily possible enough, if the Sure for it be notus Pontifici, and favoured of the Superintendents? lovanians then must hold their peace, but the Apology of England (I trow) may be heard. Why: what sayeth it? Marry, for men to be careless what is spoken by them and their own matter etc. is the part doubtless of dissolute and Reckless persons, The Apology of England. and of them which wickedly wink at the Injuries done unto the name of God. Again. All Laws and Natures own voice, do command us to defend our own Cause and innocency. Again. The Ancient Christians. etc. put up Supplications, and made means to Emperors and Princes, that they might defend themselves and their fellows in open Audience. Lo, how well the makers of that Apology could speak for themselves, and how well it serveth our purpose at this present? Yet the Odds is exceeding great. For the Catholics having continued time out of mind, in a consent and certainty of their Faith, might well take order, that no man at all should be suffered to speak against those things which were so generally received and allowed: but these men which bring a new and upstart Religion into the world, neither commending it by Authority of any their Predecessors, nor concluding it by Reason, nor Confirming it by Miracle, how should they forbid a man to consider and view their Opinions, and require him first to build upon them, before he see the sure ground of them? If therefore unto them it be an unlawful and unnatural matter, that it should be denied to any man to defend his own cause, it seemeth that we may well be suffered to make our Answers unto our Adversaries: And it seemeth also, that those may Read our Answers, whose loss and peril it will be, to be kept, by any means, away from the hearing of the cause examined. But perchance they will not be known which made the apology: and coming out without a Privilege, who can tell whether it be of any Authority? Especially D. Harding having answered it, and confounding the great boast and cracks set upon it. What say we then to M. jewel himself? might not he be in●reted, to speak in his best manner, for us? Of the Readiness of his good will, we have already a testimony. For unto D. Cole alleging a Recognisance, which so bound him in, that he was not at liberty to dispute and reason with him, I would wish (sayeth he) the queens Majesty would not only set you at liberty, jew. in the second answer to D. Cole. but also command you to show your grounds. besides this, he hath so required, so desired, so provoked, so earnestly sued unto the Catholics, to have their Answer unto his Articles, that if it should now stand with his good will and Conscience, yet it agreeth not with his honour and worthiness, to see in his life time such books, as to the writing of which his provoking, gave a necessary occasion, to be so condemned, that they should never be examined or Answered. To you therefore M. jewel I speak it, as in this case one of the Indifferent Readers. Why provoke ye us to write? Why consent you to this policy of forbidding our books, that we should not write? Why suffer ye not the Truth to have her full course? Why constrain you them by fear, whom ye should better persuade by learning? Why foresee you not that except our books be suffered to be Readen, you shallbe judged to be afraid, or overcomed? Why Consider you not politicly, that except the Papists do keep you occupied, you will fall to greater battles between yourselves, and utterly desye one the other? You said in the Preface of your Reply: Blessed be the name of God that hath offered this Occasion. For I have no doubt, but of this necessary conflict, through his mercy, there shall issue some sparkle to the Glory of his name. Why suffer you then the matter of God's glory and your victory to be taken away? Why pretend you, as though you were sure of winning and glad of the Occasion, by which your gospel, the more it is impugned and standeth, the more it is glorified, and yet hear of the prohibition of our Books, and hast not to say against it? If you had not challenged the Catholics, the case had been more tolerable, but now it can never stand with your or your Religion's honesty, not to defend yourself but by terror. But (to return again unto the Indifferent Reader) let our sayings, if they come properly and directly from us, be straightways condemned: Let no Reason and Argument be good for us, though the very same in our adversaries case, must be admitted who so ever say nay: And let M. jewel forget his old charity, and wish now, that we might be constrained to hold our hands and tongues, which wished before, that we should be constrained to write and Speak: Let all these Injuries be patiently suffered: Yet who can let us to wish thee well, and tell thee of thy Souls danger when Heresy is flattering with thee: And note the very places unto thee, in which her lying Spirit is covered, And be glad to have things for thee in a Readiness, if the wind should happily turn, to send them in to thee? Now if this be an unnatural or Seditious mind, have me excused I pray thee, I never thought it so, nor feared, it would so be taken. And I can not promise such Obedience, or warrant to myself such perfection, that if a Rebel and Adversary against God and his Church should openly blaspheme and deceive, I would not speak against him, and trouble his procedings with my Objections. Yet, if, as many other mysteries, unheard of before, be revealed in these days, so it should likewise now be brought unto light, that although a Thief were espied to do his feat in any house, no man for all that should cry out against him, for fear of troubling them in the house, which are at their books, at their meat, at their game, at their rest, or any such like: then truly as we might be so astonished at this straying Revelation, that for a time we could not speak, yet nevertheless (I trust) we should turn unto God and pray. And so in like manner, when that is perceived and confessed that in no kind of case, any more may be written against M. jewel, then shall we pray God, as he hath wrought by our speaking, so that he will continue and work by our silence. And as the silence of the Catholics when they were exceedingly provoked to speak, did more harm perchance then all the other arguments of the Heretics, so the letting of the Catholics to speak, whereas through the importunity of the Adversary, they have been moved thereunto shall by God's Grace, more sensibly make others to consider what Faith they have forsaken, and what opinions they follow, then if our Books should freely come in and be Readen. Amen. Far well, Reader, and be Indifferent. At Antwerp the .10. of May. REgiae Maiestatis Privilegio permissum est joanni Rastello Anglo, ut librum inscriptum, A Treatise entitled, BEWARE OF M. JEWEL, Typis mandare, ac impunè distrahere liceat. Datum Bruxellis. 8. Martij. Anno Domini. 1565. Subsig. De la Torre. Opus istud perlectum est & approbatum á Viris Anglici Idiomatis & sacrae Theologiae peritissimis, quibus tutô hac in re credendum esse judico. Idcirco operaepretium fore censeo, ut imprimatur. Itá testor Cunerus Petri, Pastor S. Petri. Lovanij. 7. Martij. 1565. THE FIRST ARTICLE. THE question of the first article, is: Whether any private Mass were in the whole world, for the space of six hundred years after Christ. What call we private Mass? A private Mass? (say the Catholics) is that, which is not solemn. And other beside this, of that name, they have none. But what mean the Heretics by it? Marry, whereas the priest receiveth the Sacrament himself alone, je. pa. 4. that we call (saith M. jewel) private Mass, yea although the whole parish be present. Ergo, this term so taken, is not in the proper books & schools of Catholics, but is altogether of the devise of Protestants. To what end is the moving of this question about private Mass? Or what hath any Divine to do with it? The conclusion is, that if it can be proved, M. jewel is content to yield and subscribe. But what if it can not be proved? Forsooth then is M. jewel, I trow, a true man of his word. Is this all? And hath this great fighting, and writing on both sides no further end, but to the commendation or dispraise of one man, and him not so wonderful? No truly, it is not for the learned or studious so to do, such specially as have, or take charge of religion, but rather to direct all their oppositions and answers unto that end, by which somewhat may be concluded, either duly, to the honour of God, or profitably, to the defence of the Church. Have both sides then, done so for their part? That now is to be considered. First concerning the Catholic, he goeth directly to some purpose, and bringeth the question unto that state, in which the adversary is so answered, that the Church also is defended. The Protestant, he, at the beginning seemed also to mean plainly, but now, he hath brought the question unto such points, as by which neither his adversary is any thing hurted, nor the Church, which he impugnethe, any thing touched. By which it appeareth, the one to have laboured to some end, the other to have craked to no purpose. As in example: D Harding conceiveth the matter thus: If private Mass, in respect only of that it is private, Maior. after your meaning, be reprovable: Hard. 39 it is for the single Communion, that is to say, for that the Priest receiveth the Sacrament alone, But the single Communion is lawful, Minor. yea good and godly: Ergo the private Mass, Conclu. in this respect, that it is private, is not reprovable. It followeth then, that Christ's institution is not broken, The Catholic reasoneth to some purpose. when the Priest receiveth alone: And consequently, the Catholic Church is not to be condemned, for allowing that manner of receiving. Thus hath D. Harding, and every other Catholic, learned to refer his reasoning to some purpose, that others may be edifified by it. But now on the other side, what say you, M. jewel, to the matter? what import you with all your preparance? Whom provoke you? What conclusion seek ou? you ask a question of private Mass, whether any such were, six hundred years after Christ. A strange question unto Catholics, and therefore you must expound your meaning unto us. 1. I demand (say you) of the open Church je. p●. 59 2. I demand of Priests. 3. I demand of the Mass. 4. I demand of the right use of the holy supper that ought to stand. 5. I demand of the usage that then was ordinary. Five great demands, and somewhat terrible unto the unskilful, as a visard unto a child, that can not judge what is within it. But mark, M. jew else great a do about nothing. good Reader, how little he shall make of them. Let me grawt unto you, M. jewel, that I can not prove any priest, to have SAID MASS ORDINARILY, in OPEN CHURCH, and to have received alone. What infer you hereupon? Or how doth this further your proceedings, or disprove the present doings of the Catholic Church? This sure is an idle question, which maketh so much a do about that, which the contrary side may grant without any prejudice to the cause. For concerning the first: Christ's institution may be fulfilled in private houses. The second: women, boys, and lay men, are christian souls, and prove, that Christ's iustitution is not broken, if they be allowed to receive alone. As for the third: I answer, that your question was not of Mass, but of private Mass. And if you will make the question of Mass, tell us of it, and you shallbe provided for. To the fifth: that which may be but over done well, needeth not many repetitions of the same, to prove that it is lawful. Only now therefore, the fourth demand doth remain to be discussed, which is of the right use of the holy supper. To which our auswer is, that he useth it rightly, which receiveth it with faith, hope, and charity. But as for receiving alone, or with company, the Catholic Church acknowledgeth herself to be therein at liberty, to use either the one, or the other manner. Upon this question (which in deed is the proper of your first article) if you dare openly encounter with us, then are you come to the same state of controversy, to which all Catholics have brought it. Neither can you complain that he swerveth from that he hath taken in hand. jew. 5●. But if ye will not reason about sole receiving, but stand upon your circumstances and demanndes nothing substantial, then do I answer, as I did before, that I can not prove private Mass after such solemn manner as you require: that (I mean) it was ORDINARY, and in OPEN CHURCHES: contenting myself with this, that although by evident example, I find not, it was so, yet by most necessary principles I can prove that it might have been so. And further rejoicing in this, that although I do yield in your demands unto you (the fourth only excepted, which only is worth the ask, and in which you be sufficiently answered) yet you may not look, that the Ladies of Israel with their Lutes and Timbrels will receive you in triumph, because with all your strokes hitherto, you have hurted no body. Your questions therefore, M. jewel, being altogether so vain and fruitless, that they neither touch us nor profit you, let us return unto D. hardings argument or resolution, to give thereby unto the indifferent Reader, The true state of the question about private mass the true meaning of this first Article: and to put before him, the Catholic belief of the Church in this matter. The state of the question, as Catholics have conceived it, is comprehended in this one foresaid argument: If private Mass, Maior. in respect only of that it is private, be reprovable, it is for the single Communion, But single Communion is not reprovable: Minor. Ergo private Mass, in this respect that it is private, Conclu. is not reprovable. This argument is good, The proof of the consequence in this argument: and holdeth of that common rule: A destructione consequentis, ad destructionem antecedentis. That is, to make it plain, when we make a conditional or double proposition, the denial of the former part, doth well follow upon the denial of the later. As in example: If M. jewel be a lawful Bishop, (this is the former part) he was duly consecrated, (this is the later part. And both these joined together do make one Proposition. Take away now the later part, and ye shall conclude the taking away of the former, as: But M. jewel was not duly consecrated: Ergo he is not a lawful bishop. The argument therefore, which D. Harding hath proponed, is of a very good and right making. But what thinketh M. jewel of it? He frameth it after his own liking, Here beginneth M. jewel to work his seat in altering things to his purpose. and that, which the author himself would have to be Hypothetical, he maketh it altogether Cathegorical, in this sort: The private Mass is single communion. Single communion is lawful: Ergo private Mass is lawful. Then doth he not answer neither this argument, but by another which shallbe foolish, & of his own making, he would have this to be judged. As, The ministration of private Mass is a single communion, Single communion is lawful for a woman: Ergo, the ministration of private Mass is lawful for a woman. No no M. jewel, you can not go invisible. We see well enough how you cast in the term Ministration, to make a sport, or Absurdity. Of which folly or subtlety you willbe told in due season. But concerning D. Harding'S argument, it is an hypothetical Syllogismus: and these which you make are altogether Cathegorical, so that they be of far other kind and making. Which giveth me to suspect, that your wits were not in their natural place in your head, when you were so much occupied, (as your book declareth) in consideration of Medius Terminus, je. pa. ●9 Subiectum, and Praedicatum: lest your reader might be deceived by that argument of D. hardings, which had neither direct Medius terminus, nor Praedicatum, nor Subiectum, to be feared, as being not made in Mode and Figure, but concluded out of that rule or consequence, A destructione consequentis, etc. Of which I have spoken. The form therefore of D. hardings argument being proved good, let us consider the matter and truth of every proposition in it. The Mayor is declared after this sort. If private Mass be not reprovable, The proof of the mayor in the foresaid argument. in this respect only, that it is private and hath single Communion: them do you M. jewel digress from the purpose, The proof of the Mayor in the foresaid argument. and ask more, than one question, at one tyme. But we could not suspect, that you would jumble with us so confusely. Ergo it is said with good reason, that, if private Mass be reprovable, it is in this respect only, that it is private and hath single communion. The form hereof is good a destructione consequentis etc. as above. The Mayor I will declare. For if you will not be bound to rest upon the term and sense of private, but be at liberty to comprehend within your meaning, all that is imported in the name of Mass, then may you require of us, by virtue of this question to make answer unto you, not only of sole receiving, but of receiving in both kinds, of the service in the lative tongue, of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, of the sacrifice, and many other matters besides. Because all these are included within the compass of these two words Private, and Mass. Now to the Minor. But we could not suspect that ye would so jumble with us. For distinct articles being put forth by you, of Communion under both kinds, Service in the vulgar tongue etc. Ye signify thereby, that ye look for a several answer unto each of them, and that, within the question of private Mass, ye intended not to pass the bounds and sense of this word Private, For of Consecration (we may be sure I trust) you moved no question, whether it be proper to the Priest, or whether the people may also do it. Yet the Mass doth extend itself unto consecration. If therefore, neither we are so suspicious as to fear it, neither you so foolish as to say it, that in ask us a question of private Mass, ye doubted or demanded, whether the Priest alone doth consecrate and not the people, or, whether one Priest alone may consecrate by himself, without help or assemble of other Priests, (if this one point which properly pertaineth to the priests office and the substance of a Mass) was not respected of you in the question of private Mass: you must needs confess and yield, that you referred this first article of yours, to some one special and singular matter, and that ye extended it not, unto all questions that might be moved upon the Mass. And that special thing what it should be, besides sole receiving, it was not, nor could not be perceived: Ergo it is said with good reason, that if the private Mass be reprovable, it is for the single communion. Yet knowing so much as we do, if all were to begin again, we would not use these Ifs and discourses, to find out what you did mean by private Mass, but we would rather will you, to proceed against us in order, and not to cover many Articles under pretence of one question, that in sifting from one to the other, ye might seem to tarry still in one place, by keeping the self same terms (private Mass) and yet ever skip from one point to another, because ye provide to be at your own proper choice, what one sense of many, ye will have to be conceived by private Mass, and, at pleasure, to pass from any one sense to the other. But who would have thought it, that they affected to make confusion, which promised to bring all truth into order and sight? Or that they which pretended to require good profess for Sole receiving only, would afterwards bind the answerer to prove the sole receiving at MASS, M. jenwels' large walks in plain matter, & one direct question. and then, the SAYING of Mass and after that, the saying of it in OPEN CHURCH, and yet farther, the ORDINARY saying & receiving in open Church & (to be short) bind him to prove CONSECRATION, OBLATION, ELEVATION, ALTAR, VESTIMENT, or any other thing to the Mass belonging? By which words we may see how many questions M. jewel would say (for a nead) to be comprehended & meant of him in these. ij. words private Mass. D. Harding therefore which knew not so much, or could not suspect so much (as, y● M. jewel did at one time, and with one breath, ask of so many distinct matters in one plain proposition, without giving thereof any warning) made that conditional and Mayor proposition, to that his argument, of which I have spoken, The minor of D. Harding'S arguments declared. which Mayor being so reasonable and allowable, I come now to the proving of the Minor of the same argument, which is this: Single communion is allowable. Here, because M. jewel is content to be tried, by the examples of the six hundred years after Christ, and because this kind of persuasion is most sensible, I will bring two or three of them, for our purpose. The bishops of Rome, Eccl. His lib. 5. Ca 24. Har. fo. ●2. when any Catholic bishops came thither from other countries, used to send them the Sacrament to receive: Ergo single Communion is allowable. What answereth M. jewel unto this? Or how concludeth he (as it were) in D. hardings name? Ergo (forsooth saith he) there was Mass, and addeth further: jew. P. 41. This conclusion is far fet and hangeth loosely. Behold, in another example. M. jew. feat. For I might demand which of the three said Mass? He that sent the Sacrament, or he that received it, or else the messenger that brought it? It were a strange matter to see a Mass and yet no man to say Mass. Lo how closely M. jewel keepeth his wits together. He is opposed with Single Communion, and he demandeth of the Mass: the objection goeth upon the receiving the Communion, and he asketh (without answer making) who said the Mass. But to another example. Tertullian dehorting his wife from marrying to an Infidel after his death: Har. fo. 3●. will not thy husband know (saith he of the sacrament) what thou eatest secretly before all other meats. etc. Ergo single Communion is alloweable. But M. jewel taketh it not so. how then? jew. 46. The same feat again followed. Mary. Ergo Tertullians' wife said private Mass. And hereupon then will rise a great doubt, whether a woman might say Mass, or no, or who helped her if she said it. Yet saving for M. jewels pleasure, that needed not, because D. Harding speaketh directly not, of saying Mass, but only of receiving the single Communion. Another example: Har. fo. 34. Serapion lying at the point of death, Eccl. Hi. lib. 6. Ca 34. the Priest whom he sent for, being sick himself, sent the sacrament unto him and he received it and departed. Ergo single Communion is aloweable. I pray you M. jewel, is not this spoken plain enough? no truly, not to such a wrangler. For, as though it were to be marked in this story, not, how Serapion received the sacrament, but only who brought it unto him, so seeketh M. jewel for the bringer of it, and finding that it was Serapions boy, All of like pretiesent and of like small honesty. to whom the priest delivered it, he layeth hands upon him and concludeth: Ergo Serapions boy said private Mass. Thus doth M. jewel handle D. Harding through the whole first article, either like an hypocrite dissembling it, that we understand by private Mass or single Communion, not the saying and celebrating of Mass, or Communion, but that only act, of who soever it be, which receiveth the Communion alone: either like a dull or distracted person not perceiving it, that all the Arguments, Examples, and Authorities are, to that only end, referred. But he hath not so little wit, as not to perceive whereabout D. Harding went. For, in the answer to the 23. Division, where D. Harding showeth in what sense he taketh the question of private Mass: jewel 56 he confesseth that D. Harding hath taken pains to prove Sole receiving, and single Communion that was never denied. And again. Now he demandeth whether I reprove the Mass, or the private Mass. What meaneth this, that private Mass and sole receiving be so suddenly grown in one? See then, he confesseth that D. harding doth understand by Private Mass, sole receiving. And therefore he misliketh it, saying, what Meaneth this etc. And then he laboureth to prove that it must not be his meaning, and why? forsooth, because: Surely M. Harding well knoweth that the nature of the words is not one. jew. 57 Neither who so ever receiveth alone, doth therefore of necessity say Private Mass. True it is, M. jew. and therefore D. harding knowing right well the Private Mass, might diversely be taken, & that you would make it to signify the SAYING of Private Mass, & he not so, but the Single Communion and Sole Receiving: therefore he warued you of it, that the question might be distinctly handled. You therefore confessing so much, that he went about to prove Sole receiving only and not to meddle in this article with the Mass, either you have played the very hypocrites part, in pretending a talk to the purpose which in deed you knew to be otherwise: Either you have showed a shameful and hateful villainy, in burdening a man of good estimation and learning with so many, and foolish consequences as you attribute unto him. And further you have abused great numbers of your Readers most wickedly, in drawing their souls after you into pervition, by making them believe that you speak as you know, your knowledge being contrary to your utterance. For suppose that your meaning, in the question were, as you say, and that your demand was, to be satisfied in all these points: Whether a Priest did SAY MASS, in OPEN CHURCH, ORDINARILY, and receive alone, in the six hundred years after Christ, and that, if any of these Circumstances were left unproved, ye would not be bound to subscribe, suppose I say, that this were true, yet seeing your Adversary followed another sense, ye should have considered, if, not him, yet yourself, your learned Counsel, your secretary and Scribes, your printer, and Reader, and have made a better answer with less cost and labour, declaring in sew words, how Doctor harding had mistaken you, and expounding in plain words, how your own meaning should be concerned. But now, whereas Doctor harding followed the right sense in deed of the question, and your sense, M. jewel, thereupon, hath no end or purpose to which it serveth: why ask you so importunately for the Mass? why demand you? IF here be a Mass, which of the two is it, jew. 32. that sayeth this Mass? Is it the sick man, or the Priest?. Why trifle you? That the question is moved not of any other man or woman, 33. but of the Mass, The some of M. jewels answers in this first Article. and only of the Priest that saith the Mass. Why lie you? M. Harding hath brought forth these Fathers for his Mass. Why wrangle you? 42 That for lack of Priests M. Harding allegeth Tertullians' wife, 44. Certain women out of Cyprian, and Serapions boy, not the fittest persons that might have been found to say Mass. Why pity you him of your pure compassion? Alas doth M. harding think it was the manner in old times, 59 that lay people should say Mass? Why describe you the matter so cunningly, and say? M. harding shall not find here any Mass spoken of at all, 76 neither bread nor wine, nor Consecration, nor Oblation, nor Elevation, nor Altar, nor Vestiment, nor any thing to the Mass belonging? And to be short, (D. Harding intending to speak not of the Mass, or saying of it, but only of sole receiving) Why triumph you & why crack you, 91 that The Mass which we must needs believe, is so Ancient, so universal, so Catholic, so holy, so glorious, can not be found neither in Churches nor Chapels, nor in secret Oratories, nor in Private houses, in Town or City, but must be sought out in some Petty parish in the country, and that by conjecture only. To this effect then, cometh the first article. M. jewel dallieth still, that D. Harding showeth not any Private Mass, that is (by his interpretation) where any Priest SAID mass, ORDINARILI, in OPEN CHURCH and received alone: D. Harding proveth Private Mass, that is to say, single Communion, or Sole receiving. Of M. jewels meaning, no purpose followeth. For when it is granted, for example that we are not able to prove against him (with all those Circumstances) what is his cause the better for it? Of D. hardings conclusion this commodity groweth, that sole receiving is allowable by the crample and Testimonies of the primative Church. Ergo it standeth well with Christ's institution. from henceforth therefore, let no Heretic crack of Christ's institution, as though that could not admit Sole receiving. So shall the Church have some peace, and the Catholics be quieted in this sure truth, that Sole Receiving is not against Christ's institution. This ground now and verity standing, let M. jewel (if he dare) come visibly forth, and show an open face and intent, without all doubling. And then shall it be plainly perceived, whether he must yield and subscribe or no. Here for example are six questions. Whether a sick man having no penance to fulfil, may receive alone at his departing. Whether a sick man which is not yet reconciled, but tarrieth in his penance, may receive alone at the point of his death. Whether a sick man being not in danger of death may receive alone. Whether a man in good health and good life may receive alone. Whether a Priest not celebrating, may receive alone. Whether a Priest at Mass, may receive alone. Betwixt these six, each of them towards an other, there is some difference, and therefore they make two several questions. The truth which is confessed on both sides, is: That Christ's institution doth stand with Sole Receiving in general. For he which is put from the Communion, and lieth at the point of death may receive alone, even by Master jewels confession: which yet is impossible to be true, if Sole Receiving were absolutely against Christ's Institution. Therefore, in what other special kind of Sole Receiving his Institution is violated, therein must, of right, be the question. And therein let M. jewel join, (if he think himself able) with the Catholic. As, whether a sick man being not put from the Communion for some fault of his, may at the point of death receive alone or no, and so forth, in any of the six foresaid questions. Now when it shall be put forth in one special case, if he shall then fetch his vagaries about, and run over his Common Places, That Christ's Institution is to be observed, That the Primitive Church had a Communion, and prove it by sundry ways, Out of holy Fathers, Out of M. hardings own Doctors (as he will term them) and Out of the very Mass book itself. etc. Let it be understanded, that if he speak so in general, and applieth it not to the special case proponed, he falleth within danger of his own sentence. Vanitas vanitatum. jew. 16. And, that it is a great token of idleness, to be earnest and copious in proving that thing, that no man denieth. Again, It is a lewd kind of Logic, stoutly to prove that thing, that needeth no proof, & to leave the thing that should be proved. On the other side, if he will deal sincerely and uprightly in deed, and, leave to use such fears as he hath in this his first Reply practised, then shall it quickly be perceived, that either he must yield and subscribe, or else crave a licence to be loosed from the bond, into which he cast himself, through his own hastiness, in his Challenge. The second Article. (⁂) IN this second Article, the question is, 96 whether there was then (understand six hundred years after Christ) any Communion ministered unto the people under one kind. Is this all? It seemeth to be all, because in the uttering of the Challenge, there is no other form of words concerning this question. Yet lest perchance we shall be handled here, as we have been in the first Article, let us ask M. jewel what he intendeth and what he demandeth in this question. Sir, and please you, what if we prove unto you, that some have received the Sacrament under one kind at home in their own houses as Serapion did: Ecc. hict. lib. 6. 〈◊〉 34. is not the question concluded against you? No saith M. jewel. The question is of the usage and order of the CHURCH. jew. 〈◊〉 The first shift of M. jew. M. hardings answer is of Serapions' death bed, as though there had been no CHURCH yet erected in those days. Yes verily there were, but as we may say with S. Jerome: In Apdlogia adversus jovin Christ is not one at home in the house, an other in the Church, and that which is not contrary to Christ's institution and commandment, may be done without the Church, of building which, he gave no commandment. But let us go further. If I may prove unto you, that some certain persons as sick men and faintye, have received under one kind: shall that stand us in any stead against you? No sayeth M. jewel. jew. 13●. The second shift. This is the only thing that I denied, that ye are notable to bring any one sufficient example, or authority, that ever the WHOLE PEOPLE received the Communion in open Church under one kind. Surely you be an hard man to deal withal, which will measure your witnesses by quantity, and not by quality, and sick there, for a number, where a few and honest examples were to be credited. Well, I will not yet leave you so. What if I can prove that receiving under one kind, was to be found in close Chapels and Oratories, in Wilderness and Canes, whither contempt of the world, or avoiding of persecution drove the Christians: go we not directly unto the question, and bring you into necessity of subscribing and yielding? No sayeth Master jewel again. The question that standeth between us, The third Shift. jew. 96. is moved thus, WHETHER THE HOLY COMMUNION. etc. were ever ministered OPENLY in the Church. Yet he lieth, for neither OPENLY, neither CHURCH is specified in the question. How say ye to infants, if I prove that they in old time received in one kind, OPENLY, The forth Shift. and in the CHURCH, doth not this make against you? No sayeth Master jewel. Master Harding maketh his whole plea upon an infant, and yet of infants as he knoweth I spoke nothing. No more did ye of OPEN CHURCH, jew. 139. WHOLE PEOPLE, LAY MEN, Priests or others: But ye made an universal and indefinite negative proposition, which is by all reason sufficiently reproved, if but in one particular, the contrary be proved. But let us consider the compass of your inventiou a little further. What if we prove that the two Disciples whom Christ overtook in the way to Emaus, received the Sacrament under one kind? Or that S. Ambrose and S. Basile received likewise under one? is not all this plain contrary to your assertions? No sayeth M. jewel. For the question is moved of LAY PEOPLE. jew. 12●. The fifth Shift. M. Harding bringeth examples of Christ and two disciples, who were of the number of Seventy and two, and therefore it may well be thought they were ministers and not of the lay sort. And again: I demand of the lavitie, he answereth of Saint Ambrose and Saint Basile which were Bishops. In deed M. jewel you must pardon him, for he thought that a good argument for Communion under one kind might have been taken of Christ & his two disciples, or of S. Ambrose, or S. Basils' authority alone. But seeing you have now so conveyed the matter, that all that will not serve, where might a man find examples to please you? If it were by one example to be showed that the laity and WHOLE PEOPLE received OPENLY under one kind, and in the CHURCH, would this satisfy you? No not this. For the thing denied by M. jewel, The sixth shift. jew. 14● is this. That the Sacrament was ever ministered unto the people in one kind openly in any congregation, or in the OPEN ORDER and usage of any CHURCH And again: It will not follow that this was the COMMON ORDER of the Church. jew. 133. By which words ORDER, and USAGE, we see one or two evidences would not be taken, because so few prove not an USAGE. How now then? When will this fellow leave his flying back? You should (M. jewel) come nearer and nearer, or stay at the least in some Conclusion. But ye add still more and more to the question, and seek to come out of the straits, into which through foolish hardiness you are cast by your own glorious Sermon. Surely ye be gone a great way, from those plain and few words, which, this question of Communion under both kinds, had at the beginning. Yet will I follow you, if perchance I may see some end. Therefore if I were able to prove, that the WHOLE PEOPLE (without mentioning of Bishops, Priests, or Infants) did receive under one kind OPENLY, in any CONGREGATION, or in the OPEN ORDER and USAGE of any Church: Then I trust, you would give over all contention. No, you will never leave till you have brought it to an endless controversy. The Negative of our side, (say you) which so much troubleth him is this. jew. 14● Che. seven. shift. That for the space of six hundred years after Christ, it can not be found in any old Doctor or Council, that ever the holy Communion was ministered to the people, in the Church, or in any open assemble, in one kind only, AS IT IS NOW MINISRED IN THE CHURCH OF ROME. You be safe M. jewel, I warrant you, you be safe. All the Catholics in the whole world, are not able to take you. For what ecceptions will not you make, and what Extensions will not you devise, under pretence of these words: AS IT IS NOW MINISTERED IN THE CHURCH OF ROME. Come who will, let him bring what he can: If from the priests crown down to his foot: And from Confite or to lte Missa est, he prove not the like to have been used then, as is now: in Amice, Albe, Stole, Girdle, Praying, Blessing, Elevating, Breaking, Communicating and distributing. etc. who shall let M. jewel to say, that he demanded of such order of ministering, as is now in the Church of Rome? For as well he may in this matter of Receiving under both kinds, make question of the priests vestiventes, and of his soft speaking: as in the question of Private Mass, which concerneth nothing else but Sole receiving, draw the state of it unto saying of Mass, and thereupon show many feats of his Chivalry. And when shall he then come to the point of the controversy, which hath chosen such compasses to wander about in? Therefore M. jewel if you hold yourself here, you be safe enough I warrant you. But are ye not ashamed so to trifle, and to fight for nothing with such contention? We can not prove against you so formally and demonstrativelye as you require, neither can we answer your challenge as now you have expressed it. But what then? Where is the profit of your victory? What spoils bring ye to your company? This is your fault Master jewel, The vain contention of M. jewel. as in the former Article, so now again in this, that you make a mighty show, and are not able to fasten one blow, you labour with hand and tongue, as though you would conquer some, and free passage being granted you, ye can take nothing away from us. For let not the receiving under both kinds be found in, OPEN CHURCH, and, USAGE OF THE CHURCH, and, in the WHOLE PEOPLE, And, AS IT IS NOW MINISTERED IN THE CHURCH OF ROME: Yet for so much as by Christ and his two Disciples, by Saint Ambrose, Scrapion and others, we prove that it is not contrary to his Institution, we confound your lying tongue, which speaketh so loudly and earnestly thereof, as though the Catholic Church did not keep it, because the laity now, receiveth under one kind in most. places. If it be true (as yourself confess either voluntariely or constrained by the Catholics) that Receiving under one kind, hath Examples for it in the Primitive Church, The Catholic hath his purpose. and those years which you were content to be tried by, then is it aloweable. And then surely, it is not against Christ's Institution. And then, doth the use of the Church now, stand with Christ's Institution: and then should not you so shamefully abuse your Adversary, jew. 119 with how can M. Harding warrant the manifest breach, of Christ's INSTITUTION? 343 Again: The causes that moveth the Church of Rome to break Christ's INSTITUTION are not great. 150 Again: M. Harding, thus maintaining the open abuse of the holy mysteries offendeth against Christ's INSTITUTION. ●●9 Again: what? troweth he there is no difference between obeying God's COMMANDMENT, and breaking gods COMMANDMENT? Again: With what indifferent judgement than can M. Harding thus compare these things together, 116 an INSTITUTION with no INSTITUTION? Again, 114 the best stay that these men can lay hold upon, is to deny Christ's INSTITUTION. Again, 110 M. Harding thinketh that the people may safely break Christ's INSTITUTION &c: As though either he, or any other Catholic went about it. But if it be so in deed, and if you will abide by it, that Christ's Institution is broken, when any receiveth under one kind alone: go not then from that state of the question. and before this be tried, trouble not us, and others with matters impertinent. Wherefore did you moon this question, whether within six hundred years after Christ, any Communion was ministered unto the people under one kind; did ye it not to this end, that you might conclude there upon, (if no man would answer you) that Christ's Institution is now broken of the Catholics, which minister otherwise then they did in the Primitive Church? Ergo, the mark which you look unto, is Christ's Institution: which to prove to be with us, or against us, we therefore consider the doings of the Primitive Church. And because examples are found even in the age, & such records, as yourself dare not yet deny, by which we know, the receiving under one kind was many times used: we conclude in the principal, that it is not against Christ's Institution to receive under one kind. Do you deni the consequent? How can you, which have so appealed to the primitive Church, as though you would be content & quiet, if good testimonies of that time could be alleged against you? What say ye them to the Antecedent? ye confess it in plain words the some received then under one kind, jew. 132. saying: Neither did I deny that ever any one man received the Communion in one kind. But yet (you reply) it was an abuse. I here you well. But that is another question. The. viii. shift. And it is another shift also, much fouler than any of the forenamed. Remember yourself M. jewel, I pray you, and let us conclude our matters in order. The first question should have been▪ Whether Christ's Institution doth stand with receiving under one kind. The first with you, but the second rather with us, is: whether any Communion was then ministered unto the people under one kind. We prove, & you confess that some hath hen ministered. Ergo it is time ye yield & subscribe. A iij. question now, & if you will, shall be: whether it were an abuse in the primi tive Church to receive under one kind. And so forth in many other, according to the circumstances of Persons, time, and places. But before we come to them, do you in the mean time as you promised: for we have proved that which you denied. Either yield or take better hold fast, and begin again. If you strive, & say ye meant that it was not OPENLY received under both kinds, & ORDINARIly: Than what a trifler or wrangler be you, to challenge us about circumstances, before we were agreed upon the substance of the matter. yet if you will needs have OPENLY which his fellows put in, then begin again, & speak more plainly. for as ye have proponed the matter, ye ace overcome. And yet before ye begin which those cirunstances, I warn you, it will be to no purpose, because ourselves may confess unto you, that we can not gain say it: & you shall conclude nothing against us, by it. For the churches cause is sufficiently defended, if receiving under one kind may be proved, by any ancient example, without any exception made by you. Thus it may be again seen, how M. jew. speaketh, in all this second Article, to no purpose, if he make the question so circumstantial, as he hath laboured to have it. On the other side, the Catholic cause is sufficiently defended, both by our own witnesses, and by confession of our Adversaries, because it is proved sundry ways, that receiving under one kind was known and used in the Primitive Church, and therefore undoubtedly it is not repugnant to Christ's Institution. The third Article. (⁂) COncerning this question of the Common Prayers, whether in the six hundred years after Christ, they wert in a strange tongue which the People did not understand: what can any Catholic of these parts of the world say more, then that they were in the Greek tongue or Latin tongue only? For whereas neither Authority of Scripture commandeth it, neither verity of Tradition confirmeth it, neither report of History witnesseth it, neither yet any Token or Memory signifieth it, that the Public Service of the Church east or west, was within the compass of the first six hundred years, in any other tongue than Greek or Latin: what lightness must it be, to forsake the orders which we have, and take others, I can not tell what? 1. Cor. 14. The Apostle maketh an express distinction between the Idiot and him that supplieth the place. It is no wisdom to change that We have, for an other thing, no man is sure What. Of the Idiot (concerning the Common Prayers) he giveth no precept, of the other he sayeth, how shall he, that supplieth the place of the Idiot, answer Amen, upon thy blessing? Now by Tradition, we have received no other, but Latin or Greek Service. Of the change of the vulgar tongue, into any of these two, Greek or Latin, or of setting up of these, in stead of the known and vulgar tongue, there is no mention in any writer. And last of all, there can be showed no token or sufficient similitude, that the Service of old time, was in the vulgar tongue. Ergo how should a reasonable man condemn that which himself seeth so generally used, and follow another unknown manner, to which he is uncertainly referred? S. Augustine saith it but of Ceremonies, August. ad januar. ep. 118. that, If the whole Church throughout the world, do observe any thing: to dispute thereof it is a point of most insolent madness. And if it be so in ceremonies, is it not much more so in public Service? For in Ceremonies (because of indifferency of them in themselves, and infirmity of some people, which be over curious against them) many points might be reasoned upon, and (If manifest need require) be omitted. Yet, If the whole Church use them, there ought to be no question. But in public Service, which pertaineth to the state of the Church, and in which, the moving of any doubt causeth the whole Religion to be shaken: how is it to be suffered, that she should be opposed? Or that any Private persons without reason or authority, should call that into question, which is generally received? The Heretics of this age say, that the Latin Service (for example) in all the West Church, hath not come from the six hundred years after Christ. from whence came it then? Who were the planters of it? Who were the maintainers? If they did it with consent of all the West Countries, that is a great prejudice against your contentionsnesse. How unlikely. If they did it by force or violence, would no man complain of it presently? Or put it in writing, for instruction of the posterity? Surely, this can not be but a great wonder, that the Common Service of the West Church, was not generally in Latin every where at the beginning: And, that so many thousand Churches, in so many several and diverse Countries thereof, should altogether, most faithfully, hold and keep the same: And no man yet tell, of what beginning. But what should a Catholic be troubled in his mind or give ear to Peekers of quarrels? If the just and quiet Possessors of Ancient and good Lands, should be made to bring forth Euidencies, and, either answer to all demands which it pleaseth the Adversary to move, or else to be quite and clean thrust out of all, without any further judgement: would it not be accounted so unreasonable and injurious, that no wise man or honest man, could allow it or suffer it? What cause then is there, why the troblers of quiet possessouts in Religion, should be praised and houore●, as ghostly S●ru●yers (I trow) of all Christendom? How hold you this, quoth he? Marry, what is that to thee? Thou seest I hold it. Yea but how came you by it? first who gave you the authority to ask me that question? Then spare not, Enchroching and busy heretics. but lay it to my charge, if thou hast any evidence against me. It was not so in the Primitive Church. Yes forsooth was it. Bring me then (sayeth he) any sufficient authority of Doctor or Council. Foolish fellow, wilt thou put me to my proofs, which am in possession, and have long dwelled here, as it can not be denied, thyself being not able to show from whence I had it, except it were of the first Lords and patrons? What right I have, the same I have received. And those that delivered it to me, took it of others before them. And they again, received it of their forefathers. Neither canst thou prove any change of Titles to have come in between, from the first Apostles & Fathers, to their children which now do live. Is it not therefore a sufficient defence to us, that thou canst not deny, but the West Church doth use, and hath (for hundred of years together) spoken Latiu generally in her Service, and art not able to show, where she ever used English, Dutch, French, or Spanish? Thy silence in this question doth answer for us. And it should be a demonstration to all reasonable men, that undoubtedly the public Service here in the West was in Latin from the beginning, Trafition for the 〈◊〉 because, no other beginning thereof can be showed, nor the ceasing of those vulgar Tongues, which (as M. jewel getteth) were once used, can any where be found, or espied. Thus much should and would be said, if the right way might be allowed. But now, present possession maketh nothing. And therefore is D. Harding constrained, to follow the pleasure of the Extorciotier, & to prove, that to be ours of ancient right: the long possession whereof without any disturbance, concludeth it to be our right. Wherein though he hath done very well, yet he bringeth nothing, but M. jewel turneth it to a guess, a likelihood, a conjecture. Which phrases are so common with him, through all this Article, as though he would admit no Authority or Argument, but such as is taken out of the Scriptures, or such as should be so evident and invincible, that he could have no power to answer them. His Phrases are these: M. Harding is not able to prove this with all his guesses. jewel. Again: 160 The Minor he warranteth but by a guess only. 166 Again: Reply is made and that by guesses and likelihods. 180 Again: This guess standeth upon two points. And so in other places more. For this cause, that it may be perceived, whether he also useth not Gheasses, & that he may learn in time, to be good to others, when he is favourable to himself: before I speak of D. hardings reason, let us a while hold our peace, and put M. jewel to answering. Tell us, I pray you, Sir, for truth's sake, you which are so well seen in Antiquities, and can appose, and press others so earnestly with obscure questions about the Primitive Church: Is it not reason that you give better instructions, which find fault with the Catholics opinions? And i● the judgement and answer of the whole Church that now is, can not satisfy you: should you, with any conscience, require your opinion to be received, except ye bring Demonstrations for it? Tell us therefore I beseech you, without Guesses, Conjectures, and Like lihodes, (which you can not away withal,) was the public Service of the Church, within the six hundred years after Christ, Harding Pol. 74. in the Syriacal, or Arabike, in the Egyptian, AEthiopian, Persian, Armenian, Scythian, French, or Britain tongue? Here you may answer unto us: This is no indifferent dealing. jew. 165 And again: Suddenly he altereth the whole state of the cause, and shifteth his hands and requireth me to show. But, that it may appear you deal plainly, and seek nothing but truth: Answer I pray you thoroughly and directly. In one example or two, you are content, but why not in examples for all? For the Syriacal tongue you speak the most, but why bring you not somewhat for each of the other? You will refer the rest to an other place (unto which straight waits we will follow you) but presently thus you say. At Paulaes' funeral, all the multitude of the City of Palestine met together. Hierony mus in Epitaphio Pan 〈◊〉 The Psalms were song in order, in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syrian tongue. Well, here in deed is mention of the Syrian Tongue, and of Psalms sung in it. But how prove you, these Psalms to infer the Common Service in the same tongue: For, by Psalms, I understand Hymns, Songs, and Praises, made to the hovor of God, and memory of S. Paula. For Theodoretus reporteth (as you bear me Lib. 4. cap. 10. witness) that Ephrem made Hymns and Psalms in the Syrian tongue, And that the same were song at the solemn Feasts of Martyrs. Lib. 4. ca 29. jew. 157 All Psalms therefore, were not the Psalms of David (for Ephrem made new of his own) and the synginge of Psalms at Paulaes' funeral, Here beginneth M. jew. with his ●●sses. prove not, but by guess, that they were part of the Common Service. And therefore, though ye have brought forth a place where mention is made of Psalms in the Syrian tongue: yet do ye not satisfy our demand and expectation, which ask of Public Service, and look to be, plainly and evidently answered. Ye add unto this, a testimony out of S. Augustine, where he willeth the priests to correct the errors of their Latin speech: That the people unto the thing they plainly understand, may say Amen. And what of this? jew. 156 This (say you) of S. Augustine, seemeth to be spoken generally of all Tongues. To whom seemeth it? To yourself (I think) and your company only. another guess of M. jew. And if to any other beside, it should likewise seem so, yet Seeming hangeth but upon Gheasses and lykelihoodes. And therefore is, neither to be used of you, which are to resolute to allege them: neither to be named against us, which seek now after your Evidences and perfect Instructions, and must not be served with Lykelihoodes. But ye refer us to another place. To that place then will we come, and repeat our question again. Whether your side is able to show, that the public Service of the Church in any nation was (in the Syriacall, or Arabike, or Egyptian, Aethiopian, Persian, Armenian, Scythian, French, Britain tongue, or) in any other then in Greek and Latin. Here you may again find fault as you did before and say: jew. 15. He altereth cunningly the whole case, and willeth me to show. But we shall desire you again, to be content and yield to our request: If there be such goodness and pregnancy of your cause, as you speak of, and specially if ye speak for the better contentation of the Good Christian Reader. But remember that ye must exidently answer us without Gheasses, and Likelihodes. Go to then, where begin you? Eckius sayeth, jew. 175 the Indians had their Service in the Indian tongue. Durandus saith, the jews that were Christened had their Service in the Hebrew tongue. Call ye this, A contentation of a good Christian Readers mind, to prove unto him a Conclusion, by those men's sayings, whom, by your example, the better and perfecter Christian he is, the less he must accept for witnesses? What tell ye us now, of Eckius and Durandus, whom you make us not to pass upon? More week (after M. jew. mind) them 〈◊〉 This kind of reasoning of there authority, whom you would have us think to be of no Authority, is more weak & uncertain, then if ye should aim only and guess at the matter, which we look to be fully quieted in, by your much reading and learning. Eckius also sayeth no more, Eckius in Locis communibus. but it was permitted. And he speaketh of that which was done a this side the six hundred years, to the which only, your answer should be referred. And Durandus maketh no mention of jews, as though the celebration of the mysteries, had been for their sakes done in Hebrew, but of the beginnings of the primitive Church, in which not only jews but Gentiles also in great number came to the faith of Christ, he saith generally: In the primitive Church, Lib. 4. cap. 1. the Divine Mysteries were celebrated in the Hebrew tongue. Of which we may justly gather, that every Christian understood not the Service, because more than jews' were then Christened, and the Hebrew tongue was not vulgar to any, saving jews. So that the tongue which they used in the Divine mysteries, was strange and unknown unto many, which from Paganisee were converted to Christ. But Nycolaus de Lyra, jew. 17● An other guess of M. jew. and Thomas of Aquine say (authors whom you think worthy of small credit) the Common Service, in the Primitive Church, was in the Common vulgar tongue. This is true, though it were but in the Greek or Latin tongue only. And so doth it not answer our question thoroughly. But what if D. Harding himself have in plain words confessed, jew. 17●. that Common prayers were pronounced in the primitive Church in a Common tongue known to the people? 〈…〉 But when he shall answer you, that he taketh not Common praite● and Common Sernice both for one thing, (whi●h without what if I am sure he will do) what is that, to the question which we put forth▪ Or how have ye answered, to the Contentation of your good Christian reader? Thus then, all this hitherto is little or nothing worth. And we look for stronger arguments at your learned hands. And therefore perchance you say: Yet Good Christian Reader for thy better satiffaction, jew. 176 it may please thee to know, that in the Primitive Church, Far from the question. the Common Service was not ministered, by one man alone, but by the Priest and whole Congregation, altogether. But was it in any other tongue, than Greek or Latin? This is demanded, to this you have to answer. And remember here your bluid Senator, jew. 327 which talked and pointed to the higher end of the table, the Mullet which he so much praised, being far beneath, at the lower end. Clemens Alexandrinus sayeth, In the Common Prayers they have all, jew. 176 An gother ●esse of M. jew. as it were, one voice and one mind. So may they, though it be out of public Service. Also where he talketh of Prayers indefinitely, you add the word (Common) unto them, falthode. least it should be any thing doubtful. What call you that, a guess, or a jeaste? S. Chrysostom sayeth, jew. 176 An other guess of M. jew. not only the Priest giveth thanks, but also all the People. That is, because he is a public Minister, to whose prayers all the people must join their consents, so that they are not excused if they think of other matters when the priest prayeth, but are bound to apply their devotions to his, as in whom they all do serve God. But what is this to the vulgar Tongue in Public Service? Isydorus writeth thus: jew. 176 More Gheasses. when they sing they must sing all togeher, when they pray, they must pray all together. He speaketh of the Clergy only, that ye need not extend it to the lay people. And therefore, if you have no better than this, we may well put you to other proofs. Which are not far of. For, jew. 176 More Gheasses. out of the old father Origen, you tell us: That all several nations, pray unto god and praise him in their mother tongue. This may be done in Prinat prayers, And our request is, to have sure arguments for Public Service. Out of S, Ambrose, There were jews (say you) which in their Sermons and Oblations, jew. 176 More Gheasses. used sometime the Syrian tongue and some times the Hebrew. This pertaineth then to Sermons and Offerings, not to Common prayers. And it was, you may perceive, no appointed and set order of Common service, in which they changed their tongues so, at their pleasures. Out of S. Basil, ye tell us, of Such, as offered up to the lord the Psalm of Confession. jew. 176. And again, ye number out of him, Egyptians, and both the Countries of Lybia, and the Thebans, More Gheasses. Palestines, Arabians, phoenicians, Syrians, and the borderers of Euphrates, and generally all, that have Watchings, 177. and Prayers, and Common Psalmody in estimation. But to what purpose name ye, all these diverse countries. To make that clear, which we doubted of? and to prove, that the public Service was, at those days, in so many tongues? By what reason or argument? because all these, had common Psalmody in estimation? And who, among us, esteemeth in not? Take you rather heed to this, of whose Psalmody it may be doubted, which have so little praying, and no watching. But what mean you here, by Common Psalmody? Think you that all these countries so several, met in one Place, and song Psalms together? that is incredible. How then? will you gather this sense of it, that the same Psalms were read and song every where? Tell us then in what tongue they were used? And consider, whether one tongue, (as the Greek for example) might not have served to that purpose? For in the west now, we know the self same Psalms, yea and text also, every where to be used. Basil. in epist. ad Cler. Neocae. But was not this S. Basiles meaning, that the manner of watching, praying, and singing Psalms, should not seem strannge and newly invented, because it is allowed & practised in so many and several countries? yes verily this only is his meaning. for, certain heretics there were then, which stirred up the minds and stomachs of the Clergy of Neocaesaria, persuading them, that the old manner and Custom of singing Psalms was changed, and saying: At non erant haec tempore Gregorii Magni. But these things were not in Gregory the Great his days. Unto whom S. Basil answereth, that the manner of psalmody which he useth, is not his particular, but common to him and Egyptians, and both countries of Lybia, and the Thebans etc. But where find you here (M. jew.) that these psalms were in the peculiar tongue, of every of these countries, or that they were of the public Service? S. Basile speaketh no further, but concerning the order of using them, and you make him to bear you witness, in what tongue those psalms were uttered. Out of S. Jerome you prove to us, jew. 177 An other guess of M. jewels. That the voices and letters of all nations, do sound out Christ his passion and Resurrection. As who should say, that, in King Henry the seavenths' time, the public Service in England was not in the Latin tongue, because many English books did entreat of Christ's passion and Resurrection, and because the people in their vulgar tongue did speak much of it. Out of Aeneas Silvius, less than a guess for the Service in the primity●e Church. jew. ●77 you say, A voice washeard, as it had been from heaven ● (And now you begin, devoutly to hearken to Revelations, though never written in go spell, nor six hundred years after Christ) Let every spirit praise the lord, and let every tongue acknowledge him. And that thereupon, the slavons we suffered to use their own tongue in their Common Service. When chanced this? About the year of our Lord eight hundred and three score. That is to say, ye come to late by two hundred and threskore years or thereabout, to prove what was done in the six hundred years after Christ. Again, such suit, for the slavons, as you speak of, to have the Common Service in their mother tongue, proveth what was ordinarily used then to the contrary in all Christendom. The great stay of the Pope and Cardinals in granting it, declareth how Strange, Needless, or dangerous, the Rulers of the Church, 800. and odd years sense, thought that request to be. The voice from heaven importeth, that it needed a special sign and testimony to obtain a dispensation in a matter so extraordinary. Out of Innocentius, you bring, ye can not tell what. But first what was this Innocentius? A Pope of Rome. when lined be? About 300. years sense. And dare you confirm your cause, with Pope's decrees, of so late years? But where, dehreed ●e this? In the Council of Lateran. That Council, which of all other ye most detest, as in which Transubstantiation, was in express terms declared, and in which the kingdom (as you will say) of the Popish Church was defended. Is it possible then, (to go no further) that, out of that world and Council, a Decree should be alleged by the which, M. jewels Schismatical opinion should be confirmed? Consider by this one example, (indifferent Reader) how this fellow abuseth thy unskillfulnesse, or lack of leisure to examine the places, which he allegeth out of the Ancient fathers, Who so bold as jewel. or practise of the Primitive Church: which dareth, as it were, at high noon, and in the very sight of the world, to make men believe, that Innocentius (forsooth) the third, was a favourer of their procedings? And so to interpret his words and set them forth in great letters, as though he had decreed, that if (for example) English men, dutch men, French men, Italians, Spaniards &c. were mingled together in one City, the bishop thereof, should provide meet men, to minister the holy Service, jew. 177. according TO THE DIVERSITY OF THEIR MANNERS AND TONGVES, which sold be to say, In English, dutch, French etc. But doth Innocentius mean so? Nay doth he say so? for if ye dare to set forth his words in Latin as though your fidelity should be seen, and yet, in the Englisshinge of them, corrupt the same words: who may trust you in your Comment and construction upon them? Provideant (sayeth he, of the bishops of such Cities or dioceses, where sundry nations dwelled together) viros idoneos qui secundum diversitates rituum & linguarum divina ILLIS offica CELEBRENTET ECCLESIASTICA SACRAMENTA administrent, That is, we straightly command, that the bishop of such Cities, provide meet men, which according to the diver sitie of Rites and Tongues, may celebrat the divine Service unto them, & minister the Sacraments of the Church. But, M. jew. leaveth out quite the interpretation of Illis celebrent may celebrate unto them: And, M. jewels falsehood, and that to 〈◊〉 but ● guess. Ecclesiastica Sacramenta, The Sacraments of the Church making of two verbs but one, and of two Accusative cases but one: and applienge the verb to the former Accusative case, which should govern the later only: and leaving the later accusative case, not only without the proper verb to rule it, jew. 177 but altogether leaving it out. As in example. We do therefore straightly command that the bishops of such Cities or dioceses provide meet men to minister (he should have added the proper accusative case: The Sacraments of the Church, but it leeketh him not, he leaveth it out quite) The holy Service (he should have put before it the proper verb belonging to it: To celebrate unto them, the divine or holy Service. for, by saying unto them, the Pope, signifieth, that the people said not the service, but the priest.) ACCORDING to the diversity of their manners (more plainly it would have been said, their Rites or Ceremonies) and tongues. If any man think this omission to be of small importance: I answer, that in him, which is so curious to note in the Margin Rituum & Linguarum, and to english them in the text with great letters, the better to be considered, in him, it is no small fault to place and construe words at his pleasure, and to convey those away out of the sentence, which being left alone, do open and expound the whole matter. For interpreting the Canon truly, your great doub●● M. jewel (of according to the University of their manners and tongues) will easily be answered. for the bishops (to make it plain) are commanded, to provide meet men, to celebrate the divine Service unto them, according to the diversity of their manners or Rites, and to minister the Sacraments of the Church unto them, according to the diversity of their tongues. For as it is not enough, to bring a simple Italian, (if he 〈◊〉 be confessed and abso●●ed) to a priest of the Latin Church, but to such a 〈◊〉, as understandeth and speaketh the Italiam tongue: So in saying of Service to the same man, it is enough to keep the Rites and Ceremonies which he hath been used unto, in his own country, and it is not required that it should be said in the Italian tongue, because in Confession respect is had to singular persons, but in public Service the whole state of the Church is considered. In confession also the priests go down to men, but in public Service 〈◊〉 ascend upward to God. In talking with men our tongue should be known unto them, in praying to God the thief care is of denotion. And therefore, it was not sincerely done of M. jew. so to turn, & leave out, the words of this decree: neither are little omissions in this kind, little faults. Who then may trust him with expounding the words? or what hope might he have, so to handle the matter, that Innocentius the third, might seem to condemn his own Church of Rome: and straightly command, that according to the diversity of manners and tongues the holy Service should be ministered? Was this law ever put in execution in Rome itself? Was it not an easy matter, for him being Pope, to do it? Did not sundry nations of diverse tongues meet in that City together, to geave him occasion to do it? yet hath he not done it. and the Romans tontinew still their Service in the Latin, though their vulgar speech be Italian. It appeareth then that Innocentius had no such meaning as you devise. And note the words of the decree. Let meet men be provided, to celebrate and minister to People of divers Countries, according to the diversity of their Rites and tongues. Here I would ask, what diversity it speaketh of? Such as was not yet extant in the Church, or such as was presently used? If ye mean the first: that can not be. for of those Rites which are not yet, who can say, Let them be served according to the diversity of their Rites! If ye mean the second, that is, If ye understand, that such diversity of Rites and tongues as was then all ready found in the Catholic Church, should be used toward the people of every country, where diverse nations met together, within one City or diocese: this proveth not, that the English men dwelling at Rome, should have a new English Service made for them, but only, The right meaning of Innocentius decree. that the like Rites and tongue, as were used in their Country at home, in their Common Service, should be enjoyed of them in Rome. After the which rate, the Italians abiding in Constantinople, should have the Latin Service, and not the Greek: And the Greeks in Venice, should have the Service after their own manner, and not after the Latin. But what is this to our question? for to make it plainer, let us suppose that, a French man dwelling then in Rome, with other his country men, would require to have his Common prayer in the French tongue. To him would I say, by what reason or consequent dost thou require it? Here, let his answer be, how Innocentius decreed, that every nation should be provided for, according to the diversity of their manners and tongues. I would ask him again, what manner or tongue haste thou, in the Church Service in France? If he answered, we have the French: he should be taken in an open lie, because none was than thought upon. If he answered, (as the truth was) we have it in Latin but we have other fashions in it, than these of Rome have: then should he perceive Innocentius and the Counsels meaning. which was that the celebrating of public Service, and ministration of Sacraments, as it was then presently used, in several Countries: so should it be in a readiness for the men of the same Countries (when they met together in one City) according to the diversity of their Rites and tongues. Therefore if you (M. jew.) can show by any means, that the Church Service of England was, at that time, in the English tongue, then may I grant unto you, that when ye go to Rome or Constantinople, you may claim the benefit of Innocentius decree to be served English wise. But if you can not find, that in any of so many several Countries, as may be reckoned, the Service was then in any other tongue than Greek or Latin, then shall you see it plainly and necessarily concluded, that every of them was provided for According to the diversity of Rites and tongue (tongue, you must mean, which they used in public Service, and in Churches, and not in open Market Place, or private houses) and yet no one of them all should have other tongue than Greek or Latin. And therefore, this testimony doth nor serve you, nor satisfy us. And beside this, I must tell you, that were it never so good and fit for your purpose, yet is it beside your Glory, to use Pope's decrees of so late making. Now to conclude: M. jew. signifieth unto us, that he might allege much more, even out of Addias himself, jew. 17. whom M. harding so much esteemeth. But I will only note the complaint of one john Billet. Whom (I believe) you as much esteem as you do Abdias. A lamentation of some of histr●●des upon M. jewel would serve here well, for Complaint the 〈◊〉 of john Billet. jew. 176 But wherein will ye note his complaint? Concerning this case? What case? whether that, The Common Service was not ministered, by one man alone, but by the Priest and the whole Congregation together, which is the thing ye promised to show? Or that the public Service was, in the six hundred years after Christ, in any other tongue than Greek or Latin, which question was only demanded, and unto which, you were content to answer, for the better Contentation of minds, and better satisfaction of the Reader? Go to then, what aileth that, One john Billet, jew. 178 as you call him, and whereof complaineth he? Marry what shall we do (sayeth he) in our days, when as there is, either none at all, or very seldom, that readeth or heareth, or understandeth understandeth what? the public Service? no but the Gospel which was readen in the Service. for the words next before, are, that whereas in the Primitive Church no man should speak which tongues, unless some were present to expound them: here of (sayeth he) grew a laudable Custom that after the Gospel was read literally it should strait ways be expounded in the vulgar tongue. And there upon followeth his Complaint: what shall we do in our days etc. He complaineth therefore of lack of learning in the Reader or hearer: not of the unknown Tongue in which the Gospel was read. for if the exposition of it do follow in the vulgar tongue, the Custom is laudable. And so hereby is presupposed, that the Gospel was then in another tongue then vulgar. But now if the exposition followeth not, and few either readers or hearers understand the Gospel: what is to be done? Verily the surest way is, to set more Children to school, and to make better provision for Scholars, and to choose out of Scholars, in to the Clergy. But what is your advise M. jew.? marry, that the Service (I trow) should be in the vulgar tongue. But ye find not this, in john Billets complaint. And except you gather this Conclusion, how make ye an end of your process with his testimony? Mark, I pray you (M. jewel john Billets conclusion upon his own Complaint. It (seemeth sayeth he) It were better now to hold their peace, than so to sing. Lo, he talketh of holding their peace in the Church, not of crying out in the vulgar tongue. Neither wisssheth he nor alloweth he that taking up of a new tongue and Service, but of amending the ignorance of hearers and readers concerning the old. Also he sayeth, yet more Gh●sses of M. jewel. It seemeth: but determineth nothing. And therefore it is a wonder that you espied not that guess of his, whereby, we (though it made for your purpose) are not satisfied. And, to be as exact as yourself are, he was not within the first six hundred years after Christ. Therefore you have said hitherto, with all your Gheasses nothing to the purpose, nor proved, that the Service was in the Primitive Church in some other tongue, than Greek or Latin. But perchance the nearer you come homeward, the better you be instructed. and therefore leaving to ask you of the Syrian, AEthiopian, Persian and Armenian with the like, what say you to the French tongue? Was the Service of Gallia, (now France) in the vulgar tongue, within the six hundred after Christ? It was not said (you will answer) in such order as M. Harding Gheasseth. jew. ●84 Do you then tell us without Gheasses I pray you, how it was. But in a known tongue unto the people. jewel. What was that? Speak M. jewel. Tell us of some certainty, for of all things you love no Gheasses That it was in a tongue known unto the people it is evident by Severus Sulpitius. jewel. To all or some? for herein consisteth the very point. To some, we grant, and that helpeth you nothing. To all, how prove you, out of Sulpitius, or any other? Here again you be at a stay. But go ye forth with Sulpitius. The Reader was shut out, by mean of the throng. One of the company took the Psalter, Moregesses for the service in that vulgar tongue. jewel. Read the verse of the Psalm: Out of the mouth of Infants and Sucklings, thou hast wrought praise. And as soon as that verse was read, the people made a shout, and the contrary part was confounded. Here we see the practice of the Church of Gallia. A proper practice I promise you, that as soon as the verse of the Psalm was read, the people made a shout. Think you, that this Psalm, and Reading, of the which Sulpitius speaketh, was any part of the Public Service? Or think you, the people to have been so wild and dissolute at those days, that they made shouts, when they were in their Service? But this is enough for you, that they made a shout. By which you gather, that they understood what was read. Yet do ye not satisfy our question, which is of Public Service, and whether all the people understood it or no. But M. The history which Sulpitius telleth, M. jew. mangleth. jewel, if it had pleased you, to have reported this History as Sulpitius telleth it, neither we could wonder at the people's shout: neither you make an argument thereof, that they understood the Church Service. For to add, to your tale that which lacketh, when S. Martyne stood to be bishop, one of the chief bishops of the Country (whose name was DEFENSOR) was his greatest Adversary. Sulpitius lib. i de vita D. Marti. For which cause, the People being offended with him, when that verse, of which you speak was readen, in the end of the which, these words are (according to an old Latin translation) Vt destruas inimicum & defensorem they hearing the word DEFENSOREM, some for joy (I believe) that it alluded so rightly to the name of their Adversary, and other perchance of simplicity, thinking that the Psalm did speak● of DEFENSOR the bishop, made a shout, And signified or agreed, that it was happily spoken. Which, I see not how it proveth the public Service to have been in a known tongue, and all the People to have understanden it. But this I might gather, that the Psalms were then openly read in the Latin tongue. In which thing what is your opinion, M. jewel? In what tongue (think you) was the Common Service of the Church of France? You answer: jew. 148 Whether it were in the vulgar Tongue or in the Latin Tongue, it was a Tongue known to the People. But doth this answer, agree with your absolute intelligence, which would be counted to know the state of the Primitive Church so perfectly: that what so ever others bring against you, it must be taken for Conjectures only, and Gheasses? See now, in what darkness of understanding, yourself are. And how much you be to seeking, when you be particularly opposed? You say of France, that they had their Service in a known tongue: M. jew. at a stay. but what tongue that was, you can not readily tell. And why so? Can ye say precisely, that all the people understood it (for of all the people our question is) except ye be sure what tongue it was? And if it were in any other then the vulgar French, can ye warrant that the whole Congregation understood it▪ And mark, that they must not only understand it simply, but also turn it to their purpose cunningly. Except you think, that it was an easy matter for every body to do (●t the reading of the foresaid verse of the Psalm) to perceive the allusion and conveyghance, which might be made, from defensorem the word of the Psalm, to DEFENSOR the bishop that resisted S. Martin. And that in one instant, every man did make the sense of the Psalm to answer and serve his just indignation against DEFENSOR the bishop, and so gave an uniform shout, for that they goodwills, and the meaning of that verse of the Psalm, did so happily meet both together. And if, as I do now tell it, there be thousands which will not perceive it, forlacke (not of English) but of quick understanding or close attention: who ma● think, that all the vulgar people, understood the grace of that fact not looked for, which Sulpitius declareth? Or that they being not able to contain themselves, for the greatness and agreablnes which they saw in it, broke out into a shout or acclamation? But herein is your craft and subtlety M. jewel y●, under the generality or indefitenes of words, ye provide to keep some gaps always open, by which you may shift from sense to sense, and prolong the time of your taking. For where ye can safely say it without espying, that, the service was in the vulgar tongue: there will you mean by a Strange tongue, that which is not vulgar, in which sense, the Latin tongue, in England, is a strange tongue. And where it is like to be plainly proved against you, that the Common Service was in another tongue than the vulgar: There, by a Strange tongue, you will understand, not a contrary to the vulgar, but a contrary to the known tongue, & so in this sense the Latin is not a Strange tongue in England, because it is understanden of the inhabitors, though not generally of all. And so by this kind of shifting in the question of the Common Service of Gallia, Present shifts at a nead. where it appeareth, by that one verse of the Psalm which Severus Sulpitius rehearseth, that it was in Latin, there, ye care not for the distinction: but, whether it were in the vulgar tongue or in the Latin, it was (you say) in a Tongue known to the people. jew. 184 But, when we shall come to our own Country of England, and begin to prove, that Service there, was in Latin: You can not abide to hear it, but you will needs have it to be in the vulgar Tongue. Yet ye need not so to answer (if it pleased you) because, if the Latin Tongue were granted, to have been in the Public Service of England, when Saint Augustine converted it: Yet might ye as well answer, that the Latin was a known Tongue there, as you seem easy to be persuaded, that it was a known Tongue, to all the people in France. By which your handling of the matter, it is most evident, that you are sure little or nothing, of the state of the Primitive Church concerning the Particulars of it, but, that you frame your conclusion to your knowledge. And where you find, that the Service was in the Latin Tongue, there will you make, that the Latin was a known Tongue: And where yourself can find nothing, nor your Adversary bring for his purpose plain evidence: there will you rest, and say, that the Common service was in the Vulgar Tongue only. Against which your Determination, if it should be proved hereafter that the Latin Service was used, even there, where you thought otherwise: then would you (without all doubt) return to your foresaid place of Evasion, that Whether it were in the Vulgar Tongue, or in the Latin, it was a Tongue known to the People. Now to leave all other Churches of the world, and for your readiness M. jewel, and our shortness sake, to speak to you of England only: In what tongue was the Service there at the beginning? That beginning I mean, when we were first converted to the faith by S. Augustin? Whom your Simplicity, and holiness, and mercifulness, and humility above measure, is so good as to judge, to be unworthy to be called a Saint, Is this your Te Deum Laudamus, for S. Augustine's coming in to England, and converting it. but an Hypocrite, a Superstitious man, Cruel, Bloody, and Proud above measure, and that by the report of them, which saw him and knew him. As who should say, that such men were meet vessels, for God to dwell in, and work the conversion of idolaters, such as our forefathers (according to the flesh) were: Or, as though S. Gregory, which sent him, saw him not, and knew him not, yea and tried him not better before he sent him, jew. 185 than any Britain's could do, which stomached & envied his doings, when he was come nearer unto them: Or, as though this were an high point in your Schools, when a question is asked of the Service which any Country had at the first conversion thereof, to defame and slander that Person, which first converted it, and put forth, to be marked of others, or lightly believe it yourself, the worst that the malice of the enemy could speak against him, without any counterpoising of it, with the just and true commendations, which, the best men then living, or the general voice of the world afterwards, gave unto him. To say no more unto you for this blabbing or slandering, than God reward you for it, I continue in my question, ask you: What manner tongue was used in the Common Service of England, at the first conversion of it? The Latin you will not grant to have been used, though S. Augustine with other Monks, planted then by likelihood, no other than themselves knew: except you think that they stayed from public ministration, until themselves had learned our English, or ●aught the people with all speed to understand their Latin) and though S. Gregory rejoiced that hallelujah was song in England. But, jew. 185 these be but gheasses, 185. you say. And Master Harding should not thus mock the world. 186 He knoweth well a Child would not make such reasons. 188 Again: God wots he might have made it better. Well Sir, for this purpose I am desirous to hear your answers because ye wots, they need to be absolute and excellent, which come from your gravity and learning. If then our Common Service were not in the Latin: was it in the Hebrew, or Greek, or any unknown tongue? For ye seem to incline to the surmises of the British Chronicles concerning joseph of Arimathaea, and to the report of Theodoretus, 167 that S. Paul came into this Island, now called England. So that it is hard to say, what Antiquities you have in store, concerning this matter. Yet because the greatest part hereof is like to be proved by Surmises, I believe rather that your final answer will be, that the Service in England, was in the vulgar English tongue. But how prove you this? So common a thing, as the public Service, So far and widespred a broad, as the Realm of England is long and round, So generally planted as you suppose, So diligently remembered and marked, as people must do, which (by your read) must say Amen, and understand the Priest when he celebrateth: This to be so taken away, that you can show no token whether ever it was or no, is it credible, or is it possible? Can ye then blame us, if we ask for some Monuments and Books, to be showed out of one place or other, Or if none at all be found, (for no doubt you have searched and laboured) can ye blame us if we doubt of the matter? Yet say you: O what folly is this? What to do? jew. 187 How loath or unable rather M. jewel is to show any evidence. jew. 187 to ask for witnesses in a doubtful matter? And to look for some step of a foot or token of high way, which thousand thousands have Ordinarily, and Openly passed by? But, who is able to show any Book written in english a thousand years a go? If ye can not show a whole book, yet show but a piece of the leaf of one: Or some token or testimony thereof, that ever any such book was used. It followeth: Or if it could be showed, yet who were able to understand it? You may see then, how vain it is, to think that the Apostles or their successors did commit the word of God to vulgar tongues, which being so subject unto changes could not well be trusted with the preserving of the true Scriptures. For if the English Service (which undoubtedly, if any such had been consisted of the holy Scriptures) if it should have had the scriptures translated into it, there to be kept for the Christians: in what case should we have been now, being not able to understand that English? Or in what case should the Scripture itself have been, if, as the propriety of the tongue was altered, so it should again be interpreted to the capacity of every generation? Yet ye proceed further. There is no book to be found of the prayers, jew. 187 that the Druids made in France, or the Gymnosophistae in India. And will M. Harding thereof conclude, that therefore the Druids or Gymnosophistae prayed in Latin? First, how know you, what may be showed, for the Gymnosophists Prayers in India: How long studied you there? How narrowly searched you? Or what certificates have you received, of any man of credit, from that Country? Consider then, that the Druids and Gymnosophistae were idolaters: & no marvel therefore, though all their books and Superstitions be gone and consumed. But the Christians Service in the Vulgar tongue, pertaineth (you will say) to the substance of true religion, and could not therefore be so brought to nought, that no mon●ment thereof should be remaining. Or the Druids also, and the Gymnosophists, we know some what, the names (at the least) of them be preserved, and what men these were, we find it expounded. But of the Service in English, before now of late, who ever read, who ever heard, who ever thought? Neither doth Doctor harding reason with you after this sort: There is no old book to be found of the Service in English: It is his manner, not so good as common. ergo it was in Latin. This is but a trick of your Logic M. jewel, to alter the sense of your adversary, and form his arguments after your pleasure. But this rather is his reason. If the Service had been in English, considering the multitude of books and Churches, some memory would be left of it: But none is found, Ergo by good consequence there was never any such Service. And you, to shift your hands of this argument, do make as though his only Demand were, to have English books of the ancient Service brought forth: and as though his conclusion should be, if ye showed not the plain books, Ergo that service was in Latin. But that you may not escape so, I will not ask you for Books, nor Monuments nor Relics, nor tokens of the English service: But in this one, and reasonable, and easy question to be answered, I would feign perceive, what sense you have or understanding. When you were borne, and long before that, the Service in England was in the Latin tongue: If therefore it had not been so, from the beginning: when began the Latin? when ceased the English? Doubtless (sayeth D. Harding) some mention would have been made of the time & causes hereof. Harding Fol. 88 For, if in the smallest matters of the Church Service, there have been found, which have noted the particulars, as that Damasus caused the Psalms to be song by sides, and Thelesphorus made Gloria in excelsis to be song, and that S. Gregory added the Anthems and hallelujah, & so in every part of the Mass: Is it possible, that so great a change of the public Service from English into Latin, should not be marked of any man, or put in record by any writer? Was it done suddenly in the night, when all were a sleep? Or in the morning, did every man forget himself? Or were there no writers then? Or were all corrupted? Or was there no Heretic, to leave behind him a note of it: but that such an evident, & wonder full change of the whole Service, from English, (as you M. jewel think) into Latin, should either not be espied, or not committed to memory? What answer ye now unto this? Ye answer not one word, ye make, M. jew. duin, and yet would not be known of it. as though ye did not see it, ye pull the reader from that matter, to the Druids of France, & Gymnosophists of India, ye speak as though D. Harding framed a direct argument for the Latin tongue, & asked you no question of the English Service. Ye cry out, O what a folly is this. And as though all men were fools (for ye answer not one word to the principal point) You do not bring so much as a guess, a conjecture, a likelihood. You steal away though you be eyed, & the question being so reasonable you answer not one word to it. When began that Latin Service M. jewel? when ceased the English? If there be any thing in record of it, bring it forth: if there be nothing, them do I prove that you are blind in these matters, & that all the grace of your reply, & force of your learning, consists in ri●eling of other men's arguments (an easy matter in Rhetoric) not in confirming any of your own, which should not be to seeking in a new gospeler. Thus have I then discoursed with M. jewel, about the public Service in the Syriacall, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Persian, Armenian, Scythian, French or Britain's tongue. I have asked, whether he could prove any of these to have been used within the six hundred after Christ. I have required sure demonstrations, because he contemneth Conjectures and Gheasses. I have considered both those common places of his, pa. 155. 175. in which he bringeth the best and most that he can say for the Contentation and Satisfaction of his reader. I find no mention of Public Service in any tongue in the primitive Church, beside Greek or Latin. He proveth his matters by Gheasses, he allegeth Authorities and Examples which were long sense the first six hundred years: to which time we bound him as he doth us. I bring him to the question of our own country, and leave him not one likely word which he might answer. And so (I trust) he will be taken, as he is, for a mover of contention, about other men's right and possession, himself able to bring forth no one scrap never so little, of any old Evidence to make expressly for his purpose. As for us, this only, is a very good & sufficient answer, to say: We found at our coming unto the faith of Christ the Latin Service, of the english we never herd before now of late: And surely, A change from english into latin, could not be but noted in some place: And without evident demonstration to the contrary, we ought not to be moved with any wind: & so we needed not to trouble ourselves any further, but put them to show. Yet, because D. Harding hath not dealt so sparingly, but hath been content to bring good Reason and Authority for that, which was and is sufficiently defended, with the force and worthiness of Tradition, by which it hath been commended unto us: I therefore also, will put forth and declare, that his argument, which he prosecuteth most in this Article. That by conferring the order and weight of reasoning on both sides, it may the sooner and better appear which of the two, useth more uncertain Guesses, Conjectures, & lykelyhoodes. M. jewel, whom I have proved to show nothing for Public Service in the vulgar tongue, or D. Harding, which shall be perceived to conclude directly for the public Service in Greek or Latin, & not every vulgar tongue. First then, The question is, jew. 1●1 whether, for the space of 600 years after christ, the people had their Common prayers in a strange tongue, that they understood not. D. harding, to make his own purpose plain, answereth with a distinction, that, If M. jewel meaneth by the people's Common Prayers, Hard. 72. such as they made Commonly to God in private devotion, he thinketh they uttered them, in that tongue which they understood: A distinction of common prayers. but if he mean by them, the public service of the Church (whereof the most part hath been pronounced by the Bishops, Priests, Deacons, & other Ecclesiastical ministers) he granteth that some of the people understood the language thereof, & some understood it not. And so upon this later point consists that question. Yet M. jew. hath a quarrel to the former saying. This distinction of Common Prayers, is both unperfit and needles. Nay, distinctions can never be needless, where, some Reader, is like to be of small & plain understanding, & where, the Adversary is full of words, full of shifts, full of digressions, full of craking & vantage making, full of equivocations. For see but this one short example. D. Harding granteth, Hard. 94 the Prayers in the Primitive Church were in a known tongue. M. jew. layeth hold upon that word, 175 & reporteth y● M. Hard. confesseth, that the Common prayers were pronounced, in a common known tongue. Falsely. Here therefore, would not a distinction do good that of Prayers some be Common, some be private & that D. Harding spoke of private: but M. jew. draweth it to Common Prayers? yet this is no great matter, (saving for M. jewels boldness in addition) because D. harding will in an other place, not refuse that term of Common prayers, but confess that they were, at the beginning, in a Common tongue. jew. 175 But now if upon this grant M. jewel will begin to triumph & say, although he have wantonli denied Christ, yet I trow, he will not deni himself. And again M. Hard. confesseth that the common Prayers were pronounced in a Common known tongue. etc. Now quite contrary, as a man that had utterly forgotten himself, he sayeth: The Common service was never said, but either in the Greek tongue, or in the latin. And again (avouching it with his warrant verily) Verily his sainges can not stand both together. After all these sharp spiteful, glorious and bragging words, is not a distinction needful to declare the truth of D. Harding'S cause and meaning? For, Common Prayers may be understanded two ways First, that prayer, which is commonly made to God in private devotion, is or may be called common. Secondly the public Service of the Church beareth the name of Common prayer. & of this we shall by and by speak more. Concerning the first sense, Common prayer was in a tongue known to the people, were they jews, Greks, Latins, Aphricans, Frenchmen or Englishmen. Concerning the second it was in no other tongue, than Greek or Latin: & some understood it, some understood it not. How think we then? was it not needful to put this distinction, in the very beginning of this Article? For by this mean, One distinction 〈◊〉 M. jewels 〈◊〉. neither D. Harding hath utterly forgotten himself, neither M. jewel meanly remembered himself. The plain dealing of the one, is evidently defended, the blind bragging of the other, is justly abhorred. The liberty of making distinctions is with reason to be granted, the licensiousnes in confounding of words and senses, is with conscience to be stopped. And now may D. harding confess, that the Common Prayers (as they are distinct from Common Service) were said in a known tongue: neither can M. jewel gather any special conclusion thereof, which quite overthroweth our whole purpose. Now for the other part, jew. 15●. if the foresaid distinction be unperfit, do you then, M. jewel, add somewhat unto it: for take away from it you can not well, as having two membres, and unity being indivisibill. But what is the reason, where fore you mislike the distinction? For the secret Prayers, 15●. that the faithful make severally by themselves, have ever more been called Private, and never Common. In deed as you utter this matter, there appeareth no likelihood of cause, why the Secret Prayers, which the faithful make severally by themselves, should be called Common. But add this one word Commonly, (which D. Harding expresseth, and on which, the strength and consequence of his saying resteth) and then, if yourself can not be ashamed of your craftiness, yet other may be warned, by the example, to take heed of you. As The secret prayers that the faithful made Commonly by themselves be called Common. What absurdity in this? Or what vantage to be taken against it? none surely at al. Yet because it stood not which your pride & contentiousnes, to let your adversaries distinction freely pass, which out sun disprofe, & iustli speak against it you could not, as he ꝓponed it: therefore ye made as though ye did not see the place & force of the word, (commonli) but quite leving it out, ye in far your reply, as though D. Har. had said, Secret Prayers be called Common. But perchance, though ye dissemble the word (commonly) yet your answer goth rightly against his meaning. What answer is that? Marry that the secret prayers of the faithful, jew. 152. have evermore been called common & never private. What if they have been always so called? Is that a good argument in your conscience? Do ye not yourselves usurp, such Turrian authority & supremacy over all christendom, that ye dare both speak & do, the contrary to that, which hath been ever more said & practised? for what if private prayers have never been called common? yet that shall not let, but you will at your pleasure name them so, when you be disposed. And therefore D. Harding as it seemeth to me, spoke very warily, in referring the matter to your meaning only, saying: (If you mean M. jew. by the people's common prayers. etc. Again: But if by the common prayers you mean the public service etc. As if he should say: M. jewel hath the upper ground above us: what he denieth, y● must we prove: what he affirmeth, that is well proved etc. & therefore I will put this matter to his own meaning & make my distinction accordingli. Byside this they may for some cause, continuing private, be called common although (which negative is very hard for you to prove) they were never heretofore so named. For in England now at this present, i●●ne should say, The ave Maria is a Common Prayer, (as at rehearsal whereof thousands among the people do lift up their minds towards God) though it be not commonly used in your public service (for special & pure fear perchance lest our Lady should be to much remembered & Christ less regarded) yet doth he not speak truly & properly that doth so say? you think not, I trust, that it is a Salutation & Prayers for holy days only, or Church only, or Lords & Ladies only: & what fault them is it in speech, when it is Commonly used, to call it a Common prayer? I will say more, not only Private prayers being commonly said may be & are called common prayers, & differ from public service: but also those self same prayers, which are made openly, in the hearing and sight of other, & unto which they answer Amen, are of an other sort & kind, than the Common prayer, as it is taken for public Service. As, when the Apostles, in the company of a hundred and twenty persons together, Act. 1. prayed, that God would show, whether of the two, joseph or Mathias, he would choose to take the place of the ministry & Apostleship, from which judas the Traitor had falsely departed: was not that a Common prayer? yet can you not prove (I believe) that it was a part of their Ordinary & Common Service. Byside this also, when the Christians met together in the Primitive Church, among other gifts, which were plentifully than given by the holy ghost, the gift of Prayer was one. That is, some one of the company (and he not always of the Clergy) graciously inspired, uttered in the audience of the rest, that form or matter of Prayer, which the other should learn and follow, being yet to seeking how to do by themselves. And this was in true speech a Common prayer, yet was it not their Common Service. For in public Service, the Ecclesiastical ministers do go before & pronounce it, but this was such as lay men sometimes did utter. Also in Public Service the order is appointed and set, but in this case of which I speak, the Prayer was not known, before it was given: and they were not every day sure of the giving, the Holyghost always disposing it by more or less, according to his blessed inspiration. Seeing therefore, that these kinds of Common Prayers are so distincted, first in respect of the Commons of them (though the use be Private according to devotion) Secondly for the open communicating of them according to the Holyghosts inspiration, Thirdly because of the order & continuance of them, according to the Catholic Churchs' law & constitution: why doth M. jewel find fault with distinctions, or that which is granted to be true in the first and second, why will he have it to be like in the third kind? And because the people understood with they prayed Privately, or some other, what they uttered by the Holyghosts gift, spiritually, how can he conclude therefore, that the Common Service was also in a tongue known unto all the people undoubtedly? How can he deny the first? How doth he nor consider the second? How much abuseth he his Adversary and his Reader in the third? For whiles he would have it believed, that Common Prayer is no other thing to say, then Common Service of the Church: what so ever either Scriptures and ancient Fathers do prove, Craft in double understanding of a word. concerning Common Prayer, that it was in the Primitive Church in a known Tongue: that he draweth to Common Service of the Church. And against all forewarning, and distinction, and reason, he will triumph thereupon, and crack, that it was every where in a Tongue known to all the people. For which cause this distinction is the better to be marked, lest M. jew. through his confusion, trouble the clearness of the matter. Now therefore concerning the other part of D. Harding'S distinction, in which he declareth unto you, whereupon he mindeth to join with you in this third Article, what say you thereunto? His words be plain: If you mean by Common prayers the Public Service, Hard. 72. some understood it, and some understood it not. Here unwares he implieth a repugnance in reason, jew. 15● and a manifest contradiction. Why so? may not both there propositions stand together? When your self do preach, M. jewel, some, I believe, understand you not, and some understand you: (for many stand a far of & some nearer unto you) & some understand not all fine English, yet some understand it well enough. I will say, further. Yourself I think, sometimes understand yourself, and some times ye do not. Yet here is no necessity of contradiction. For they need not to be contrary sayings one to the other, in which sometimes ye know where ye be, some times ye speak, you can not tell what. As, in the Declaiming against the Selling and buying of Masses, you know what you speak: but in declaring of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament, to be really, Verily, Substantially, not by imagination etc. and yet by faith Only: M. jewel himself understandeth not M. jewel. Yet, this is no Contradiction, neither should that be the fault, which I would thereupon, object unto you: but this rather that ye go about to destroy the Religion itself, because of the evil manners of them which profess it: or, that you, which have no Master's worth the hearing whom ye can or dare name unto us, presume to reach the Catholic Church, Divinity. How prove you then, a Contradiction to be implied herein, and a Contradiction of M. Harding'S, where he saith: Some understood the Common Service, some understood it not? For even in England itself when the Latin Service was of late used, as it had continued hundreds of years together, it was true in lesser Cities by many degrees than London or Yorck: that some understood it, some understood it not: yet Latin is not so Common now in England, as it was, in the Primitive Church, through all these west parts, where the Emperor of Rome had chief jurisdiction and government. But let us consider, how M. jewel proveth the foresaid contradiction. For if some of the people understood it not, how could all the people say Amen? ●●orthie 〈◊〉 jew. 52. Ask ye how? I will tell you. The ignorant sort of the people, which for their lack of learning, knew no more than their own tongue, & yet for Ch●rities sake at the least, should think the best of the Church's Service, they, when the learned began, might join to, their voices and declare by Amen, that they pray and wish and assent, as their betters do before them. And is this unlikely or impossible? What shall we then think of the Amen, which soundeth at Paul's Cross, when some famous and fervent Brother preacheth? Doth every one that crieth Amen, hear his Prayer? And can ye reprove one for his good will, in helping forward to make the shout greater, though he know not what the matter is: but only believeth, that it is well said, what soever that man of God uttereth? If there have been found among your peevish Martyrs, which would die, they knew not for what, but only that some one whom they loved, died before them: may not the faithful people answer to the Quires Amen, them selves understanding not what was spoken, but trusting the others knowledge and Authority? Again, what necessity that all the people should say, Amen▪ Or who maketh a conclusion so general? Surely not D. Harding. And therefore he for his part uttered no Contradiction. Who then? M. jewel by likelihood will tell us. jew. 152. S. Paul's words be plain. How shall the unlearned say Amen to thy thanks giving? For he knoweth not, what thou sayest. This runneth directly against M. Harding. All the people gave their assent and said Amen &c. How have you proved, that All? By S. Paul's words? First he hath not this word All. The Apostle falsify to by M. jewel. Then you falsify him, because he should not make directly against your purpose. For his words are not, how shall the unlearned say Amen. But how shall he that SUPPLIETH the PLACE of the Idiot and unlearned say Amen? He speaketh not therefore generally: nor of all the people? but, he noteth by special words sun distinct people, which stood & answered in the place and stead of the people. It is rather and trulier gathered by this place of S. Paul, (if you corrupt him not) that all the people did not answer Amen ordinarily: but that others there were appointed, to supply their place. And so may D. Harding repeat his proposition again, (as he doth) & say without reproach of contradiction: isaiah, that the Service was in a tongue, which some people understood and some understood not: And M. jewel in reproving him for it hath done nothing else, but showed his egernes and his feebleness. But what meaneth D. Harding by it, that the Service was in a known tongue: which some people understood, and some understood not? Whether intendeth he some subtlety, and will play such a part as M. jewel often times doth, in hiding his purpose under the generality of terms: that ye may not be sure where to find him? No truly. The thing itself doth testify the contrary. For concerning thee, Hard. 7●. Tongue I mean (saith he) the Greek tongue and the Latin tongue. Concerning those Some, Hard. 77. which understood it, he meaneth (as it is easy to be perceived) learned men, Gentlemen, Merchants, all of liberal education. Concerning the other Some. which understood it not, he meaneth, all uplandish people, tilers of ground, heard men & women. ●hn● doth he deal plainly and sensibly, And not only that, but modestly also and quietly. I never read (saith he) neither, I think, M. jewel etc. that the Common service was in any other barbarous, and vulgar tongue within the six hundred years after Christ. And here, lest error should rise, by mistaking of terms: I call (saith he) all tongues barbarous byside the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. So that it may be well noted, that D. Harding seeketh, by distincting of double and doubtful words, and by his naming of the sense on which he intendeth to reason, to have the truth openly known, & shortly to have the question perceyned. But M. jewel worketh by a contrary spirit, and as before he misliked with the distinction of Common Prayers: so now he is offended with the distinction of Tongues, M. jewel liketh not distinctions. where D. Harding placeth on the one side, Hebrew, Greek & Latin, and on the other, Barbarous and Vulgar tongues. Of whom he saith. All other tongues beside Greek and Latin he condemneth for Barbarous, jew. 155 by what authority I can not tell. See the malice of the man, and of the word. Falsehood intepeting of words. He condemneth (you say) all other tongues for barbarous. where find ye this? And if ye find it not, how dare you affirm it, except by Authority, yourself cannot tell what? I call (saith D. Harding) all tongues barbarous and Vulgar etc. Hard. 73. And that ye might not gather thereof, that he spoke so in reproach and condemnation of any tongue, he putteth before the reason of it, saying: To be the better understanded, I call all tongues barbarous etc. He sowght not therefore to CONDEMN any Tongue, but to declare, what he would mean by a Barbarous tongue. Neither maketh he himself a Controller and judge over other men's opinions herein: but an Interpreter of his own. Yet doth M. jewel so take him up for the matter, as thought this gear did savour of heresy. And therefore like a Divine) for confutation thereof, he goeth to the highest cause, that is God himself, saying: For in respect of God there is neither jew nor Gentile, nor Greek, nor Barbarous. If you aleage this as out of the Scripture (as it appeareth that ye do by the quotation in the margin and by the distinct lettre in which it is printed) then must I tell you, that the Apostle nameth in deed jew and Greek: but Gentile or Barbarous he nameth not, neither speaketh he of their diversity in tongues, but, in religion and affections. But if you allude only to that place, and by accommodation make a further meaning of it: let it be written then, in the cursive letter of your own words, so much as is not expressly in the Scripture. Yet your saying is true, though your doing be suspicious, and it maketh to this purpose: that one should not condemn an other: But, that one might not call an other after the proper name of the Country where he was borne, think you that it is forbidden? Or is it against the blessed and uniform will and mind of God, to call one Tongue Greeke, an other Latin: Or one pure and ●yne, an other ragged and Barbarous? In respect of God, there is neither jew nor Gentile: ergo (you shall see a marvelous conclusion gathered out of divinity) who soever calleth some jews and some Gentiles, speaketh, by what Authority M. jewel can not tell. Or else thus, In respect of God there is neither Greek nor Barbarous: Ergo who so calleth one a Greek Tongue, an other Barbarous, speaketh, Master jewel can not tell by what Authority. Again, In respect of God, all is one: but in respect of men are not some Tongues Eloquent, and other Barbarous? And do not yourself confess, in this very place, M. jew. forgetteth himself. of which we speak, that S. Paul, making a full Division of the whole world, nameth some Greeks and some Barbarous? Yet in respect of God there is neither Greek nor Barbarous. pa. 155. Truly, if D. harding would have made this distinction of his own head only, you should not yet so curiously have reproved him for it, considering that he saith no more but: I call tongues Barbarous etc. And maketh no rule to the world, And that you have his meaning, thereby expressed unto you. But lest you think him to be singular herein, you shall find in Contradus Gesnerns (no Papist I warrant you) that: Barbarae sive Barbaricae linguae, Con●in suo Michridatis praeter Graecam & Latinam, omnes dicuntur. Nos etiam Hebraeam excipimus. All tongues are called Barbarous or barbarical byside the Greek and Latin: but we also do except the Hebrew tongue. I note therefore this much, that you may consider with what Spirit ye proceed: which will not suffer a learned man, to separate by commodious distinction, the three most principal known and learned Tongues, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, from other base and Ruder tongues. And that you fetch a far of, such a reason, to overthwart only his sayings as may serve against the Apostle himself, for calling some Greeks and some Barbarous. These things thus presupposed, that Common Prayers and Common Service of the Church are not all one, and that some there were within the six hundred after Christ, which understood not the Public Service, and, that all Tongues are Barbarous and Vulgar, beside Greek and Latin: D. Harding beginneth to make arguments for proof of his purpose. Whereof it may begathered, jew. 159 How greedy. that hitherto he hath proved nothing. Much better it might be gathered, that hitherto he hath made a plain way to the matter, by putting aside such doubts, as might come in between through occasion of words mistaken and misunderstanden. What needeth therefore this bravery? Or what meaneth this hastiness? Or why triumpheth he, not only before the victory, but also before battle? Will not M. jewel suffer a man to make a preface unto his treatise, And speak some general things pertcining to the question, before he make his principal argument against it? but he must show forth his winnings (I can not tell what) and say: hereof it may be gathered, that he hath hitherto proved nothing? There is neither Wit, nor Gravity, not Commodity, in it, so to hall and put unto him, out of no occasion, that which may sound to disgracing of the Adversary, and magnifying of his own cause. But to the point of the question. The chief Argument that D. Harding maketh, is of one sort, as if he should say: The inferior Countries and Churches, followed the same tongue in public Sernice, which their Mother or Principal Church had: But those inferior Churches had sundry and several Languages: ergo the vulgar people of them, could not understand that general and uniform tongue, of the Principal Church. This Argument he prosecuteth in order: first by Example of the Greek Church, then of the Latin: and, before he bringeth the Examples, he doth in both places signify, what he intendeth to prove, and by what means or Propositions he will prove it. And first therefore these are to be considered, either because they serve to the opening of the state of this question: either because it will be perceived by them, what trust is to be given to M. jewel: which so desperately (as I may say) doth put to and take away from D. Harding'S words, that to know his falsehood and Craftiness, it should be a good lesson, to such as love their salvation. D. Harding, before he showeth particularly, what he can say of the Service in the Greek Church, hath these words: If Ican show, that the people of some countries of the Greeke church which all had their prayers and Service in the Greeke tongue, The principles out of which D. Harding will deduce his Conclusion, in the question of Public Service. for the more part understood not the Greek tongue: them have I proved, that I promised. In which sentence he declareth his intent and purpose, and showeth what the propositions are, which being proved, will serve that purpose. The first is this. The people of some Countries of the Greek church understood not, for the more part, the Greek tongue. The second is. All the people of those countries had their Common prayers in the Greek tongue. This is the most, that any man can peek out of those words: except it be an other as M. jewel is, which as he can make of nothing somewhat, so doth he make of somewhat all: for thus he gloseth upon the text of D. hardings words. Two propositons M. Harding hath here choose to prove. jew. 1●9. the one is that ALL the greek church, had the common Service, More falsehood of M. jewels. WHOLLY and THOROUGHLY in the Greek tongue. Here first you lie, For in D. hardings sentence, these words, WHOLLY and THOROUGHLY, are not found at all: and thee, WHICH ALL, that you seem to take as spoken of the whole Greek Church, is not thereto referred of D. Harding, but to the people only of those some Countries, which he mentioned the line before. And therefore as much difference as there is, between a General and a Special proposion, Or the people of all Greece, & All the people of some Coutries of Greece: so great and evident odds there is, between true meaning and M. jewels dealing. Now to the other proposition as M. jewel rehearseth it: The other proposition is, That some whole Countries in the Grekee Church understood not the Greek tongue. Yet more craft. Before, you were blamed for adding, here now are you to be noted for taking away. But what is that? No small thing surely, nor such as may be spared: but those very words, which declare the truth and reasonableness of the proposition. For it is to absolute and unlikely to say, Some whole Countries of the Greek Church understood not the Greek tongue, but that, for the more part, (which words M. jewel suppressed), they understood not the Greek tongue, that will be true in their judgement, which can consider, how many Simple, Rude, and Ignorant there are, in every Country, which know no other than their vulgar tongue: And of the better sort, how many there are, which so know an other tongue beside their own, that they are not much the wiser for it. You may see then how dangerous and sore a fellow M. jewel is. Now concerning other two propositions (which M. jewel hath with like Art gathered out of D. hardings words, about the Latin tongue, as he hath done about the Greek) to make his craft more sensible, let D. Harding'S own words be plainly set forth. After that these Countries, Harding Fol. 59 (saith D. Harding speaking of the west church had been instructed in the Faith, as things grew to perfection, they had their Service accordingly. No doubt such, as was used in the Churches, from whence their first Apostles and Preachers were sent. And because, the first Preachers of the Faith came to these west parts from Rome, directed some from S. Peter, some from S. Clement, some others afterward from other Bishops of that sea Apostolic: they planted and set up in the Countries by them converted, the Service of the Church of Rome, or some other very like, and that in the Latin Tongue only, for aught that can be showed to the contrary. Hereof may be gathered two Propositions. The first, Propositions serving to the question of Public Service. the west Churches had such Service, as was used in the Churches, from whence their first Apostles and Preachers came. The second, the first planters of the Faith came to these west parts from Rome. But, how doth M. jewel conceive these matters? His proof (sayeth he) for the Latin Service hangeth upon two points. The first is, that all the Faith of the west part of the world, came only from the bishops of Rome. First, you be deceived in your numbering, because this is not the first, jew. 167 M. jew. busy in changing & sh●fting, and altering and adding. but the second Proposition by D. hardings account. Then, in that second of D. hardings, ye find not these words, ALL THE FAITH OF THE WEST: or these, CAME ONLY FROM ROME. For that had been nothing else, but to give you an occasion to slip away from the Principal question, and to enter into an endless & needless talk, about, ALL THE FAITH to come from, and to come ONLY from Rome. Which because it was not given, therefore you make it to yourself of your own wit, And reason strongly in the matter: that the faith came not into these quarters, ONLY from because S. Paul planted the faith in England, needless proofs, of M. jew. and full of ●heasses. and also joseph of Aramathea, (as is surmised by the British Chronicles: And because we (the Welshmen you mean) being yourself borne in Devonsheere) followed the Church of Grecia in keeping of Easter, with such other mighty Arguments. Then, for the other part, that ALL FAITH came not from Rome, ye press us sore with Tertullians' authority, that Jerusalem was the mother and the Spring of Religion: as who should think, that jacob was not father of joseph, because jacob himself was begotten of Isaac: and that Rome could not be mother of the West Churches, because she herself had her Parents out of Jerusalem: Or, as though D. Harding had stayed upon the question of ALL FAITH, and that, ONLY from Rome, which at, all maketh no mention of, ALL, or Only: So loosely you have behaved yourself in your first point. let us now consider your second. The second is, jew. 167 that the Planters of the same faith ministered the Common service EVERY WHERE IN THE LATIN TONGUE. This is the first of D. hardings Propositions, though M. jewel make it the second point: and in D. hardings words there is special mention neither of LATIN TONGUE, More changing and altering of M. jew. neither of EVERY WHERE. But generally he said it, that such Service was in these west parts: as was used in the Churches from whence their first Apostles and preachers were sent. And this might stand, whether they came from Jerusalem, Greece or Rome. Wherefore he specified nothing, until his second Proposition: where, out of this Principle, he gathereth, that because the faith came in to the West from Rome, and they had the Latin Service: therefore, it should follow by good reason, that it was also delivered in Latin, where they planted the Christian Religion. Consider now (indifferent Reader) how shamefully M. jewel had disordered these matters. Of four plain and credible propositions, he hath made such a conveyance, by Adding: by Taking away: by making of Particulars General: by Drawing the General to special points: by Making that first which is second: by Promoting the inferior unto the Superiors place: that he hath left nothing as he found it, but, as it were of set purpose, laboured to make confusion. The sum of M. jewels conveyance in ●oure Propositions only. All the people of some countries had their service in Greek, saith D. Harding. He will prove, saith M. jewel, that ALL the Greek Church had it WHOLLY & THOROUGHLY in the Greek tongue. Some whole Countries for the more part understood not Greek, quod D. Hard. Some whole Countries understood not Greek, quod M. jewel by his gathering. The faith came into the west from Rome, quod D. Harding. All the faith came only from Rome, sayeth M. jewel upon it. The planters of the faith set up, in the Countries by them converted, such Service as themselves used quod D. Harding. The planters of the same faith, (quod M. jewel upon it) ministered the Common service EVERY WHERE in the LATIN tongue. What miserable shifting and changing is this? What boldness in venturing? What Ordinary course in deceiving? Yet this, in deed, is the way to save himself from taking, if he can bring the question to such a Generality: that if he be driven from one place, he may flee to an other, to make the adversary weri of following, & the Reader weary of looking. For suppose, the Latin Service were used in Aphrica, the vulgar people not understanding it, yet that is not EVERy WHERE. Suppose it were used in France, yet neither the proveth EVERy WHERE. Come nearer home to England, and prove it to have been used there, yet very much lacketh of EVERy WHERE. And so may M. jewel like a bishop in deed not of Sarum but of the West Church, go from Country to Country, in a strange Visitation, & never make an end of Interrogatories & Inquisitions: until D. Harding shall satisfy his Lordship in all points, and prove that EVERy WHERE IN THE WEST, the Service was ministered in the Latin tongue. Which thing I do not say, that the Catholics are not able to declare, (but be that as it may be,) I note the craft & cunning of M. jew. which would draw all things to such a generality or preciseness of terms, ALL FAITH, ONLy FROM ROME, EVERy WHERE, etc. and in any part alter, a other man's Propositions. Thus having declared what the chief Propositions were, which D. harding thought upon in this controversy, and which M. jewel hath so handled, as though no body would think upon them: Let us now return to that Argument, in showing of which, the most of this Article consisteth: And which, if it be proved accordingly, shall constrain M. jewel to subscribe. Which although it may be exemplified in both Churches, Greek & Latin, yet for so much as being ended in one, it may very easily be applied to the other, and also because I have already been to long in this Article: I will make it no further, then to the Greek church: After this manner. The less Asia had the Service in the Greek tongue: D. Hard. argument, against this third Article of M. jew. Fol. 75. But sundry Countries of the same Asia understood not the Greek tongue, Ergo they had their Service in a tongue, which they understood not. Take heed good Reader (sayeth M. jewel) unless thou eye him well, jew 160 M. Harding will steal from thee. Again: Here is a fair gloss, but be not deceived. M. Harding knoweth well enough, it is but a fallacy, that is to say a deceitful argument, named in the schools ex meris particularibus, or, A non distributo ad distributum. unless he amend the Mayor and make it an universal and say thus: All Asia she less had the Service in the Greek tongue. Concerning D. hardings knowledge, I believe he putteth nothing in print, that he thinketh to be a fallacy. But why, is it a deceitful Argument? Because it is named in Schools, ex meris particularibus. Yet the Schools, M. jew. Logic more harder than that of the Schools. I trow, speak not of D. hardings argument, neither do they condemn all Arguments, which consist of mere particulars. For the Syllogismus, named in Scholes expositorius, is of that making, and therefore your rule (M. jewel) hath exceptions. But you find fault with it an other way saying: Or, a non distributo ad distributum, as though it were to be suspected, that D. Harding (in saying, Asia the Less had the Service in the Greek tongue) had meant to except some countries thereof: and that therefore it should be need to bid him to put in Al, and amend the proposition. Whereas, within six lines before, Neadlesse fear. he doubted not to say (All the Greek Church had their Common Service in the Greek tongue) to put you out of fear (M. jewel) that he would not deny it of the less Asia being but a part of the Greek Church, that which he granted of the whole, & which also you specially marked. marked. How say you also to this argument? England hath the Service in the English tongue, Wales the same Service that England hath: ergo Wales hath the Service in the English tongue. Surely it seemeth good enough. And though some Protestant of other countries, (thinking perchance that in the reformed Church of England, every part thereof is provided for, According to the diversity of Rites and Tongues, as Innocentius hath by his understanding, decreed) though he (I say) would tell me, that it is a deceitful argument named in Scholes ex meris particularibus, or, a non distributo ad distributum: Yet would I not change my mind, but think it still a good reason, which I see proved so evidently to my face, by the practice and use of our country, that I can not deny the consequence. Therefore perchance you are to scrupulous or to curious, M. jewel in these school points of which you speak, or rather, if the matter should be examined to the uttermost, I think you would be proved oblivious, or worthy to be set again to school to learn more Logik. But for shortness sake let the Maior be reform as you require, as All Asia the less had the common service in the Greek tongue, But sundry nations in Asia the less understood not the Greek tongue: Ergo sundry nations in Asia the less understood not the Common Service. The argument being now amended in the point, for which only ye bid your Reader take heed and eye him well, if both propositions may be proved, them shall it behove M. jew. to subscribe. Therefore, to the Mayor and first of the two, what say you? That Asia the less had the Service in greek, it is doubted of no man, nor lernd nor unlernd. jew. 160 See, what a good will can do? Now, when you be disposed, you are so free, Bountefutty. the rather than fail, the unlearned also shallbe supposed to know that Asia the less had their Service in Greek: which yet, being unlearned, know not what Asia the less is, & much less what tongue was there used, a M. years a go. For how should they come to the knowledge? by seeing & hearing? they are not then alive now which so do know it. By reading & considering the books & records of those days? They are not then unlearned which can so do. By guessing it and gathering it by their own reason, or of an other man's talk? That could not put them out of doubt in the matter. That could not put them out of doubt in the matter. Yet sayeth M. jewel, It is doubted of no man, nor learned nor unlearned. It followeth. But that all Asia the less had throughout in all parts the same Service (why add you) THROUGHOUT, In all parts, the same Service? Shifts in a readiness This signifieth, that ye have your terms and shifts in a readiness, if need be. But go ye forward. If it be denied, M. harding with all his learning, is not able to prove it. But you, I trow, are able, and that may be perchance the cause, why you say, If it be denied. Contentions. sparing, as it were for conscience sake, to deny that which may be proved: and yet taking that praise away from your adversary, that he should be able to do it. But what shall we do with your If? A great stir you have kept, in bidding the Reader take heed. And to eye D. Harding lest he steal away, in examining the argument, in amending the Mayor: & now when it is, as you wished, and the proposition is full and universal, you steal away in deed by an If, and can not be certainly eyed, whither ye go or what ye intent. Yet, because the presumption is very good, that you would not spare your adversary, if opportunity served, or lose any vantage that might be taken: we may conceive, that you permit the Maior to stand as granted. But yet again, lest hereafter you should drive him in your anger to prove it, and flatly then deny that, which now favourably ye remit unto him, signifyeing only by an If, the liberty which you have to use more rigour & extremity, but not following the vantage to the uttermost: therefore will I tell you somewhat before hand, how the Mayor shallbe proved, that you may well think upon a direct answer. I prove it by this consequence. The first proof of the Maior in the principal argument afore said. All Asia the less was of the Greek church: Ergo they had the Service in the Greek Tongue. The consequence if you will doubt of it followeth of that Rule, A definitione ad definitum. For after ye have declared, What the Greeks church 〈◊〉. what this word, Church meaneth, and found, that it includeth without exception all the number of them, which through the whole world confess & profess, one God one faith and one Obedience: after this, I say, when you come to the particulars, and define unto us, what the Greek Church is: you shallbe constrained to mean the society & company of the faithful, whose public Service is in the Greeke tongue. The antecedent I need not prove, jew. 164 lest M. jewel should call it vanitas vanitatum, & tell us, that it is not denied neither of learned nor unlearned. And yet lest he should interpret this my opinion to be but for a shift and evasion, I will show him good cause, wherefore I take it. 159. For, if M. jewel find no fault with D. Harding, for comprising within the name of the Greek Church: That country which properly is called Graecia, Macedonia, Thracia, Asia the less & countries adjoining, the provinces allotted to the Patriarch of Alexandria in Egypt and of Antiochia in Syria: I can not fear, that he will be less indifferent and quiet towards me: which speak so much within my bounds, and mention no other Countries belonging to the Greek Church, but only the less Asia. Beside this, yourself, M. jewel, divide the Church, not only into the Greek and the Latin: but also in to the Churches of Aethiopia, Scythia, India, Arabia, Syria, Persia Media, Armenia, & a great number of other countries. In which part then of all these, is Asia the less? Not in the Latin Church, not in the compass of Aethiopia, Scythia, India, Arabia, Syria, Persia, Media, Armenia or any other of the great number of Countries which you signify. If it be in any, name it unto us, & show your Authority: that and if it be not (as in deed it is manifest by the borders which learned and expert Writers do note to be attributed and made unto them) then must all Asia the less be of the Greek Church. And again, if throughout all the less Asia, the Public Service had not been in one common and current Greek, it must have followed, that according to the diversity of tongues & countries thereof, a distinct interpretation of the Scriptures, was also provided for them. For the Public Service consisteth chief of the Scriptures, as the proper books of Christians (which are to be, either instructed, Or furthered, Or perfected in the law of God) and as most proper for that place, where all Profane things set a side, the Divine histories, Psalms, Gospels and Lessons are to be rehearsed & considered. Will M. jewel deny this: how can he? which is so ready to grant it, M. jew. a falsifier of counsels. 153. that the belieth two Counsels (of Laodic●a and of Carthage) saying them to have decreed, that nothing must be red in the Church to the people, saving only the Canonical Scriptures. Yet the Council is not so, but, in providing that no other books should be red there, as in the name of Scriptures, but only the Canonical Scriptures, it declareth, what a singular estimation and use of them was in the Common Service of the Church. This Service then, consisting chief of Scriptures, must not the people understand it? By M. jewels Divinity they must. Ergo the tongues, in which the Scriptures were then written, should be known unto them. And to bring this to pass, look how many several Countries were in the less Asia: so many interpretations of the Scriptures were made correspondent unto them. But what shall we now say? Of the interpretation of scriptures into Greek. For many score years after Christ there was in all the world but one Greek interpretation of the Scriptures, and that was made by seventy Elders of the jews in the time of Ptolomeus Philadelphus. After which, there followed six interpretations: the first of Aquila, the second of Symmachus, the third of Theodotio, Euthymius in praesatione in Psalmos. the fourth had no certain Author, and was found in Hiericho. The fift, was (without Author's name) found in Nicopolis. The sixth, was made by Lucianus the Eremite and Martyr, and found in a tower of Nicomedia. Consider now by this, indifferent Reader, how little store and copy of Interpretations of Scriptures, was then, when of seven. only so great account is made: And how little haste was made to set them abroad, which were so kept in by the Authors: and how great price was then made of them, the finding of which is so singularly noted. But let us stay ourselves upon those first years, in which there was no other interpretation of the Scriptures in the Greeke Tongue, but that of the Septuagintes. In this case then, did all Churches of Asia the less, use that Interpretation? They must have used it, or else have none. Did all understand it? How is it possible, the several Countries and Tongues in Asia the less, being at the least. xiv. in number. Forth then: had some Churches no Service at all, because they understood not the Greek of the Septuagintes? Or Or had they such Service, Here let M. jew. show his knowledge. in which n● Scripture was read? Either ye must admit this absurdity, either ye must hold your peace (M. jewel) for lack of answer, either ye must subscribe and yield to the Catholics. For, if the Scriptures were then in no other Greek tongue, then that of the Septuagintes: And if the vulgar people of divers Countries and Languages in the less Asia understood not that Greek: And if without the Scriptures, the Public Service be not made: either the Service was in that tongue which all the Vulgar people of the less Asia did not understand, (and then you must subscribe) Or else in some Churches they had no Service, because they had no Scriptures turned into the Vulgar tongue, (which is most absurd and unreasonable) Or else you must secretly confess it, that you can not find, what tongue they used in their Service, or what you may answer to this Argument. Thirdly I prove the Mayor, The. iii. pro●e. by an Induction. In Smyrna, in Pontus, in Cappadocia, in Lycaonia, in Caria or Thracia, ●t Sic de singulis, and so in each other Country of the less Asia the Service was in the Greek tongue: Ergo (the Mayor followeth,) that all the less Asia had their Service in the Greek tongue. The Induction is good and lawful, as consisting of a sufficient Enumeration of particular Countries in the less Asia, with Importing, or Supplying, or Making good, the rest unrehearsed, by this clause, Et sic de singulis, and so in each of the rest. The Antecedent I prove, jew 161. concerning those Countries which I named. And I prove it by your warrant (M. jewel) because it is surest. Verily, say you, Polycarpus was Bishop of Smyrna, Gregorius Bishop of Pontus, S. Basil was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Amphilochius B. of Iconium in Lycaonia, Gregorius S. Basiles brother B. of Nyssa in Caria or Thracia after your reckoning: All these in sundry Countries in Asia preached openly in the Greek tongue, and the vulgar people understood them. I take your Confession, and prove there by, in your judgement, and every other Protestants, that the Service also was in the Greek tongue in those Countries: except you would answer, that they preached in the Greek and known Tongue, but ministered in an other then Greek or known. And herein I use the vantage of your grant, to prove that the Service was in Greek: but that it was known unto all the Vulgar people, therein we agree not which you. Yea the very Sermons & Trearises of S. Basile, Gregory Nazianzene and Gregory Nissine, as they are now extant, were not surely understanded of the Common people of those Countries, where they sat Bishops: but were pronounced, to the capacity of the vulgar audience, in terms most familiar and known, and afterwards penned in the learned Tongue, as well for other Nations as their own Countries. For the Service being written in the Common Greek, as appeareth by S. Basiles Liturgy or Mass, and their books also keeping the same Tongue: it is impossible, by common reason, that the Vulgar people of Cappadocia, Pontus and Caria should understand it, whose language shallbe straitewaies proved (in declaring of the Minor proposition) to have been either Barbarous, that is no Greek at all: either so corrupt and unclean Greek, that in comparison of the Tongues, used in the foresaid Liturgy or Sermons, they were (at the least) as far to seeking, what was said: as a vulgar Italian or Frenchman is, when he heareth a Latin Oration. Concerning now the other Countries which I have not named, you can not require it of me, to go particularly through them: but your part is to give an Instance and to name any one, that had not the Service in the Greek tongue: until which time the Mayor standeth in good force, and may well be used of us for certain, which can not suspect the contrary. Now therefore let us come to the Minor proposition. Sundry Nations (saith D. Harding) in Asia the less understood not the Greek. Harding Fol. 75. But to what end? jew. 160 for neither this is denied by any of us, nor is it any part of the question. If ye deny it not, then followeth the Conclusion, that sundry Nations in Asia the less understood not the Common Service: and so the end is, that you must subscribe. Subscribe If it be no part of the question, how could you by force thereof, be driven to yield? But consider what followeth. And yet notwithstanding, jew. 160 is not M. Harding able to prove it with all his gheasses. Lo, What a stomach? he confesseth the Proposition to be true, and yet (so contentious he is) he will stand against D. Harding, that he is not able to prove it. Which stomach being once taken, what foul shifts will not a man invent, rather than he will take a double foil: The one, in yielding unto his Adversary, the other in not defending that, which he took upon him to say. But for so much as M. jewel is so set, let us prove the Minor, and consider his Answer thereunto. The Minor is thus declared by the Acts of the Apostles. Sundry Countries of Asia the less understood not the learned Greek? The inhabitors of Cappadocia and Pamphilia are within Asia the less, and each of them had a distinct and peculiar language. For S. Luke reporteth, as of others so also of these, that when the Apostles begun to speak in divers tongues, they were astonished and wondered at the matter, Act. 2. saying: A see, are not all these that speak, men of Galilee? and how doth every one of us, hear our Tongue, in which we were borne? The Lycaonians also are of Asia the less. And S. Luke noteth, that the people of Lystris spoke Lyeaonice, Act. 14. that is, after the proper and peculiar tongue of the Country of Lycaonia, whereof Listris was one of the Cities. Ergo, sundry countries of Asia the less understood not the Greek. What answereth M. jewel? Marry to the first of these two authorities he saith: What if answer be made, jew. 16● that all these rehearsed in the Acts of the Apostles were not divers Tongues but rather certain differences in one Tongue? Yet more what ifs? Contentious if sing, & striving of M. jewel. And are ye not yet at a point, to answer directly neither to Mayor nor to Minor, but, that in both you must hang upon Ifs? Here may we see, what a spirit can do. He said that M. Harding is not able to prove his Minor (which he said to try masteries) and now rather than he will seem not to abide by his word, he neither will hold his Tongue, nor yet speak any thing to the purpose: but by a what if, he provideth that if he be taken tardy, he may not lose all, but say, I affirmed nothing, but only put forth a case: and if no man reprove him, that then, his What if, may stand for a perfit Resolution. But let us consider your saying better. What if answer be made. etc. as before. Marry without peradventure, it will be an idle answer and to no effect. For, to let it pass that S. Luke expressly sayeth, Every one heard them speak Lingua sua, in his own Tongue, and to grant unto you, that all the tongues mentioned in the Acts, were not divers, but that some were distincted from other, only by certain differences: Yet those differences were so great, that the Vulgar people of one Tongue, understood not them of an other: For (I trust) you mean not such differences, as are made by reason of Swiftness, Slowness, smoothness or Hardness, and so forth of Tongues: but such only as consist in the variety of Letters, Words and Dialect. In which respect, though the Tongue of Saxony, Flanders, England and Scotland be one: yet because of a peculiar Property and Dialect which is in them, the Vulgar Saxons are not only Strangers to English men, but also to the flemings their neighbours: and the Vulgar Scottesman not only understandeth not the Fleming, but of the Sowtherland so nigh unto him, he knoweth not the words and meaning. There be about three score several Countries, that use the Tongue named Illyrica, but though the kind of the Tongue be one, Gesnerus in Mithridate. and the difference consist in Dialecte and propriety only: yet they understand not one the other, as in example: Hungarians, Moscovites, Polonians, slavons, Bohemians, & caet. Also, if you will conclude upon this, because the kind of tongue was one, of some of them which are rehearsed in the Acts of the Apostles, that therefore, they understood one the other: What miracle call you this to make men astonished at? And that Cappadocians and Bythinians, hearing the Apostles speaking unto them in their own Tongue, understood them both at once? Or how could S. Luke so forget himself, that to commend and set forth the great work and gift of God showed by the tongues of the Apostles, he would make a great matter of it, and say, that: the inhabitants of Pontus, Cappadocia, Phrygia, Pamphilia, & Asia were amazed & astonished ask: how do we every one of us here our tongue, in which we were borne? if in deed these had one natural tongue, & understood one an other, saving for certain odd differences. Cartainly if the difference were small, the miracle must needs be small, which S. Luke telleth for great. If an English man, knowing no other tongue beside his own, and a Welshman, of the like knowledge in his natural tongue only, should come together to divinity School in Oxford, and both of them understand the Kings Reader, this were much to be wondered at: but if there come to Paul's Cross, out of each Sheer in England, several persons, and understand the Preachers English, do they look one upon an other for it? do they wonder at the working spirit in him, and say: how do we hear, every one of us, this fellow, which is borne an English man, to speak our Vulgar tongue? Yet no doubt there is a difference of speech, between English men of divers shears. But it is not so great, as to make a miracle when they, English men borne, understand the self same tongue in an English Preacher. Now, that in the Acts of the Apostles was a wonderful Straying and Divine matter, and the grace and strength of it consisted herein, that they (whom for the purpose S. Luke reckoneth up) understood at one time, a third person speaking unto them, & could not yet understand each the other, speaking together. Wherefore you may as well confess, M. jewel, that all there expressed had a divers language: as the some had, M. jew. what if hepeth nothing. but a certain difference only from other, therein. Because, the difference helpeth you so little, that we prove thereby the tongue of Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, to have been so much distinct one from the other: that the Common & learned Greek tongue, which was used in the Churches of those self-same countries, could not be understanded of every vulgar man woman & child, of those countries. But let us consider M. jewels answer, to the other Authority of the Acts of the Apostles, that we may all under one confute his oft repeated Iffinge and shifting. To that of the Lycaonians thus he sayeth: The people of Lycaonia spoke unto Paul and Barnabas Lycaonicè: Ergo, jew. 164 saith M. Harding, they spoke no Greek. This is one common trik, of your Logic, to pervert and alter the intent of your adversary. A common trick of M. jew. D. Harding'S conclusion will be this: Ergo they understood not the learned Greek tongue: for to this purpose he allegeth all his Authorities. Therefore, whether they spoke Greek or no, that is not the matter: but whether they spoke or understood such Greek, as the Scriptures and Church Service were then contained in, Or such as we read now in the works and Liturgies of S. Basile, Gregory Nazianzene, or Chrysostom. Considertherfore (M. jewel) how properly ye proceed and argue. But what if S. Luke had said, they spoke jonicê, jew. 164 Aeolicè, or Doricê, which tongues were adjoining fast upon Lycaonia. would he therefore conclude they spoke no Greek? Here lo is a what if, to further the cause. But what seek you by it. M. jew. much deceived in his auning M. jewel? Subpose, go to, that S. Luke, in place of Lycaonicè, had written jonicê, what then? would he therefore (say you of M. Harding) conclude they spoke no Greek? No forsooth: for he sought not after the conclusion. And Alas therefore (to take more just pity of you than you can do of others) here hath M. jewel lost a good Argument. Again, he knoweth, that the Greek tongue is divided by the learned therein, in to five Dialectes: of which jonica, Aeolica, and Dorica, are three, and therefore he speaketh Greeke that speaketh in them, but we have no such warrant for the lycaonical Tongue. Thirdly he might conclude, the all though they spoke Greek, yet not that which is Attica or the pure and Common Greek tongue: in which two the Scriptures, and old Father's writings, are set forth. But what talk you of that, which S. Luke might have said, and do not answer to that, which he hath written? These ttongues ( say you, meaning jonica, Aeolica Dorica) were adjoining fast upon Lycaonia. An Idle reason or talk of M. jew. I find no fault with your cosmography, but I see not, what end ye bring it to. For Spain is adjoining fast upon France, yet Spanish and French, are two sundry languages. And Lycaonia though it should stand in the midst of jonium or Aeolia, it needeth not yet, forget it felse and become jonical or A●olical. Verily (say you) if a man by way of contention would say, the Lycaonical tongue was a Corruption or difference of the greek tongue and not a several tongue of itself (M. Harding should have much a do to prove the contrary. So should he, to prove that S. Peter was ever at Rome. For what is so plain or testified, that a Contentious fellow can not say or suppose somewhat, against it. But this way (one would think) you follow not yourself, and therefore you go warily and wisely forward, with Verily if a man & caet. Yet ye seem to take, as it were, some comfort of it: that M. Harding should have much ado with a Wrangler, if one would contend with him. And suddenly yourself begin to play that part in proving, that the Lycaonians should speak Greek, saying: Doubtless they whorshipped jupiter: Here is to be learned how one might go● inthe way of concention. But M. jew. doth as 〈…〉 If 〈◊〉 etc. And they had the Greek Sacrifice as it appeareth by the words of S. Luke. And it may be credibly gathered that Paul and Barnabas spoke to them in Greek. Doubtless you have well declared and pithily, what a man would say, by way of Contention. Otherwise, ye might by these reasons prove that the Romans also spoke, after a certain corrupt kind of Greek, because they worshipped jupiter the God of the Greeks: Alex. ab Alexand genidl. dier, li. 6 And had Greek Sacrifice also, as much as they of Lycaonia, & because S. Paul wrote to them in Greek. &, as it may be credibly gathered, spoke also unto them in Greek. Howbeit (say you) whether it were so or otherwise, it importeth nothing (why then reason you so mightily about it) saving that M. Harding maketh the matter so certain. I per●ey 〈◊〉 than it is one of your cares, A Great 〈◊〉, and set to resist how to overthwart D. Harding: And, saving that he sayeth it, otherwise you care not to grant, that the Lycaonians had a several tongue by themselves. For whether it were so or otherwise, it inporteth nothing, you say. Yet neither this is, is true, that you say: Because, it importeth doth way●. For if their tongue were a corrupt Greek (as the Italiam or Spanish is a corrupt Latin) then did they not understand psalms & chapi●ters of Scripture in their Service, which were translated into true & clean Greek only. And if they had a several Tongue by themselves, much less than, did they understand, what was said in the Church. The question also, is not herein whether, they spoke greek or no: but whether they understood the learned Greek or no. So the understanding therefore all to be is. And whereas we see by experience at th●●e days, that every Englishman venderstendeth not the Scot, nor the lower country's th●e speak Duchess, understand the high 〈◊〉 (which yet differ but in 〈…〉 we think, that every one in Asia that spoke greek, un derstode also the proper & our greek: For the pure Greek, which holy Fathers have written, and in which the Scriptures be preserved, is comprised within a small compass of Countries, and continueth after one manner still: but the Corrupt and Barbarous Greek extendeth itself far and wide, and is, by sundry occasions, altered, every day, wandering further and further of, from the likeness and vicinity to the clean and Learned Greek. And therefore, joannes Grammaticus writing purposely of the Greeke Dialectes, himself being a Greek writer, sayeth, that if ye will take into the number, the Dialect called Communis: then are there five of them, jonica, Attica, Dorica, Aeolica, Communis. But the barbarous Dialectes (sayeth he) being of great number and far out of reach, it is not easy to declare. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea rather we must not call them Dialects, but tongues. So unlike they were to other Greek Tongues, not only the Common but also the peculiar four Dialectes. So that if the Lycaonians had a Several tongue, utterly distincted from Greek, so much willbe imported thereby: the all understood not the greek Service, nor yet the Sermons of Amphilochius, or any other Bishop there if they spoke, as they write. And if on the other side, they spoke Greek, but yet corruptly & barbarously, that itself importeth so much, that they understood not their service, which was written in the learned Greek. And as I have said now for Lycaonia, so may I reason of Cappadocia, Pontus, Thracia, and prove that whether the people of that Country spoke Greek or otherwise: yet undoubtedly they understood not (all of them) the Greek of the Church Service. Wherefore the Mayor being presupposed as evident, that all Asia the less had the Service in Greek, (until M. jewel bring an instance) and M. jewel helping forward to the proving of it by his grant, that these Countries within it, Smyrna, Pontus, Cappadocia, Lycaonia, Caria, had their Sermons and (by consequence) Service in Greek: The Minor being also abundantly proved by D. Harding, and by me suffciently declared, that sundry Countries in Asia the less understood not the learned Greek. The Conclusion followeth, that some Countries had the Service in that tongue, which was unknown and straying unto them, and that Master jewel must yield and subscribe. And thus much concerning the Greek Church. To speak now of the Latin Church, and to prosequente the foresaid argument by it also, I think it nedlesse. Either because that which hath been spoken of the Greeke Church, that it had the public Service in the greek tongue, may easily be applied to the Latin Church, to prove the Latin Service there (which once admitted, M. jewel will not deny, but that sundry Countries of the same Church understood not Latin, nor had it as their Vulgar tongue, where upon his yielding must follow) either because my intent is, not to speak so much, as the matter giveth occasion, but shortly to comprehend the Some of that which is done: Either because the Adversary will be so unable and impotent to answer that which allreadye is said: that, to trouble him with more, were lost lavor. I may also most justly say it, that he is so wilfully disposed and set, not to yield, and hath so many ways, through much Practice of his own, and help of other Subtle ●eades, To Disso●ble the right Objections, To make long Answers to Things that were not moved, 〈…〉 authorities alleged, To bring all things into plain doubt, or Suspicion thereof: that nothing shall be brought which he will not 〈◊〉, except it be very sensible. For which cause, it had not been evil, never to have mentioned, so much as I have done of D. hardings Arguments, but, by a more compendious way, to have left them pass by, in silence, and to have stayed in the middle of this Article, where, I left Master jewel, without any good Argument or Likelihood for his Assertion, requiring him to show, what sure Euideneys, he or his friends could bring forth, in the cause. Yet for so much as I spared not to declare also, how D. harding hath reasoned, now it remaineth, not only to consider his Arguments, but also to compare them: that is, not only to attend and mark what strength they have by themselves, but also how much more force & certainty they have in resepte of M. jewels surmises. Consider it by itself and say: The Latin Church is therefore called Latin, because of the tongue which is common and currant through it. Again, in all Italy at the least, the Service was in true Latin, but undoubtedly the vulgar speech of the whole Country was not pure Latin. Again: If there had been in the West Church any other Tongue then Latin, it could not, but by some token be apparent and evident, and some fragments or portions, of the Service in the Vulgar tongue would have been preserved, if by no other means, yet by History. Consider I say these things in themselves, and it may become a right good and wise man, not to mistrust, at this present, the use of the Latin Tongue in Public Service, which he may by so good reason gather to have been used at the beginning in such Churches, where they that were present, understood it not. But compare now with this, that on the other side which M. jewel allegeth, that in Old time they had in their prayers, all, jew. 176 as it were one voice and one mind: and, that all several nations prayed unto God and praised him in their own natural and Mother tongue: and, That watchings, Prayers and Common Psalmody, was in estimation in iundrie countries, and, That Christ is now the voice of the whole world: Compare, I say, these allegations with the Authorities of D. Harding, and thou shalt sinned, that the odds is so great, that in these of M. jewels there is no Testimony or Reason at all, for Public Service. Yet if this shall not seem so to his Favourers, and if they will needs defend it, that M. jewel hath spoken like a Great Clerk to no little purpose, may it please them, to entreat him to satisfy us a little more, that we may understand but of our own Country (to trouble him with no other) when the english Service ceased, and when the Latin began. And if he shall never be able to bring any Token or Argument, that ever it was in any other Tongue then Latin, Reasonable. saving of late in King Edward the vj. days, can it with any conscience be required of a Catholic, to forsake that Order of which the Adversary, with all his search or Curiosity, can give no other beginning, but from the founders of our Christian faith in England? Or will he enforce us to subscribe to his newly invented manner of Service, which neither we, nor he, did ever Read or hear, that it was used in any time these fifteen hundred years? All other Arguments may be let pass, This one of Tradition being so available and sufficient, Tradition that, except we would of set purpose and against all conscience follow new devices and inventions, we ought not to forsake the Ancient and received Order in Service. And therefore to the overthrowing of this third Article, and strieng of a faithful and Catholic heart, let it be answered to all busy peekers of quarrels about other men's right: I hold the Latin Service by Tradition, I believe it came from the first planters of the faith in our country. If I he deceived, tell me, from whom else, And when, And how, I received it? And show, by whom, when, And how, the English Service was first received, and afterwards how it decayed? And if thou canst not in these two points, neither speak against the first, nor show for the second: hold thy peace then like a wise man, and blame not them which hold advisedly the Latin Service, because they have received it, And will not Yield rasshly to the chainging of it into English, because no Example maketh for it. The fourth Article ⁂ Whether the bishop of Rome was, within six hundred years after Christ, called an Universal bishop and head of the Church. BY what name foever, the B. of Rome was then called, if it be plainly proved, that his Supreme power and Authority over the whole Church, was then acknowledged and confessed: there is no more to be required or sought for in this Article. Is not this true? And shall not every quiet & reasonable man, be contented herewithal? Yes verily. Except we would be brought to that folly, we must not pass upon the things themselves, but seek only after the names of them: And discredit the Truth of the matter, for lack of finding the word which betokeneth it. Will it please then M. jewel. to be contented and answered, if we prove to him the Pope's Supreme Authority over the Church: though we allege not the very terms of Universal bishop or head, which he asketh for. I would some indifferent man would persuade with him, A reasonable requesto to remit somewhat of the rigour of his, and extreme hard dealing, that if the Thing itself be found, & the Term of it to seeking, yet, he obey the approved Authority and confound not all order for lack of significant words to express it by. Yet, he shall have Terms significant enough: as Principality, Primacy, Chief Rule, and such others, as the Father's use, in speaking of the See of Rome. Marry, for those two which he requireth, he must not be to hasty upon us, considering, that it is not the word that maketh a Thing, but the will of God or act of man. And again, that one Thing may, by sundry ways of like force, be expressed, that if some one lack, some other may supply it. Like as therefore in coming to some one place, that hath many ways leading thither, he, should lack either his sight or his reason, which would wrangle and contend with me, that I am not there, because I know not, or followed not, that way which he would have taken, & yet I chose (I trow) a good way enough, which brought me directly to my purpose: So in the seeking out of the Truth which is in the things themselves, unto which we are conducted many ways by variety and copy of words, he that could not deny it me, but that I have the Matter I sought for, and yet would ask me where is the special word, Head of the Church which signifieth the Pope's supremacy, doth by all reason declare, not, that I am far from my purpose, but that himself is desirous to peek quarrels and seek digressions. Let us be judged then with tolerable indifferency. Hath not D. harding followed a reasonable and allowable order, which, in this question of the supremacy, proveth the Thing itself, and counteth it of no great importance, to seek for the special words which M. jew. requireth? Is not so much enough for a quiet Reader? And the end being attained unto, have we to go any further? I could prove no. But I do not mistrust, so little judgement or Conscience, to be in honest natures. And first therefore I desire this, well to be remembered & noted, that the heretic hath no vantage against the Catholic, for his going to the matter, and passing over Names, & Titles, & words. Secondly it followeth to be marked well, that D. Harding (not, because the question it self required it of necessity, but, for that he would satisfy to the uttermost M. jewels, or some others, curiosity) he showeth out of good authority the very self names which M. jewel requireth: (Universal bishop & Head of the Church,) to have been spoken of the B. of Rome, within the compass of the six hundred years after Christ. But mark it (I pray thee good Reader) perfitly, that by the conferring of Person with person, Behaviour with behaviour, Challenger with defender, and Answer with Argument, the trifling or earnest dealing may the better appear, the more nigh these contraries, be in sight the one of the other. Now then in the third place, consider, how unreasonably M. jew. craketh, in this Article, against him, which by all right was not bound to Names, and Titles, proving the Things themselves, and which afterward, brought forth the very Names so much asked for: lest perchance by M. jewels triumphing there upon, many should certainly believe, we had lost the victory. Whosoever therefore will have some examples, where a great show is made of nothing, to beware in himself of that folly, let him mark these that follow. The chief Authority being acknowledged and confessed, ●at. fo. 101. whether them he were called, by either of those names that you deny, or no: it is not, of great importance. M. harding seemeth in part willingly to yield. jew. 220 Again: It was as easy a matter for Christ, to give Peter the Power and Title both together, as to give him the power alone, without the Title. Here, I can not choose but answer some what, though for desire of shortness I have and must let many things pass, which might be stayed upon. Who doubteth, but Christ in deed might have given the Title (which M. jew. findeth lacking) together with the power and Authority over the Church? yet for so much as he hath not done it, it becometh not us to find any imperfection in his doings: but to honour them with all Reverence, though we see no reason for them, or with all humility to think upon them, whether good causes may be brought forth and alleged for them or no. And truly, concerning this matter of which we speak, we may rightly judge, that because weight and worthiness is in the Things themselves, therefore he gave the power to S. Peter. As for Names and Titles, because they are so easily geveu (as appeareth by styles of Noble men and Princes) his majesty was not over curious in them. Yet, he left not S. Peter without a name of honour also, saying: Thou shalt be called Cephas, Io. 1. which is interpreted Petrus, a rock or Stone. Which Title, duly considered, is of more weight and worthiness, than either the name of Head, Rector, Governor, Prince, Christ gave S. Peter a Title of dignity and power. or universal bishop. Which as they signify a pre-eminence above others, so do they not warrant, a Continuance, a Steadfastness, a sure Ground to build upon, and a Principal and Chief Stone in the house of God, as Cephas or Petros (which are to say a Rock) do. for our saviour expressed it, in the hearing of the twelve, and said to S. Peter only and specially: Thou art Peter or a Rock, Mat. 16. and, upon this rock, will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And to thee will I give, the keys of the kingdom of heavens, and what thing soever thou bindest upon Earth, shallbe bound in heaven: & what thing soever thou losest upon Earth, shallbe loosed in Heaven. Marry this Title of Universal bishope or Head of the Church, he gave not him in plain Terms. But what of that? He instituted effectual Sacraments: yet he never called any of them by the name of Sacrament. He taught men to believe in the Trinity, yet the word is not found in all scripture. The prophet David calleth the Apostles Princes of all the Earth, Psal. 44. yet Christ which gave them Authority over all, sayeth no more but: Go and Preach the Gospel to all creatures. Mar. 16. And again, I send you forth as sheep among wolves. Mat. 10. Again: your master is one, Christ, and all ye, are brethren: Mat. 23. and never called them Princes. How then? Doth M. jew. find an imperfection in Christ's doings? And thinketh he secretly in his heart, that a Power is not well given without a Title? And that, if himself might have ordered the matter, To anger or trouble the Catholics M. jewel maketh objections against God himself. the Name and Office should have been given, both together? from whence cometh this, that a wretched and a vile creature, hath to say any thing against his Maker? The Catholic Church is contained, The judgement of the highest bishop in the earth is condemned, & to hinder the Pope, And anger the Catholics, he is not afraid to dally with Almighty God himself, And to ask of us, whether it was not an easy matter for him, to give Peter the Power and Title, all together. That when we shall confess the Title was not given, Either foolish or blasphemous. he may infer: Ergo neither the Power. Which argument, If yourself M. jewel think to be nought, what a wise man are you, so trimly to set it forth? If it be good, what a Miserable fellow are you, which dare so to speak of him, that is alwise, and Almighty? As though it should not be agreeable, to give a Power and not the Title. Confess that you have overshot yourself, in making so much, of a weak reason: Or look to be Answeered accordingly, when himself shall come in judgement for such purpose. But let us go forward. To this Church of Rome, D. Har. Fo. 106. it is necessary, all that be faithful to repair and come together: for the mightier Principality of the same. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. Again: Andrew received not the Primacy, but Peter. Amb. 2. Cor. 12. Again, The Primacy or Principality of the Apostolic Chair, Aug. epi. 162. hath evermore been in force in the Roman Church. Now mark what M. jew. concludeth. He answereth after his manner unto every one, but he triumpheth not therein, but in this, saying: M. harding tripping (as he sayeth) so nicely over the Doctors, hath not yet once touched, jew. 254 Here beginneth the he and 〈◊〉. the thingethat was looked for, and that he hath only, and with such affiance, take in hand For, notwithstanding a great pomp of words and the Names of many holy Fathers, yet hath he not hitherto showed, that the bishop of Rome within the space o● six hundred years after Christ, was ever called the Universal bishope, Or the head of the universal Church, Which thing i● he could have showed, I believe he would not so lightly have tripte it over. See, how earnest he is, upon the name of Universal Bishop. And how sore himself stumbleth, at one simple word (Tripping.) And how much he craketh, before the end, that the word he looketh for, is not yet showed. But see in an other place. D. Harding, from the 108. leaf to the 119. of his book, proveth the necessity of one head, and authority of the bishop of Rome. By natural reason. By Appeals made to Rome. By Excommunications directed from Rome. By Elections of bishops, confirmed by the Pope. By his approving or Disprovinge of Counsels, By restoring, of bishops wrongfulli condemned, to their Churches. By Bishops and patriarchs reconciled unto him. And then going forward in this matter, Although it be a childish thing (saith he) to stick at the name, any thing is called by, yet I will bring good witness for these names, UNIVERSAL bishop & HEAD of the CHURCH. This, I trow, should cause M. jew. to be more calm and quiet, considering that he shall not tarry long, but have the very Names brought forth, which he craveth so much for. But, he must make somewhat of nothing, and seem to be a Winner, before his adversary join with him. And therefore, he taketh himself to Conjectures and Gheasses, saying: Here M. harding secretly confesseth, jew. fol. 295. another copy of unreasonable craking. that in all he hath hitherto alleged, he hath not yet found, that the bishop of Rome was known in the world, within the space of the first six hundred years after Christ, by the Name, either of the Universal bishop, or of the Head of the Church. Well, because you are so importunate and hasty with us upon the foresaid Titles: I can not stay now, to tell you here again of your craking, but will make speed, to the places which might satisfy your expectation. D. harding therefore, from the 119. leaf, to the 124. proveth, by S. Gregory, that the Council of Chalcedon called the Bishop of Rome the universal Bishop: And by S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, S. cyril, and others, he proveth that Peter was called the Head of the Church. Now between he sayeth, that every where almost, this Name is attributed to S. Peter either in Terms equivalent, or expressly. Har. fo. 110. Thereupon, M. jewel triumpheth. Thus he doubteth at the matter and stammereth and faltereth at the beginning. jew. 30● But if the B. of Rome were the Head of the Church in deed, More craking. so allowed and taken in the whole world: why was he never expressly and plainly Named so? Was there no man in the world then, for the space of six hundred years, able to express his Name; Again. It had been the simpler and plainer dealing for M. harding to have said, This Name can not yet be found: and so to have taken a longer day. What will you do when you overcome in deed, which although the stroke be but coming, make reckoning of your gains, And account it half a Victory, for that it is not more quickly given? But D. harding, before he bringeth forth the express Term (Head) to diminish the needless curiosity of some persons, he sayeth: What forceth it, Har. fo. 1●1. whether that very term (HEAD) be found in any ancient writer, or no? And it followeth, But to take away occasion of cavil, I will allege a few places, where the express Term (HEAD) is attributed to Peter the first B. of Rome. Here now should M. jew. be attended, in harkeninge to the Objection. But, as though all the matter were like to be lost, for lack of a good face to set upon it, he looketh merrily upon the cause, And turneth his eye away from that which is coming against him, And is glad for a thing past & gone, I can not tell what: saying. Gentle reader, jew. 306 I beseech thee, mark well this dealing. This Name thee (Head) of the universal Church is the (very Thing) that we deny, Fol. 77. And that M. harding hath taken in hand to prove, And boldly avoucheth, that he hath already plainly showed and proved the same: yet now, in the end, finding himself destitute, Lycinge and he turneth it of, as a thing of nought. Again: Within the space of the first six hundred years, there were in Rome 68 Bishops, jew. 20 for their Constance in faith, for their virtue and learning, far exceeding the rest that have been sithence. The Number of them being so great, Bragg●ge out of measure. their Learning so no table, their Life so holy, it is marvel M. harding should not be able to show that any one of them all, in so Long time, was once called thee (Head) of the Church, & therefore should thus rest upon S. Peter, who, when he received these Titles was not bishop of Rome, And of whom there is no question moved. Here lacketh (I confess) no Invention or Exornation. A Title only or two are sought for. The finding of which, is made to be of Great Importance. The omnipotency of Christ is considered for the matter (because he was able to geave the Power & Title both together) The disposition of the Adversary (because if he could, he would bring them forth.) The space of six hundred years (whether in that time no man was able to express them.) The number and worthiness of 68 bishops of Rome, (with a special marvel, y● M. harding should not be able to show that any one of them all, in so Long time was once called Head of the Church.) And all this (with much more, which I let pass) is considered and Amplified to the most Vantage, As though it would be said: Good Lord what a fellow is he, that hath so opposed all the world? And how can that be, but of Great force to salvation, about which, so Notable a Clerk doth keep so grievous a Stur? Yet in very deed, those his Sentences are not Arguments of his well saying, but rather Copies, of his foul craking. Which how vain and unsensible it is, let it now be tried, by indifferent Readers. For, if it had been plainly Answered unto him, at the beginning: That these foresaid Titles could not be found, he might (I grant) have Concluded as he doth: jew. 306 Ergo mie assertion is true, (understand verbo tenus, that is, concerning the outward sound of the word only) But Crack thereof he could not by any right: Because he winneth no more, but that no such Name was then used: and cometh not to the Thing itself, and Substance of the question. Yea rather, he might be ashamed, To Look so big, And Speak so loudly, And Provoke so generally, And Stur about so busily, And geave great hope of victory, And when all that he asketh, is Granted, to be able to make no other vantage, but only this: Ergo mie assertion is True. Yea forsooth A worthy Assertion, To prove that, And stand upon that, And brag on that, which the Adversary may easily grant, without any loss of the cause, & you having it yielded unto you, can infer nothing against the Pope's supremacy. Take it unto you M. jew. that the name, Universal Head, is not found: We are content with the sense or Meaning of the name. A Great victory and nothing taken. Return you home, from your Great fight, with certain bare Titles & Letters: And the adversary hath not much to complain, keeping the Thing itself with him, under other words and Letters. You have done valiantly, (I trow) to stand against all men alive upon two names and Titles: And we are not much hurted, when, for all your Cost, and Charges, you have come nothing nigh to the matter, which by those Names or other, is imported. Thus, if D. harding would make short, and grant unto M. jew. his Assertion: Yet should he so little make any boast or Triumph thereof, that the might rather be ashamed, to leave the Things them selves, and strive upon the bare Names of them. But, on the other side, now, whereas D. Harding hath, not only so declared the cause of the B. of Rome, that, without seeking or caring for the Names of Universal Bishop or head, he hath, plainly proved his supremacy: But also hath condescended unto M. jewels Infirmity or Curiosity, And hath brought forth, in convenient place, the very Names themselves which M. jew. demandeth: What modesty or honesty is this, Consider M. jewels be haviour. so, to Triumph, and Crack, as though they were not at all found out and recited? If he Answered D. harding before he had Read what he had said: he Answered by hap and not by cunning: If he Read over this Article, before he began to Reply against it, how did he not mark, that in the later part thereof, the very Names which he asketh for, are alleged out of the Ancient Fathers? And then further, how should he, so, either dissemble or trifle, as, to press in still upon his adversary, with Importunate & Impertinent asking for those Titles, (the place of shewing the which followeth afterward) and thereupon so solemnly to Triumph, as though no such Title were to be found at all, because they were not found Immediately in the beginning of the Article, but in the latermost part only thereof? But here now let us consider, whether M. jew. as he was hasty in asking for those foresaid Titles, whiles the place was not yet come where D. harding appointed to utter them: so now, when they are brought forth against him let us see whether he Shifteth not as fast away from them, as ever he was Inquisitive for them, And whether he do not in deed Trip nicely over the Doctors: Leo the great, Har. fol. 119. B. of Rome, was called in the Council of Chalcedon by the Name of VNIURSAL BISHOP. And this Council was within the six hundred years after Christ: Note the seven fetches or flings, or vagaries, or delays or trials how to escape, Ergo your Assertion M. jew. is false. In answering to this Argument, first you comfort yourself, that this is the first Testimony of D hardings, for proof of the Name itself: with, which M. jewel here najetg vefire ge cine 〈…〉 jew. 295 Ergo hitherto, he hath nor found it. Much good may it do you if you can make any thing of it, saving a Beggarly and an Idle brag. Then, you signify, that you will stick at the Name itself. Because D. harding warned you, That the Thing sufficiently proved, to stick at the Name itself was but a Childish point. 3. After this, you cast the Account, Hard. fol. 119. that the Council of Chalcedon was holden in the year of our lord 488. Ergo of the whole number of the six hundred years, jew. 296. M harding freely even at the sight, hath yielded us back, four hundred eight score and eight years (written out at length and not in figures of Arithmetic, to make the more show) towards the reckoning. As who should say, he shall not go back again, And glad I am that there remain but 112. years to account upon, for the which I will Shift well enough. Fourthly, He addeth that Leo Accuseth that whole Council of Ambition, and that the Apostolic See of Rome, in part allowed it not By which you may gather, that the Pope then, much within the 600. after Christ, took himself to be of Greater Authority than the whole Council: the Acts whereof, he either Confirmed or disallowed by his final sentence. After this you come to What If, and say: What if there were no such Title, either given or offered in the Council {reversed}? jew. 297 Again: Why doth not M. harding allege, either y● Place or the Canon or the words? Again. Why giveth he no Note in the Margin? etc. Marry, because he went not about to prove his saying by any Canon or decree of the Council, but by other sufficient authority. Now a man would think that by this time, ye had tryfied enough. Yet ye proceed in your Vanity, & find matter of talk where none is given, jew. 297. with: Perhaps he will say, this Canon was burnt by some heretics. etc. No M. jew. he will not say so: Yet you, as though he were like to say it, do make a Solemn & curious Confutation of it: How that it were much for him to say so. And concluding with a victorious Epiphonema and Acclamation, ye Vaunt and say. M. harding hath no other Council, within 600. years after Christ to hold by, but only this: and yet the same can not be found. Well sir, what have ye more to dally upon? Will ye now at length come to the matter? You have perchance forgot yourself, And therefore I will put you in memory, what you must answer unto. D. harding, to prove that the B. of Rome hath been called by the Name of Universal bishop, allegeth S. Gregory. You have asked where it is to be found in the Council, And you would make him to be laughed at, jew. 198 Or discredited, that He allegeth a Council without a Canon. But he speaketh it expressly that, you shall look for it, not in the Council, but in S. GREGORY. What answer ye now? This is an untruth to beguile the reader. jew. Then I beshrew the liar. But, how do you prove it? For Gregory sayeth not, ●97. Shift. the bishops in that Council, Saluted, Entitled, Proclaimed, or Called the bishop of Rome by that name: only he saith, the Name of Universal bishop was Offered by the Council of Chalcedon to the B. of Rome. S. Gregory shameful interpreted. He saith they Offered to Call him so, but that they Called him so in deed, he saith not. What mean you bear by, They OFFERED to call him so? Is OFFERED taken there, for making a Proffer, Or for going about to call him so? If it be, how might this Riddle of yours be perceived? or how might I conceive, that they made such an Offer? First, they stood up perchance, They looked one upon another, They turned themselves to that Presidents of that Council, They held forth their hands as if they had somewhat to geave, They bowed with their bodies, They gaped & breathed, like men very desirous & willing to Offer some what: but speak they durst not. Who then can tell us, of their Meaning? or who can say, that those Bishops, by these Gestures, do Intent to call the B. of Rome, an Universal bishop? For, A thousand other matters there are, which may lie in the heart of man, before the uttering of which, these Proffers and Signs do go. How can M. jew. then, make us understand it, that the Offers which the Fathers of the Chalcedon Council made, were Proper and Special tokens of the Title Universal bishop, which they were ready to call him by, And not of some other thing? Or how can he say, that not Calling him so in deed, they went yet about it to Call him so? Thinketh he, that they had respect so long before, to his Honesty, And feared to let the Title of Universal bishop to pass their Lips, lest M. jew. should be constrained to yield and Subscribe, and that therefore they Offered (no man I believe can tell how) to Call him so, but Called him not so in deed. Suppose it M. jewel (which is probable enough, least by devienge my case, you should crst, Alas, then hath he lost a good argument) suppose I say, that A Catholic were before you, And considering your outward Behaviour, with Relation had to your Books, Or otherwise taking Occasion or Indignation, would think you in his conscience, to be an Hypocrite and A wrangler, And therewith Offer to call you so: except he veter so much by express word or writing of his own, Or consent unto it, by sa●e other man's mouth or hand, cou●d you, with all your learned Council, be able to change 〈◊〉 therewithal, and say that In deed he Called you not so, but yet Offered so to do? No surely, except ye had A Familiar (which through his subtility of Nature, is able to 〈◊〉 better of a man's intent and meaning, than the quickest person of sight and wit in all the word) no mortal Creature is able to know what is within a man. Return then, with your consideration, unto the fathers of the Chal●edon Co●●cell. If they Offered to Call the B. of Rome universal Bishop, either that was perceived by their words, either by their writing, or some other plain Sign. If 〈◊〉 writing, that confirmeth the Pope's supremacy better, then if they had but spoken it, because it tarrieth longer, and testifieth plainer. If by words, then undoubtedly they Called him so. But, if they made but a Proffer, and did it not in deed, who could tell you, that their Proffer had such a Sense and Meaning in it? whereas it is impossible to know particularly, what an other thinketh, except it be uttered of the party himself, by some word, Or Sign as good as his word? And besides this, If you can say, that their Secret mind and will was so bend and disposed toward the B. of Rome as you imagine, how so ever you came by the knowledge, Yet this is manifest, the it must not be absurd for us to geave him a Singular Reverence and 〈◊〉, whom so Great & Grave a Council thought in their hearts, to excel in authority above others, & therefore should Offer (to signify their good will) to call him Universal bishop though in deed they Called him not so. But who is the Author of this false tale● M. jewel. where had he it? Of S. Gregory, as he sayeth. But doth S. Gregory say so? be not these his very words: Nomen OBLATVM est, the name was OFFERED? Doth it not serve the purpose of which he speaketh in those Epistles, that the Name was in deed given to his Predecessors? For he sayeth, that they never consented to reaceve it. But how could this be, except that very Name, which they refused, had been Offered? for if they did but Offer to call him so: then did they not yet so call him. & not calling him by the name, The foresaid shift utterly taken away. how could the other well refuse, that, which at all was not uttered? But that this shift of Interpretation may not serve you, mark what S. Gregory writeth unto the Bishop of Constantinople. Lib 4. epist. 38. Were not the Bishops (as your holiness knoweth) of this Apostolic see, The B. of Rome called universal. Oblato honore. (which by Gods disposing I serve and attend) called (by the reverend Council of Chalcedon VNIVERSALES UNIVERSAL, by an Honour or Name (not sought for, but) Offered? Here M. jewel ye have, that the B. of Rome were called so. S. Gregory testifieth it, his Authority you seem to regard & honour, especially in this matter of Universal Bishop. Ergo your Assertion is false, following the very word and Title, which so Cowhartly, and yet Braggingly always you drive us to find. And now therefore you must Subscribe. Except you will flee from the word, upon which you have hitherto so much sticked, unto your Meaning upon the word. Which we would sayne have you to do: but them, you could not crack as you have done, by setting forth yourself, under this bare Title of universal Bishop or Head. etc. which now being found out against you, you begin to seek more room because you are pinched, and to extend this word CALLED to signify, SALUTED, ENTITLED, PROCLAIMED, but this Shift is not yet so currant. Howbeit, great fear there is, least after an other book set forth as big as this which already is made, by much turning of words, y● will more often use ENTITLED and PROCLAIMED in stead of Called, that the question may be, not what was thē●one, but what OPENLY and Ordinarily was ENTITLED and PROCLAIMED. But let us consider a plainer place against you, and so discover an other manner of shifting. You stick upon the bare F●ame, and as long as the Equivalent, and n●t the same which you specified, is brought forth, ye insult still and egg your Adversary. What will you say now then, when it shallbe plainly showed? Athanasius, Ischyrion, Theodorus saluted S. Leo in three sundry Epistles, by the name of Universal patriarch: Ergo your Assertion is false and you must Subscribe. How avoid you? Marry ye confess it to be true. But of that whole number of six hundred and thirty Bishops, jew. 298 there assembled, I trow M. Harding is not well able to show, that any one ever Saluted or Called him so. Why do you take your question so, that three honest men's Testimonies are not sufficient, What a 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 but you must have a whole Council to call the Pope Universal Bishop, Or else ye will not be confuted? You asked, whether the B. of Rome was then called universal Bishop. jew. ●●0 And you limited it not within the compass of General Council. Therefore if ye will stick to the words, you must Subscribe, Or else confess, that this was one of the shifts which you kept in store. But why should you refuse the Testimonies of Athanasius, Ischyrion, and Theodorus, supposing that it were true, the in the Council of Chalcedon, no one called the B. of Rome Universal Bishop? The one of them, Athanasius, was a Priest, the other two were Deacons. But what of that? You make light of them as though they were some abjects of the world, and say: A strange Priest, jew. 298 and two poor Deacons in their Private Suits for their Goods and Legacies, named Leo the Universal Bishop. Ergo, within six hundred years 〈◊〉 Christ, there were that Called and 〈◊〉 the B. of Rome Universal Bishop. B. 〈◊〉 ye except against Priests, and Poor Deacons, and such as have 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 ye will allow none of the Clergy for a witness, except he be a Bishop, and sit in a general Council. Or a 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 Prelate. Ergo, here again ye stick not to the words of your question, but 〈…〉 a Copy of another kind of your 〈◊〉. How say ye now then to S. Peter? He was Bishop of Rome, and he was called Head of the Church: Ergo, a Bishop of Rome was called Head of the Church. Have ye any shift for this argument? But M. Harding knoweth the case is moved jew. 308 not of S. Peter, but specially and namely of the bishop of Rome. But Master D. Harding inferreth, that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome: ergo your Assertion is false, if you stick to the bare Letter of your question, and invent not some otherway to escape by. But when will M. jewel be to seeking? For I doubt not (sayeth he) But M. Harding doth remember, jew. 309 that the question that lieth between us, riseth not of any Extraordinary Name once or twice given upon some special Affection: shifting and lying. but of the usual and known Title of the Bishop of Rome. How should he remember that, which you were not so Gentle or Wise, to tell him of? Have ye not always pressed him, with bringing forth of the Name of universal Bishop▪ Have ye not misliked with him for it, that he would not be bound to show the Name, though he brought as much in sense as the Name importeth? This have ye done through your whole Answer with extreme Craking and Insultation. And now, when to satisfy your fantastical request, he hath alleged the very Names and Titles, which you vaunted yourself so much upon, as though they were never able to be found in any writer: ye flee to the Interpretation and Limitation of your question, and stick not to the plain and Grammatical construction of it. And now (see the vanity) yourself are able to bring forth good Authority, where some Bishop of the world was called universal Patriarch, jew. 30● Hypocrite. and that, not by shifting of Terms one for another, but in plain, manifest and express words, and such as in no wise, may be denied. Say you so? Why then have you, all this while, made such a matter of finding out these Terms universal bishop, and head. etc. as though you would strait ways subscribe and yield, if you might therein be answered. And why say you so constantly in an other place, This Name is the very thing that we deny. If yourself have the places for that purpose already prepared & gathered (undoubtedly to the Great Praise of jew. ●06. your Note Book) why do you with such bravery demand them of your Adversaries? Or with extreme Iniquity, make a Tumult and Stur in men's consciencies for that word, in which yourself do know you are but a Bragger? For, if the bishop of Constantinople were called an Universal Patriarch & caet. how could you mistrust, but as much and with more reason, might have been said of the B. of Rome, which was (as you confess) the Chief of the four Patriaches? Or how could you be so earnest, in reproving of that Title, which your wisdom confesseth (for a Surplusage to show your great learning and study) to have been given to base persons than the B. of Rome is? If your Conscience were open, through your own sincere and true Dealing, Or if by the Authorities, which we should allege, you were constrained, outwardly to express, what ye conceive and conceal within: then should it be evident in sight, that ye pass no more for the Names of Universal bishop, Or Head of the Universal Church, though a thousand Fathers had given them to the B. of of Rome: than you do regard the Terms, really, Verily & truly with such like, M. jew. seeketh not peace and concord, but con●ention and s●●ite. when they are by Catholic writers attributed to Christ's body in the Sacrament. And like as when these words, Principality, Primacy, Chief Rule or Ruler, are proved to have been spoken by old Fathers of the See of Rome, or B. there: you turn yourself to some dictionary or Etimologicon of your own or others, jewel. 244 & say, A Principal Church, is sometime used of the Fathers in this sense, to signify a Civil dominion or principality of a City. Again, Primatus is used for any superioriti or preferment above others: Again, Princeps, in the latin tongue is often used for a man, 245 that, for his virtue or room, or any singular quality, is to be had in estimation above others: 246 To be short, whereas you say, being pressed to S. Ambrose authority which called Damasus y● B. of Rome, jew. 306 The Rector & governor of the church. Let us consider whether the selfsame form of speech, have been applied to any other in like sort. By which shift, you satisfy the common readers, until you be again answered to your greater confusion: so, having in your bosom, jam sure, like distinctions & expositions, where Universal B. & Head of the church, are sundry ways used, you would never (if you had been aquiet 〈◊〉 & lover of truth) so long have continued, in requiring those ve●y Terms to be allege●, which, as you do expound them, prove not to you sufficiently the Popes Supremicy. You affirm, 194 that, in deed in a kind of speech, both Rome and Antioch, and other great Cities, famous for Religion, may be called the Head and Spring of the Gospel. And what shall let you then to turn them to phrases, whatsoever Titles be found attributed to the B. of Rome: & so, by a kind of speech, to make that Common which is Singular? Whereby it is manifest that ye maintain Contention, and put those things forth, which you know to be needless and Weak, and Feeble, only to try perchance the strength of your Adversaries, to the Commendation of your own Learning, Or Uttering of that Notes which ye have gathered, Or to oppress your Answerer with multitude of words and quarrels, that for the very heaps of them, being either not Answered at all, Or answered not so speedily, you might triumph i● the mean space, with some probability. For, when the Catholics allege Terms of like force and Equivalent, then will you have no other but the Names of Universal Bishop and Head etc. and then the Name is the thing that you deny. From o●e corner to an other. And when those selves same very NAMES are brought before you, than ye make as though it were no hard matter to have found them out, but then bring you the like of your own Motion: and then you run to Limitations upon your question, and to shifting from one point to another, declaring thereby, that your sense only is to be considered, although ye peeked the quarrel against the Word. But where will you stay yourself? For if it were proved, in most ample manner, with all Conditions and Circumstances (as you by shifting, have now added to the Principal question) that, the B. of Rome was not called, but Entitled and Proclaimed, not of Priests & poor Deacons, but of some rich Prelates sitting in GENERAL COUNCIL, and that, not once or twice upon favour, but by an Usual and known Style: All this would not convert M. jewel. For in the end of this Article these be his words, Or rather his definitive sentence: Although that which the Pope claimeth, Extre●● shi●●. were his very right, yet by his own judgement, he is whorthie to lose it. For Pope Gregory saith: Privilegium meretur amittere, qui abutitur potesta●e. jew. 31● He that abuseth his authority, is worthy to lose his privilege. And Pope Silverius sayeth: Etiam quod habuit amittat, qui quod non accepit, usurpat. He that usurpeth that he received not, let him lose that he had. Be it so. He, for his own part deserveth. Like as the Temporal heads and Princes of the world, when they do not their office, are worthy of losing it. But who shall depose them? It must be done by Law, and not by Insurrection. And until lawful process against them be ended, the Common Wealths are bound to obey them, be they never so unworthy. Yet the Princes are made by men, and raceave Authority, not immediately from God, but of the Common Wealth which doth choose them. But the Pope, whom Christ himself (without Consent of men going before, or voice of the world) hath made Head of his Church, throughout the whole world: who shall take his Privilege from him, if he should be thereof unworthy? For the Prerogative and chief Authority given by God, must continue, what soever the party his merits are, The Apostle also saying: There is no power except it be from God: and obey you, Rom. 13. Prepositors and such as are set over you. Heb. 13. And if the chosen of God, 1. Reg. 24 King David having saul at a vantage, besought God to stay his hands, that himself might not kill him swearing, that, As truely as GOD liveth, except God struck him, or his time were come to die, or he should be destroyed in Battle, he would not lay hands upon the Anointed of God: And if our Saviour Christ commanded the jews, To do that which the Scribes and pharisees did say unto them, though their living and behaviour otherwise was so evil, that he charged them, not to do as they did, who dare be so bold, as hurt Or dissobeye, the Anointed of God, The Highest bishop in all Christendom, the Successor of S. Peter, lawfully sutttrg in Chair and Place, of instructing and governing the Faithful? Will the superintendents of the Church of England do it? By what law and reason? Marry, the Canon law shallbe brought forth, 11. quaest. 2. p●iuilegium. and 25. quaest. 2. Sic decet & caet. And M. jewel shall allege a Gloze or make a Gloze upon it, Of which the whole Fraternity must conclude, that if it were never so much proved, that the B. of Rome, was Called in the six hundred years after Christ, Head of the Universal Church, And though it were his very Right: Ye●, for as much he abuseth his Privilege, he deserveth to lose it, And we will have him no more Obeyed. Far well he. And so breaketh out this fourth Artitle, into Presumptuons Contempt of Lawful Authority. Thus have we the compass of M. jewels trifling Process. First, the Name (he saith) can not be found, and as long as that Answer will hold, he Insulteth and Braggeth like jewel himself. Then, the Calling of S. Leo Universal bishop, in the Council of Chalcedon, was not a Calling of him so in deed, but an Offering to call him so. And so the testimony of the inward Goodwill is not sufficient, but he must have it declared by word of mouth. Thirdly, poor Priests and Deacons, but none of the Council of Chalcedon did give it. So by like none but Noble Personages, and men of honour shall geave Voices. Fourthly, though S. Peter, the first bishop of Rome, were so called, yet the question is not moved of him, but of the Pope. So might the Successor challenge nothing, of the Prerogative of his Predecessor. fifthly, if it were given but once Or twice, it is no matter: because our question (saith he) is of the Usual Style. So must we bring forth a Proclamation (I trow) Or Scale for it, Or else nothing is done. Sixthly in a kind of Speech the B. of Rome, as also of Constantinople may be called by the Title of UNIVERSAL. So shall it be but a Phrase only, and of no weight Or Substance, what so ever be alleged for these Titles aforsayed. Last of all, if it were the Pope's Right, Yet is he worthy to lose it. And so it booteth no more, to Reason of this question, for that they have done, they will not 〈◊〉: Such is their final determination. By which way of violence and force, if the cause of Religion may be followed, ye will be to strong (M. jewel) not only for Oppressed Catholics in these your prosperous days, but also against quiet Catholics, where they live with the love of their Sovereigns. But if this must needs seem unreasonable in Professors of a new Gospel, which take upon them to direct us by the express word of the Lord in the Right knowledge of all Truth and Honesty: I will trust, that this Detection of you their Chief man of War, Shifting, Striving, Craking, Dissembling, Lying, Triumphing. etc. will cause the Indifferent Reader, to Beware of M. jewel. (❧ ❧ ❧) Thus endeth the First Book. THE SECOND Book, Declaring by more Special Detection of M. jewels behaviour, that it is needful to BEWARE of him. THE proper Conveyance and Art, which M. jewel hath used in the foresaid Articles, I have for the special points of those questions, shortly and sufficiently discovered. For which his conveyance, although the judifferent or wavering minds, should wisely BEWARE of him, and his own friends and dear brothers the Protestants, might with a good zeal require of him, either to begin a New Challenge, Or defend himself better in the Old: And though I myself might, for these causes, think enough to be already said against him: Yet because Affection and Love is not only blind in itself, but darkeneth also the sight of understanding and Reason, that his Favourers will not lightly perceive his foul fashions, except they appear both Many, and Great, and Notable: And because the weaker and doubtfuller in such matter, are not satisfied with suffiente, but require abundauce and evidency: I will for these two sorts of men's sakes, declare yet further and plainer, what Worthiness is in M. jewels Reply. Of the Common Places which M. jewel hath overcharged his book withal, in the first four Articles. CAP. I. FIrst, concerning the outward show only and face of his book, it is so great in quantity, so fair in sight, and so Lively (as I may say) by reason of many Allegations and Authorities, out of Counsels, Fathers, Histories, Law Civil and Canon, and the Gloze also thereupon: that it cummeeh very quickly into ones mind, to think: that, a matter of nothing, should not increase to such bygnes, nor an evil favoured cause so well be set forth, nor Ancient witnesses be so thickly brought out to no purpose. And this I take to be one knack of his cunning, that he provided to make his Reply in such a form, as might dehort some from the Reading (because of the length thereof not agreeing with their great business) And amaze other in reading (because it cumbereth the memory with so many matters) And get some renown and praise to his own side, though there followed no Reading (because it will be commonly believed, that, I trow) in making so many words, he is not to seeking of an Answer. And if he will not have me to call it, a knack of his Cunning, then surely will it be proved to be, a Lack of discretion: so that he shall not escape just reproach, either for his craftiness, if he perceived it, either for his dullness, if he did not consider it. For the bigness of a book is not reprovable, if according to the nature of the matter, the handling of it be proportioned. But, whosoever increaseth his work above measure, by taking in that which is not agreeable: either he is to wise for the Simple, by making them conceive much of that which is little: Or he is not wise enough in the judgement of the Learned, by puffing that up to a great quantity, which would, by reason, be less in Sight and more in Substance. But let us, first, make our Objection and also prove it, and then, afterwards, consider whether it doth argue, a Craftiness rather, or a dullness to be found in M. jewels Invention. I lay it then unto your fault, that ye have overcharged your Book, with Common Places and Impertinent. And, because I would be, mye self, the better perceived, and you also thereby, should be directed, the more Orderly to make your Answer: I take your Common Places to be of two kinds. The one consisteth of Things, which we may use as well as you: And to the using of which, you do peek an Occasion out of the Question itself, though you need not yet to use it at all, or else more discretely, should have used it. And these I call Common Places. The other consisteth of such Matters, as we can not, or may not use, and which you also should, at no time, follow, though it be most familiar with you. And if at any other time you might, yet in the case of these Articles which are proponed, you had no occasion to use them. And these I call digressions, not because the foresaid places might not run under that Title: but because in them, you may pretend some excuse, and here you can bring none. To begin therefore with your Common places, you are surely no niggard of them. Out it goeth, upon never so little occasion, that which you have gathered, and if none at all be expressly offered, yet you will make one, rather than not utter your cunning. Will you have a few notes of them? I could serve you, with a hundred and odd, gathered out of one half only of your book and no more. But these few, which I shall reckon may be sufficient, both to prove my objection true, and cause you to amend that fault hereafter. jewel. Pag. 15 Every man ought to prepare himself, before he come to God. jewel. Pag. 25. The example of Christ must be followed. jewel. Pag. 28 The company of Communicantes was called Communio. jewel. Pag. 28. The wicked Communicate together. jewel. Pag. 45. Small faults are not to be contemned. jewel. Pag. 52. Heretics have alleged Custom. jewel. Pag. 66. deceivers blaze their doings by the names of famous men. jewel. Pag. 89 The company of Priests was great in the old time. jewel. Pag. 94 The people in old time did Communicate. jewel. Pag. 101 We must be obedient to God. jewel. Pag. 107 We must not hang upon the authority of mortal men. jewel. Pag. 111 Christ's institution must be kept. jewel. Pag. 118 Gods holy spirit bloweth, where it thinketh good. jewel. Pag. 127 The fewer places must be expounded by the more. jewel. Pag. 131 The mysteries were kept in both kinds. jewel. Pag. 141 Many abuses have been about the mysteries. jewel. Pag. 143 Having Gods word we want no authority. jewel. Pag. 162 All the East spoke not one tongue. jewel. Pag. 167 Religion came not first from Rome. jewel. Pag. 171 God looketh not for utterance of voice. jewel. Pag. 181 The people of Hyppo spoke Latin. jewel. Pag. 204 Appeal is to be made to the Church in doubtful cases. jewel. Pag. 210 Great profit in reading of Scriptures. jewel. Pag. 216 Ignorance is the mother of errors. jewel. Pag. 229 One Bishop must be in one City. jewel. Pag. 230 universa Fraternitas, the whole brotherhood, signifieth the company within every several and particular Diocese. 241 Princes have been favourable to Bishops. Papa in old time signified Father, and was given generally to all bishops. 242 The prerogative to sit before other, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 259 In the old times, men that stood in doubt, sought unto the best learned. 263 The bishops of other Countries called the bishop of Rome brother, or fellow. 280 It is lawful for bishops, to excommunicate. 281 bishops have the allowing, of the Election or consecration of Bishops. 295 Every great Metropolitan City within her own Province, may be honoured with the Title of Mother Church. 300 The Title (Universal) hath been given to some Bishops. These be your Common places, M. jewel: but these, by the third part, are not all that I do find in half your book. And if they were all, yet they might have occupied, by very many parts, less room in your Book, than they do. What cause then, why you dilated them so much? Let us come to one or two particulars. That Christ's Institution is to be kept, is one of your Common places. An other is. That the people of old time did Communicate with the Priest. The first of these you speak much for, and allege to that purpose: jew. 25 S. Paul. 1. Cor▪ 11. jew. 60 S. Hierom in. 1. Cor. 11. jew. 91 S. Matthe. 26. jew. 111 S. Chrysostom. Ho. 61 Ad Po. Antioch. jew. 143 S. Cyprian. li. 2. Ep. 3. and, ad jubaianum. jew. 144 And again, S. Cyprian. li. 2. Ep. 3. jew. 150 S. Hierom ad Galat. li. 3. ca 5. S. Hylar. ad Const. Augustum. S. Augustin. de unitate Ecclesiae. And, S. Cyprian once again: lib. 2. Epi. 3. Besides Indignations and invectives of your own against the Catholics in this matter, as though they could not abide Christ's Institution. In following of which Place, if you had spared yourself and bestowed that Time and Labour in defyning of Christ's Institution unto us, which you wasted to no purpose in proving that it must be observed, it had been well spent of you and as we Looked for: but to prove that which is not doubted of, and to leave the doubt unresolved, which only is moved, it serveth to make the Reply Great, but not to make it perfit and full. The second you prove by S. james liturgy, jew. 11. Abdias in vita S. I homae, 30. & S. Matthei, justinus Mart. Apol. 2. 37. Dionys. Eccl. Hist. cap. 3. S. Basil. liturgy, 38. S. Chrisostomes' liturgy. 42. S. Ignatius ad Philad. S. Paul. 2. Cor. 10. 78. S. Jerome 1. Cor. 11. S. Chrysost. 1. Cor. Hom. 27. 94. S. August. In joan. tract. 26. S. Chrysostom 1. Cor. Hom. 24. S. Cyprian ad Magnum. S. Cyril in joan. lib. 11. cap. 26. S. Hierom in Eccl. cap. 3. justi. Martyr Apol. 2. council Agathense cap. 60. epist. Decret. Syricij. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. 11. S. Ambro. 1. Cor. 11. Canon Apost. cap. 9 And by the Canon law itself, the authority whereof you do despise: De Consecr. distin. 2. Peracta. distin. 2. Episcopus distin. 2. Si non. distin. 2. Si quis. besides these you allege. S. Clement Ep. 2. S. Augustin. lib. 2. de sermon. Dom. in monte. S. August. in psal. 16. Clemens. Stro. lib. 1. S. Chrysos. 1. Cor. Hom. 27. S. Chrysost. 2. Cor. Hom. 18. S. Gregori Dialog. lib. 2. cap. 23. And when you have all done, no man doubteth of it. What meaneth it then, that you in so Many Places, so Abundantly, and so Exactly, have commended and set forth these two Conclusions? Thought you the Catholics to be so wicked, that, they would contemn, the express Institution of Christ? Or to be so ignorant of so common a matter, as in the primitive Church, was, and yet now still is, the Communion? Then are yo● surely, either evil disposed, or simply practised. But thought you it good, to utter (howsoever it were) what you had to say for these matters? Verily then, Of all nought chose the least, and it would be amended. 1 either you hoped thereby to make some think well of your Cunning (and that was a crafty Invention) Or else without further respect to any your Vantage, you busied only yourself in a Needless Matter: And that was a plain Vanity. Now, if it was not, neither for lack of Conscience in you, nor for lack of Intelligence, that you have taken so great a pain to prove most undoubted and clear Conclusions: it remaineth that you Answer my Objection by some likely cause and reason, And show, wherefore you have been so Long and tedious in copious and oft repeated proving of a plain Conclusion. Until which time it is easy to be perceived: that these Common Places of yours keep a Vain and Superfluous stir in your Reply to D. Harding. * Note. COncerning this later Common place so learnedly proved by M. jewel, beware of this One Argument. There was always a Communion in the Primitive Church: Ergo there was no Mass. For as the world goeth now, this word A Communion, doth signify, either the act of some receiving together, either that proper kind of Service, which is now used in England at the Ministration of the lords Supper. In the first of these, two senses, true it is that A Communion was I can not say, always, but no inconvenience will follow if it be granted that it was always in the primitive Church. And that it was very Common and Ordinary, the heap of the Authorities by M. jewel rehearsed, do make for it. In the second: It was never known in the primitive Church: And no One of all the places which M. jewel hath gathered, doth contene so much. Again, concerning the first: The Argument is very false. For even at these days, A Mass and A Communion do agree in sight together, at such times as the People receive with the Priest at the Altar. Concerning the second: the Argument is good but the Antecedent can never be proved: that in the primitive Church such (a Single and Simple, and Irreverent, and Dead) Ministration of the divine Mysteries was used then, as is taken up in the english Communion at this present. Of M. jewels Digressions. CAP. II. Concerning now the other kind of your common places, which I do rightly call Digressions, they are so frequented of you, as though ye found some special Cumfort in them, after weariness taken in other things: And they are so Outrageous, as though you went not for a bishop of Sarisburie, but were some Slanderous, Fumisshe, And unlearned Protestant: And to the matter proponed they are so Impertinent, that you may Lawfully be charged with the fault, of increasing your Reply with them. Have you so much Leisure (M. jewel) to spend your labour, in Extravagantes? Or if your Leisure served you never so much, have you so little discretion, to occupy your time in naughty and idle talk? In your Answer, to D. hardings Preface, straitewayes you peek out of the Gloze, (which is nor Scripture nor Canon, jew. fol. 1 pag. 1 nor Doctor's sentence) A Slander against the Pope: And to make that matter more odious, you utter it, as spoken by the Pope him self with his own mouth, I can not ere. etc. Which in deed neither he ever said, neither they which spoke it of him, took in such sense as you do imagine. Fol. 2. pag. 2. In the same answer, you put D. Harding again, in remembrance of the Pope, and you speak your pleasure of him, alleging A Gloze for your authority. Pagina 2. & 6. Of your Reply, Again you be up with the Pope. To what great Purpose, Or upon what Occasion, yourself perchance do know: but unto us, it seemeth an unreasonable and shameful matter, to Accuse any Person, out of the Lawful Court, Out of Season and Reason. And to speak against the Pope, Cardinals, Priests etc. when other questions are to be handled. Your part and duty had been, to answer unto D. hardings Arguments: And not to turn your mind to finding of Faults. Remember yet, how oft ye use that Lewd figure, of speaking against Things and Persons out of place: As, Pag. 11 Against. The Clergy. Pag. 16 Against. Confession, and Priests. Pag. 18 Against. The Schoolmen. Pag. 24 Against. The Ceremonies of the Church. Pag. 39 Against. The B. of Rome. Pag. 40 Against. The B. of Rome. Pag. 52 Against. S. Jerome, Tertullian, Origen, & against Relics. Pag. 56 Against. Pope, Cardinals, Priests. Pag. 83 Against. Miracles. Pag. 92 Against. Devout answers of Priests. Pag. 189 Against. The Pope. Pag. 195 Against. Altars of stone. Pag. 204 Against. The Clergy and Church. This maketh your Sermons plausible, and re●ysheth all your writings Pag. 220 Against. The Pope. Pag. 221 Against. The Pope. Pag. 225 Against. The Pope. Pag. 234 Against. bishops and Priests. Pag. 236 Against. The Pope. Pag. 248 Against. The Pope. Pag. 249 Against. The Pope. Pag. 258 Against. The Popes. Pag. 259 Against. The Pope, and Schoolmen. Pag. 262 Against. The Pope. Pag. 274 Against. The Pope. Pag. 275 Against. The Pope. Pag. 277 The Pope. Pag. 278 Against. Bonifacius the Pope. Pag. 288 Against. The Pope. Pag. 289 Against. The bishop of Rome. Pag. 297 Against. The Pope. Pag. 310 Against. The Pope. Pag. 317 Against. Schoolmen. Pag. 313 Against. The Pope. How think we then, may this be called a Reply, (which is presupposed to follow the sayings of that adversaries with a just answer) Or an Infamous Libel rather (which the lighter the head is, that sooner it inventeth to make, & utter abroad at all adventure? Again: Is it, think we, a little space in a Book, which is able to contain so many Excursions, or Digressions? These surely, which I have noted here, I find within the compass of four Articles only: Out of which, I know, I might gather many mo●. If these digressions then, which have a Special fling against the Pope of Rome, and sometimes against the Clergy, amount to so Great a number, And if these, by themselves alone, must needs grow to some bigness, (for Some of them continue half the side, some the whole, & Some almost a leaf, altogeatherout of the matter) I need not to reckon up any more, to confirm my Objection: and by these few, in respect, the wise may soon gather, what manner of old ends and shreds, M. jewels new Book is stuffed withal. But now, as in the foresaid Common Places, it was straightways perceived with out further declaration, that they were common in deed, & might serve the Catholics, as well as the Protestants: So in these, of which we speak, though I say it, yet that doth not prove it, that they be digressions. How then? must I go through all and show, how they belong not to the question proponed? That would be to long and tedious. Shall I refer all to the Readers Diligence? Yet would not that satisfy either M. jewel (if he disdained it not) Or Some other, whosoever would take it upon him, but that it should be answered: I bring in my Objections in A Mummery, and Dolosus versatur in generalibus, He that walketh in Generalities, jew. ●61 walketh not plainly. Briefly therefore, I will bring forth four or five Examples, that if M. jew. can prove them to be no digressions, I may be licenced to Reply: And if he can not honestly deny them to be so, that then he amend that fault, and speak more to the purpose hereafter. D. Har. by way of natural reason saith thus in effect, Har. fol. 109. that if God had ordained, that in the Church should be sundry heads & Rulers, and none to be constituted to be over other, than he should seem to have set up a Confusion and an Anarchy, (which is, the destruction of all Common Weals) But he is most wise, & most tender also over his Church: ergo, he hath (by all likelihood) appointed her one Head & Governor. Ergo the supremacy of one man the successor of S. Peter and Chief of all bishops, must not be thought absurd. What answer you to this reason, M. jew? You tell us of A special Gloze of Petrus Bertrandus upon the Decretales, jew. 258 The first Example of an Absolute Digression. that: Non videretur Dominus discretus fuisse etc. Our Lord should have seemed not to have been discrete & puident (that I may say it with reverence of him) except he had left one such vicar behind him. You gather further, out of the same Gloze, Christo data est omnis potestas etc. All manner power in heaven and earth is given to Christ: therefore the highest bishop which is his vicar, hath the same power. Again, ye add more Gloss, that: Papa potest facere omnia, quae Christus ipse potest. the Pope may do, what so ever Christ himself may do. And, Papae & Christi unum est tribunal, the Pope & Christ have one Consistory. And not content with this, you allege an extravagant, that speaketh of a Closet in the Pope's breast, and you tell us of one: Whose pleasure may stand in steed of a Law, unto whom what so ever he do, no man may say: Domine, cur ita facis? sir, why do you so? And last of all, when you had ended now, with Gloss & Canons not understanded of you, Ye needed not to have gone out of your Say to 〈◊〉 so ●urth at length in 〈◊〉 most Shameful and open 〈◊〉. you bring, out of the closet of your own breast, a certain description of a strange Officer: that neither doth exhort nor teach nor minister Sacrament, nor exercise discipline, nor doth the duty either of Bishop, or of priest Or of deacon, or any other the meanest officer of the Church: but only taketh upon him to Rule & Govern the whole Church. And so, with much a do, endeth that Digression, without any beginning at all made to the answer of the argument. Which, I pray you to consider. Is it not reason, M. jew. that for avoiding of Confusion, which quickly ariseth in a multitude, where no Order is, that One be Chief over all? jew. 25●. Bertrandus (sae you) hath a Special gloze etc. What have Divines to do with Bertrandus gloze? Answer you the text of the Argument. Likewise they say, jew. Papa potest facere omnia etc. That is an other gloze, but why tell you us thereof, and utter not rather a part of your advise concerning the quiet Governing of the Church? jew. Again, Papae & Christi v●um est tribunal etc. They the say it, know in what true sense they say it. But what is all this to our question? Now, as for the Closet in the Pope's breast, & Domine, cur ita facis, except yourself be he, to whom no man must say, Sir, why do you so? We may justly oppose you in it, Sir why made you this digression? And because ye can give no reason for it, think, that a Closet would do you good in your breast, to keep your wits 〈◊〉 together. another Example of a needless digression is to be seen pagin. 288. The second example. For, whereas D. Harding had said, that Athanasi●s and Paulus, being deposed by the Arrians assisted with the Emperor Constantius, were restored to their rooms again by julius the Pope, M. jew. ●ppealeth to the judgement & discretion of his Reader, that it is unlikely. And why so? He answereth: For neither was Bonifacius the 8. Yet borne, jew. 288 that determined, Fine for jewels. that the Emperor should be inferior to the Pope: Nor Pope Innocentius the third, or his Gloze, that rated the matter by good Geometrical proportion, and pronounced, that the Pope, is thirty & seven degrees above the Emperor, even just as much, as the Son is above the Moon: Nor Pope Alexander the third, that set his foot in the emperors neck. A fine digression, a gross Reason. Have you not readen, Hist. Ec. lib. 9 ca 30. Chrys. li. 3. de Sa●●rd. M. jewel, that S. Ambrose controlled the Emperor? Doth not S. Chrysostom say, that as the Soul excelleth the Body: so doth a Priest pass in dignity, a Temporal King? Yet was neither Bonifacius the 8. nor Pope Innocentius the third borne at those days. What new kind of Logic is this? Gonifacius was not borne, when julius lived: ergo it is not likely, the julius did restore Athanasius to his room, from which heretics, with the Emperors favour, had pulled him down. Again, New found L●gyke. there was no Gloze then to rate the degrees of the magnitude of the Son above the Moon, & apply it to the Pope & Emperor: ergo the Pope & the Emperor are not of unlike quantity, just (I trow) as the Son & Moon are both of one bigness. If this be true, them have you directly answered: but seeing it is false, then have you idly wandered. But let us see an other Example. jew. 251 A third Example. When I hear) sayeth M. jewel) M. harding to give unto the bishop of Rome a power peerless (what do ye then? Prepare yourself, by liklyhode, to Answer him. No, no, you have other matters to think upon) me thinketh (say you) I hear Doctor Durandus say: Hic est Melchisedech etc. This is Melchisedech whose priesthood is not comparable unto others. He is the head of all bishops, from whom all they descend, as membres from the head, and of whose fullness all they receive. Me thinketh I hear, that is written by the canonists? Dominus Deus noster Papa, Our lord God the Pope. In this point I believe you well M. jew. For, Hier●. as to S. Jerome and other (whose thoughts and minds were still upon God) that Trumpet of the last day seemed to have swooned always in their ears: so to you, which have such affection to the Gloss upon that Canon law, as though your Chief Armour & Treasure were in them in making war against the supremacy, Doctor Durand, or Hostiensis, Whether doth M. jewel meditate upon Gloss for devotion or knowledge Or Charity's sake. or Petrus Bertrandus, or that Gloze upon unam sanctam de Maioritate & obedientia, are so nigh at heart with you & so ready in your memory: that for respect of them you forget the present question: And D.Har. speaking unto you, it seemeth to you it is Doctor Durand. Verily M. jewel, this is but your thinking, And whether it be through your much Study, and emptiness of head, Or through eagerness of Stomach and abundance of Choler, that you be so distracted: the truth is, D. Har. neither said it. nor alluded in any part unto, Dominus Deus noster Papa, that you might think yourself to hear in him the canonists speaking. But you had a fancy to bring in those words: And for that cause, no Occasion being given by D.Har. your own Thought was your Guide and Warrant, that you might seem yet to have some mention made unto you of D. Durand and the canonists: lest your digression should have been to manifest. Now one Example more, and then an end of this Chapter. D. Harding to prove that the Public Service of England was in Latin, when it was converted first unto the faith, he bringeth forth one john Archechaunter of S. Peter's Church at Rome: which was therefore entertained in England, that he should teach the course of Service for the whole year, as it was done at S. Peter's in Rome. Of which this must follow by all reason, that if the Church Service in England had been in English: An Archechanuter of Rome, so great A Stranger, had been nothing a meet Person to teach natural Englisshm●n, to sing, Writ and Read in their own Natural Tongue. But this witness, sayeth M. jewel, cometh to Late. How much to late? Mary four score years. For john the Archechaunter Lived in the time of Pope Agatho in the year of our Lord 680. Well this is hard dealing: but hereof we shall speak in an other Place. In the mean season, judge thou now indifferent Reader, and speak freely, hath M. jewel any occasion given here unto him, to meddle with the Pope's Decrees or Gloss upon them? None at all. For the Argument against him comprehendeth no more, but, that the Latin Service was in England at the beginning: and his answer stretcheth no further, then to the plain refusal of the witness brought in, hecause he lived without the compass of the six hundred years after Christ. And this once said he is at an end. Yet see, what a tale he will tell thee. jew. 189 For john the Archechaunter (sayeth he) lived in the time of Pope Agatho, in the year of our Lord 680. in whose name this decree is written. Sic omnes sanctiones Apostolicae Sedis etc. As much to the matter as the making of a Canon to the taking of a journey Or the singing at york to the sense of a rubric in Law. All the constitutions of the Apostolic see must be received so, as the if they were confirmed by the very heavenly voice of S. Peter. Unto such a tyranny the Church of Rome at that time was grown. And the gloze upon the same saith: Papa sanctitatem suam recipit a Cathedra. The Pope receiveth his holiness of his Chair. Therefore herein M. Harding somewhat misrekened himself. Wherefore I pray you? Because of the foresaid Decree written in Pope Agatho his name? Or the saying of the Gloze thereupon? No, it is plain that you conclude, D. Harding to have misrekened himself, because that Pope Agatho lived in the year of our Lord 680. and john the Archechaunter was of the same tyme. How now then? Do you prove, by the decree and Gloze which you full solemnly have alleged, that Pope Agatho lived in the year of our Lord 680? But there is no mention of such matter in them. Wherefore then have you brought in the Decree and the Gloze? You dissemble your Art, or else the consequence and hanging of this gear together (if any at all had been) would have appeared. But in deed, there lacked a point of plain deling. For when you had once named Pope Agatho, you should have used a Therefore or some such like saying: Because I have mentioned Pope Agatho, therefore I will tell thee (gentle Reader, what Decree was written in his name, and what the Gloze upon the same saith. In like phrase, as a certain Preacher, after he had declared the fall of Adam, taken by the eating of an Apple: Now good people (said he) because I have told you of an Apple, which is an Indifferent thing: let us speak of the fast in Lent. Now, if you disdain (M. jewel) to use this Therefore of my prompting, & tie your tale together with it: there is no cause why we may not infer a worse against you. I mean this: You have therefore gone so oft beside the right way, to speaking of Gloss and Ca●onistes, either of a fervent Passion of Malice against the Catholic Faith, which made you always greedy of disgracing it, Either of a vain love towards your own praise, which itched you forward, to utter your much reading. Again, the Places which you, so oft and thick, Expound your own meaning, if we M. 〈◊〉 have miss. do bring against the Pope, are odious at the first hearing: but when they shall be Considered and Answered, either they shall he found not to be so as you report, either else to have a true and Christian sense in them. Therefore to press us with them, out of Place & Season, that we should not intend to answer them, that they, so 〈◊〉 away, for the present, without Answer, might hinder our cause in the judgement of many a Reader, it was craftily done and unhonestly. As, on the other side, if you (God wot) meant no harm at all, but without all immoderate Affection or Crafty compass, went plainly and directly forward in your matters, only that your Reply might be full: then have you done grossly and unorderly. To be short, whatsoever, and howsoever the causes be, the Indifferent Reader may judge of the Effect, and perceive that they are undoubted Digressions, which you have made from the question, to Canons and the Gloss upon them, and which I burden you withal. And I burden you herewithal, so much the more justly and earnestly, M. jew. fin●●th fault with digressions because yourself are so Rigorous, upon less Occasion or none at all, against D. harding. For when he, in the Article of Private Mass, did put it as a sure Ground: that the Mass or Vnbloudye Sacrifice, was so many ways to the Proved, that you could not withstand the catholics therein, Hard. Fol. 25. And touched shortly in a Leaf and a half, the Authorities which did serve that Purpose, of which he might have made A just Treatise, and never have gone beside his Purpose: yet that little which he spoke grieveth you so much, that you say: It is a simple kind of Rhetoric, jew. p 12 to use so large digressions from the matter, before ye once enter into the matter. As who should say, that the Author of a Treatise might not take what Order he would: Or that to speak of the Mass, were an Impertinent thing to Private Mass, Or that in the discussing of a compound it were not lawful, to open the nature of the simple: Or, when two things are at one time (yet covertly) impugned, to show that the one of them standeth upon sure ground, thereby to discumforte the Adversary. After like sort of quarreling, whereas D. Harding concluded, that: Single Communion was not only suffered in time of persecution, Hard. 38. but also allowed in quiet & peaceable times even in the Church of Rome itself, where true Religion hath ever been most exactly observed & caet. M. jewel greatly offended herewith all, and merueilinge (as it were) at the Matter: But why doth M. harding (sayeth he) jew. 5● thus out of reason, rush into the Church of Rome that was long ago? But, why say you so M. jewel? Doth not the Argument, which he maketh, require that he should commend that See? For Rome itself allowed (sayeth he) pai●ate Mass: ergo it is the less to be doubted of. Which Argument because it will at these days seem the worse, the more that it dependeth of the Authority of that See: could he do less, then bring one testimony in the praise thereof? and call you this a Rushing in thereto out of season? But what should he have done by your fine advise? Marry, say you: See the malice to speak ill of Rome, he taketh it to be to some purpose, and to speak well thereof he counteth it out of season. It had been more to the purpose to have viewed the state of the same Church as it standeth now. Had it so? And you being so Maliciously and wickedly disposed, would the Authority thereof, as it is now, have prevailed with you? Let any indifferent man be judge, whether it had been aptly done of D. Harding, in warranting of Sole receiving as allowed in Rome, to commend the Consequence by telling the faults which may be found in that City now, rather than the testimony of the bishops of all Gallia: which within the six hundred years after Christ, acknowledged, that from thence came the Fountain and spring of their Religion. Again, let any Indifferent man judge, whether M. jewel hath Answered this praise of the bishops of Gallia given so long ago unto the Church of Rome, by his Accusinge of bishops, Cardinals, and Priests: Or by lamenting the case of Rome as S. bernard did, Or by making of proverbs upon it, as Euripides sometime did of the City of Athens. Surely in this very place, Is this the liberty of the Gospel, or the charity of your Spirits? where without cause he reproveth his Adversary for commending out of season (as he judgeth) the See of Rome, it is a great shame to Rush into Discommendation of bishops, Cardinals and Priests attending upon that See: And to like it better to Examine and judge the Present 〈◊〉 of Rome, then to remember the Ancient Dignity and Virtue thereof, to confirmation of such points, as in those days were by it allowed, Other places and Signs th●re are, out of which I do gather, that M. jewel can not abide Digressions, as when he sayeth: This Question is out of course. jew. 149 We may well suffer M. harding to wander at large in matters that relieve him nothing. 153. I● it were lawful for others so to do, it were no great Mastery to write Books. Again These be none of the matters, that lie in Question. M. Harding maketh a long discourse of the Apostles & caet. 155. If he had showed to what end, we might the better have known his purpose. But to what end? 160. For neither, it is denied of us, nor it is any part of our question. Which thing neither is denied by me, 180. nor any wise toucheth the question. By these I am persuaded, that he would have the matter itself followed, and loveth not to have the time idly bestowed. Now though I am able to declare, that Doctor harding in these points hath done no otherwise then he lawfully might: Yet to let that pass, I Conclude against 〈◊〉 jewel, that of all things it is most Absurd in him that is so Precise with other, Unequal measure. to be wide and large towards himself in the self same kind of thing, for which (though unjustly) he reproveth other. And if, jew. 153. as M. jewel confesseth, it be no great mastery to write books, if it be lawful to wander at large in matters that relieve not: Let no man wonder at the worthiness of him, which hath written so mighty a Reply, considering that he runneth so far into Common Places, and Rushes so foully, into dispraise of Popes, Cardinals, Priests and Church of Rome: which neither maketh the new Gospelers the honester men, neither destroyeth the Present and Ancient faith of the Catholic Church. ¶ Of a third kind of Common Places, worse than any of the foresaid two. CAP. III. TO prove by examining of sundry wintesses, A Truth which is either plain by itself, Or else by the Adversary confessed, it is an idle spending and prolonging of time, to the shame of the party that useth it: And no hurt at all to the understanding of the judge or the Court, by troubling them with some doubt or error. For in labouring to persuade but a Truth, which every man ought to cleave unto, be the understanding never so closely united thereunto by fullness of persuasion, it can be no sin or danger to stand fast by that, which not to assent unto, were reprovable. And therefore, saving for other tircumstances, of Subtlety or Vanity used therein, M. jewel is not hurtful to any point of true Faith and Religion, in his following of those Common Places, of which I have spoken all ready. On the other side, when an Heretic goeth from the matter that he hath taken in hand, to Accuse, and Condemn, and bring into harred, Popes, Cardinals, Priests. etc. by gathering in of Ruinors, by following of Suspicions, and setting open unto the world the worst that he can speak of the Clergy: This, although it be Unjustly, Proudly, and Uncharitably done, yet doth it not greatly touch in any part our Faith or Religion. For if all were true that is feigned upon Popes, Cardinals and Priests: Or if nothing be false, of that which their Enemy's report, of some of them, what followeth then? No more surely, than that such Persons are offenders, and that the faults of the Clergy are to be Corrected. And I pray God be merciful unto his Church, that either no Crimes be found among the worthier members of it, Or just Canons and laws may be executed, such as already are made for the purpose. But let these things be, as they may or will be, who hath made Englishmen judges over Romans? Or who but the cursed Children, do tell tales abroad of their Father's Privities? Again, why should there not be Praying for Souls departed, because Some have taken money for it? Or why due honour not given to Sacraments, because some Sir john's are irrenerent? It is not safe to leap out of the Ark, into the main waters, because of some evil sent of men or bcastes therein. Or to leave the following of Christ, because Publicans and lypnners went in his company. The Apostleship is honourable, though judas be a Traitor: And the Doctrine of him that sitteth orderly in the Chair, is pure and good, though the breath which cometh from him do savour. These things therefore considered, let M. jewel make Impure digressions, not sparing to beraie his own clothes in a fowl way and intent, so that he may get some dust or dirt, to hurl after ● ᵉ heels of Popes and Cardinals. Yet all this concerneth but manners only, and should not in any Indifferent judgement or mean discretion, remove a Christian from the steadfastness of his faith. But now A third kind of Common Places which I find resorted unto of M. jewel, Yea rather pointed out unto us by him, is so wide and so dangerous, that a man shall not only go quickly out of his way in following them by himself, but also when God shall send him a Guide to conduct him in the way, 〈…〉 be uncertain and doubtful 〈…〉 means as M. jewel 〈…〉. It seemeth that now 〈…〉 long since intended Purposes of the 〈…〉 almost come to their 〈…〉 there lacketh no more now, but that, by Open Apostasy, he make the faith of Christ to be forsaken: and that, not so much as the name thereof, shall be suffered in the world. Speak I this without cause? Let any Indifferent man be judge. For take the foundations away from an house, and can it continue any space together? Take all credit away, betwixt man and man in this trade of life, and will there be left any Occupying to and fro? If no Authority and law be in a Common wealth, can the state thereof endure? What is that among Christians which hath brought them unto the Faith, and Stayed, and Governed them in it? Is it not the Authority of the Church, Commending the Doctrine of Christ unto us, By Fathers, By Counsels, By Custom and Tradition, And by Succession of Bishops even from S. Peter hitherto? Preparation for the Antichrist Among all which, if no one, may safely be leaned unto, what remaineth in all the world worthy of credit? And except there be an Authority and Order, which we may and must follow, what Faith can we have at all? But who is he, that prepareth such ways for the Antichrist? Or who shaketh the Hearts and Consciencies of Christians, even from the very bottom and foundations of them? Marry, except you BEWARE of him, M. jewel among other, is he. And either he keepeth yet still in store, some secret Revelations, by which perchance he will persuade the world, (which is incredible) Or else (As far as we may gather by his Reply) neither himself hath any Faith, neither will suffer any other to be quiet in it. Like a Rhetorician, which for Glory or Gain sake, feareth nothing so much as to be found Tongetied in any matter, especially professing to speak aptly and copiously in every matter, And to that end provideth his Common places to be in a readiness. For witnesses and Against witnesses. For Rumours and against Rumours, For trying out a matter by Racking, and Against racking: So hath M. jewel done. divinity brought to Rhetoric He hath brought Divinity down to Rhetoric, And, as though the kingdom of God consisted in Talk, and not in Virtue and Power, so doth he show unto his diligent Readers, the Art how to weaken the adversaries stays and Authorities, and in answering all other men, yet for their own parts never to be answered. And to this end, serveth this worst kind of Common Places, of which I gene thee (Indifferent Reader) fair warning. As in example, For Custom, against Custom: For Fathers, against Fathers: For Counsels against Counsels: For Unity, against Unity: For Ceremonies, against Ceremonies: For Miracles, against Miracles. In which how M. jewel hath furnished himself, let it first be declared, and then afterward Considered. For Custom. If he doubt S. Paul, jew. 101. yet the very practice and continual Order of the primitive Church, fully declareth what Christ mente. And they say: Consuetudo est Optima Interpres Legum. Custom is the best Interpreter of the Law. Si De Interpretatione legis quaeratur. etc. If question happen to be moved, touching the meaning of a Law, first of all we must see, De legibus et Se natuscon sulto & Longa Consue. Si de. what order hath been used in the like Cases in times past. For the Custom and practice of the people, is the best expounder of the Law. Against Custom. THe Reason that S. Basile maketh of Custom and continuance, jew. 49. being well considered is very weak, both for many other good and Just causes, and also the same Custom, as it was never universally received, so upon better advise by Order of the Church, it was clean abolished. For wise men in God's cause have evermore mistrusted the Authority of Custom. The Heretics in old time named Aquarij, that in the holy Ministration used Water only, and no Wine, It is utterly untrue: for in his Epistles, ad jubaianun, Qui rinum, Pompeium. notwithstanding they manifestly broke Christ's Institution as our Adversaries do now, yet they upheld their doings therein, by Long Custom. But S. Cyprian being then alive, wrote thus against them. Victi ratione Opponunt Consuetudinem quasi Consuetudo sit maior Veritate. & caet. he speaketh not against aquarios but against the Catholics, which by Custom and Tradition confuted his Opinion concerning Rebaptizing of them, whom He 〈◊〉 had baptized before 97 Being overcome with Reason, they defend themself with Custom, as though Custom were better than the truth. We may not prescribe of Custom, but we must overcome with reason. Custom without truth is the Mother of error. Consuetudo, Initium ab aliqua Ignorantia vel simplicitate sortita, in usum per successionem corroboratur. Sed Dominus noster Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem, cognominanit etc. Custom either of simplicity, If ye allow Tertullian, why go your maidens with open ●ace: If ye allow him not, why use you his 〈◊〉 or of Ignorance, geating once an entry, is enured and hardened by succession, and is defended against the truth. For Christ our Lord called himself Truth, and not Custom, Let them take heed therefore, unto whom the thing seemeth new, that in itself is old. It is not so much the Novelty of the matter, as the Truth that proveth an Heresy. Whatsoever savoureth against the truth, it is an Heresy, be the Custom thereof never so old. These foresaid Places are Pro & Con. This that followeth, I can not tell where to set it. Whether, among those that make for Custom, or against it. But as I find it, so shall you have it. S. Augustine in this Caseys very reasonable his words be these: jew. 143 Vbi Authoritas desinit, ibi Consuetudo Maiorum Pro lege tenenda est: Where Authority faileth. This seemeth in some Case to make for Custom. But Consider what followeth in M. jewel. But having God's word and Christs' Institution, we want no Authority. In what steed then shall any Custom stand us, where the rudest Protestant in A whole Country, will crack and boast of it, that God's word is his warrant in all his procedings? But let us go to an other place. For Fathers. COncerning Ancient Fathers we commend them sufficiently, when we defend them earnestly, Or speak of them reverently. And there needeth not a Text for their praise, out of the Scriptures or Ancient History, when ourselves do actual? tender their Integrity of Estimation, And speak many fair and good words of them. So doth M. jewel: Sometimes Complaining or sorrowing that they are not rightly alleged. As, For proof hereof M. Harding allegeth the Authority of Dionysius wherein he doth jew. 26. Great wrong to that GOOD OLD FATHER, etc. Hypocrite Sometimes requiring them to be brought forth and believed: As, The matter being so weighty, and not yet thoroughly believed, jew. 23. it had been good for M. Harding, to have made proof thereof, by the authority of S. August. S. Jerome or some other OLD CATHOLIC Doctors. At an other time, Gentelly entreating the Reader to consider the place of the Doctor, and so sweetly leading him by reasoble request, that he can not choose but conceive much of the worthiness of the Father. As, Good Christian Reader, If thou have Chrysostom peruse this place, jew. 269 and weigh well his words: If thou have him not, yet be not overhasty of belief. At an an other time again: Vehemently inveighing against his Adversary, as though he did not esteem the Fathers. Which although D. Harding in that place do not, yet M. jewel, in taking him up for it, as if he had done it, declareth thereby his Zealous Affection towards them: As, I alleged the saying of S. basil: jew. 169 That the Church etc. The saying of S. Jerome: That the noise etc. Likewise the saying of Chrysostom: Common Petitions etc. But WHAT THAN. saith M Harding. Why WHAT THAN? Thinketh M Harding that the Authority of Arnobius, S. Ambrose. S. Augustine. S. Jerome. S. Chrysostom, And other holy Fathers is so light, that he is able to blow them all away, with these two vain Syllables, WHAT THAN? To be short, when himself directly esteemeth them, it moveth the Reader to think also well of them: As in Example, S. Augustine is very REASONABLE. jew. 14. Verily Gregory's Authority in this case were right good, 188. if he would say the word. It is S. Ambrose Interpretation. 199. With other like Phrases. To this place it may also be referred, when he craveth earnestly for the express words of the Fathers: As. If the holy Fathers had so belewed, jew. 148. they had words, and were able to utter it. Was there no man then in the world, 302. for the space of six hundred years, able to Express his name? As though he would say: All the old Fathers of the Church, 306. both Greeks and Latins wanted words and Eloquence, and either they could not, or they durst not Cal the Head of the Church by his own peculiar name. As who should say that M. jewel is so addicted to the Fathers, that if any one of them say the word, he Subscribeth and yieldeth. Against Fathers. FAthers, because they are many in numbers, therefore to make the matter more easy for the Conquering of them, it is politicly done, to set forth a General Exception against them except they appear by a certain day, which is, before the 600. year after Christ, shallbe gone or Expired. for in deed how M. jewel taketh the six hundred year, I can not yet readily tell. As: jew. 123 Dionysius, one of late years, and therefore Led away with many errors. S. Bernard is A Doctor but of Late years: 116. Therefore his authority We must weigh the Lighter. another policy is, to cause the Alleging of Fathers to be generally suspected: As, There is no way so easy, to beguile the simple, jew. in his preface to the reader. as the name and countenance of Ancient Fathers. The Arian Heretics alleged for themselves, the Ancient Father Origen● the Nestorian Heretics alleged the Council of Nice: The Donatian heretics alleged S. Cyprian: The Pelagian heretics alleged S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, and S. Augustine. And Dioscorus the heretic, alleged Gregorius, Cyrillus, and Athanasius, and compleined openly in the Council, even in like sort, and as justly, as M. jewel doth now: Ego defendo dogmata sanctorum Patrum: In Con. Chalc. Act. 1. Ego illorum habeo testimonia, non obiter nec in transcursu sed in ipsorum libris posita. I maiinteine the Doctrine of the holy Fathers. I have their witnesses, not uttered by Chance, or by the way, but written in their books. Also to deny the Authority of the testimony is one way: and is done sometimes boldly and jestingly. As, Concerning the Epistle of Athanasius to Felix, and certain other Epistles, that be extant in his name. A scarecrow (saith M. jewel) stuffed with straw, jew. 332. and set upright, may Seem a far of to be A man.. Even so a forger of lies and fables, pricked up in the apparel of Ancient names may seem to the Ignorant An old Catholic Father. Again: The manner of his utterance is childissh, 133. and babbling, empty of matter, and full of words without measure. The substance of the whole is nothing else but flattering. etc. Sometimes again covertly and courteously: As, The Decretal Epistle, jew. 264 that is abroad under the name of julius seemeth to savour of some corruption Likewise: 212. This Exposition of Chrysostom is very strange, 303. and agreeth with few others. Again: Although this place of Chrysostom import not greatly (as who should say, I would not care much to grant all that he writeth) Yet being well shifted and considered, it may seem very suspicions, as nothing agreeing, either with that went before, or with that followeth after, but altogether savouring of some corruption. Furthermore though the person of the Father can not be denied, yet the Estimation of by in may be hindered. As: This Augustine, whom M. Harding calleth Saint, jew. 185 and some others, the Apostle of England, was not that Great Learned Father S. Augustine etc. but an Hypocrite, a superstitious man, Cruel, Bloody, and proud above measure. Again: He wrote to Rome for resolution of certain questions etc. so Childisshe & so Rude that a man may well doubt, Yet S. Gregory answered them with out any such rusly king. 310. whether Augustine were ruder, or the people. Item: touching Victor that wrote the story of the Vandals, he is neither scripture, nor Council, nor Doctor, nor writeth the Order or Practise of the Primitive Church. Again. Unto this superstition S. Jerome himself gave great Occasion, many times, both writing and speaking unseemly of the state of Marriage. Now to make this matter more likely, jew. 52. M. jewel doth cunningly, to number him among other that were guilty: As, In this error were divers of the Old learned Fathers. Tertullian saith, I Allow not Marriage. Origine saith, No man can offer the continual sacrifice, unless he be a Virgin. S. Jerome saith: It is not good to touch a woman, Therefore it is ill to touch a woman. Upon occasion of which error the people sometimes forbore the Churches, where Martyrs were buried. To conclude, there is a certain figure of Replyinge, when in granting unto some matter, you secretly take it away again? As, I may not disgrace the credit of this story, jew. 136. albeit in Sozomenus and Nicephorus, of both whom, the same is recorded, there be sundry things that may be well filled. By these helps then, A young Divine shall meetly well be furnished to keep his tongue occupied withal, lest a sudden silence should cast him into a Confusion. For Old Counsels. touching the Authority of Counsels, because they seem often times to vary, jew. 124 Gelasius thought it best to take up the matter thus: In gestis Conciliorum etc. When so ever Contrariety of sentence, Dist. 50. Domi. sancto. is found in the Acts of Counsels, Let the sentence of that Council be taken, that hath the elder and better Authority. For Provincial Counsels, against the General. GOD hath oftentimes restored his Church, jew. 〈◊〉 and reformed Abuses and Heresies, by particular conference, within several Realms and Countries. As we see by these private Counsels holden at Carthage under S. Cyprian: At Neocesaria in Pontus: At Ancyra in Galatia. And by other like without any consent of a General Council. So likewise saith S. Ambrose, against Secundus and Palladius: The bishops of the East part, and so the bishops of the west, have ever used severally to assemble themselves together as occasion was offered, Not in contempt of the whole world. And to reform their churches by themselves, without trobling of the whole world. Si provocandum putaverint. etc. If they think it needful to appeal from their own bishops, jew. 235 Conc. Aphric. cap. 6. Let them not Appeal, but only unto Counsels to be holden within the country of Aphrica. Against Counsels. Tyb being Emperor, when he heard of the wonderful works that were wrought by Christ in jury, jew. 18. thought therefore, he was a God, and promoted A Bill unto the Council, that Christ might be proclaimed, and taken for a God. But the Council was otherwise bend, and would allow him for no God. Tertullian laugeth at their folly: his words be these: In Apolog. Apud vos de humano arbitrio Divinitas pensitatur etc. Among you the divinity and state of God, is weighed by man's judgement. Except God please man, God (among you) shallbe no God. Now therefore, man must be Good and favourable unto his God. The Like folly seemeth to be in them, that think God's Truth to be no truth, unless the consent of a Council allow it for truth. At this might be true, if the Holyghost had not promised unto the Church to carry with it for ever, and to instruct it. Again, God's Truth is truth in itself: yet unto us it is not known, but by means. Now among those means, which is the most worthy? The text of the Scripture, which except some body tell me, I shall not know, in what estimation to have it: the repor of a few men of our own parish or Country? Or the determination & consent of a general or provincial Council? I should think, that, seeing we come to faith by means of men whom we credit, it were not amiss to hearken Chief after the voice of a general Council, where, As great authority & as worthy of credit is represented, as may be possibly found in all the world. But M. jewel is afeard o● a folly. and like a wise man, and such as worketh surely, he careth for none but fo● God himself: and Let men tell him wha● they list, he hangeth not upon the Authority of any of them all, Or of all together, receiving of Gods own mouth (I trow) immediately, that which confirmeth him in his faith and religion. jew. 207. Cicero saith very well of himself: Nihil nobis opus erat lege, de quibus nihil esset actum legibus. To restore me from exile, I needed no Law, against whom there was nothing done by law. If the Saxon Like one way and the Palsgrave an other, may both defend themselves by these Examples and contemn what so ever Authority in Christendom? joshua ca 24. So may we likewise say, we need no Council to restore God's Truth, that was taken away from us without a Council. Every prince is bound in the whole, to see the reformation of his own Church and Countri. Neither will God hold him excused, if he say, I will tarry till all other Princes, and the whole world do the Like. joshua that noble prince, when he had assembled all the tribes of Israel before him, thus he spoke unto them. Si malum vobis videtur etc. If ye think it il to serve the Lord, ye shall have your choice, But I and my house will serve the Lord. Is it Lawful then, to refuse the Nicene Council. even in this respect only as it consisted of Chief heads and Governors of all Christendom. Tertul. aduersu● Praxe●. It pleased God to plant his Church in this Realm. three hundred years, before the first General Council was holden at Nice. The lords hand is not shortened. He is likewise able now, to reform, the same by his holy word, without tarieing for a General Council. For Antiquity. TErtullian saith: Hoc adversus omnes Haereses valet, id esse verum, quodcunque prius etc. This mark prevaileth Against all Heresies: That is the Truth, that was used first: That is false and corrupt, that was brought in afterward. And therefore the holy fathers in the Council of Nice made this general shout, and agreed upon the same, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the Ancient orders hold still, referring themselves thereby, to the use and order of the Primitive Church. contrariwise, Valentinus Martion, and other Like Heretics, thought themselves wisest of all others, and therefore utterly refused, (as M. Harding and his fellows do now) to stand to the Apostles orders. Thus Ireneus writeth of them: Irenaeus lib. 3. ca 2. Dicunt se, non solum presbyteris etc. They will say, that they are wiser not only then other Priests, but also then the Apostles, and that they have found out the perfit truth. Against Antiquity. NOtwithstanding it appear by S. Augustine, S. Cyprian, jew. 12● and others, that Infants in the primitive Church in sundry places, were admitted to the holy Communion, yet afterward upon good advise, they were justly removed from it, because that benig in that age, they were not thought able to examine and prove themselves, according to the doctrine of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11 and so to eat of that Bread, and Drink of that Cup. By this reckoning then, they of the primitive Church, understood not S. Paul so well as the aftercummers. And so hath Tertullians' sailing little effect, how, That is the Truth that was used first. It will serve also in this place, all that M. jew. hath gathered: Against Fathers and custom, as above is declared. For Unity. GOD hath other ways and means (saith M. jew.) than by the Government of the bishops of Rome, whereby he hath ever governed his Church, and preserved Unity. How proveth he this? Mary. S. Cyprian saith, Ideo plures etc. Therefore there be many bishops in the Church, jew, 260 that one running, into heresies the rest may help e & again: Cypr. lib. 3. epi. 13. lib. 4. epi. 9 The Church is preserved in. Unity by the consent of bishops agreeing in one. And to this end S. Hiecome saith, as is before alleged: Noverint Episcopi etc. Let bishops under stand, In epi. ad Titum cap. 1. that they ought to rule the Church as all in one. Against Unity. Immediately upon that foresaid words, followeth a Common place against Unity. As if M. jewel would plainly protest, that when it maketh any thing for his side, than it shallbe allowed and praised, And that when the adversary would turn it to his purpose, then shall it be little or nothing worth. As in example: jew. 260 Hieron. contra Luciferianos. S. Jerome saith: Nomine unitatis & fidei, Infidelitas scripta est. Infidelity hath been written, under the Name of faith, and Unity. So likewise saith the wise man. In tanto viventes ignorantiae bello, Sap. 14. tot & tanta mala Pacem appellabant. Whereas they Lived in such a war of ignorance so many and so great mischiefs they called Unity. What remaineth then now to be followed of certainty? Or what stay shall there be for a right meaning affection and troubled conscience? If no such hold is to be taken of Fathers, Counsels, Custom etc. but that the Enemy will make it to be forsaken utterly, or dangerously doubted of: what Refuge is there left, or what Authority? Shall the bishops which are for the time, rule in the causes of Religion? That surely is already so appointed by God, and that if it were otherwise, should chiefly be wished for and procured. But what hope is there to have this granted of M. jewel? Or if at one time he will yield unto it, at an other he will deny it. For sometimes he will have all Bishop's equal: And what order then can be set there, where no one is better than an other? Sometimes he will have differences and distinctions of Authority among them. Yet then how little shall that prevail, when he will not be obedient to that Authority? As in example. For equality of Bishops. S. Jerome writeth thus unto Euagrius. jew. 2● Si Authoritas quaeritur. etc. If we seek for Authority, the world is greater than the City of Rome. Wheresoever there is a Bishop, whether he be at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constantinople or at Rhegium. etc. he is of like worthiness and of like priesthood. Because we are not only led inwardly by God's Spirit, jew. 257. but also outwardly by our senses, therefore hath Christ appointed not one man to be his Vicar General over all, but every of his Apostles, and so every Priest, to be his Vicar within his division. So saith Eusebius B. of Rome. Caput Ecclesiae Christus est. Epist. 3 etc. Christ is the head of the Church. And his vicars be the Priests, that do their Message in the Church, in the steed of Christ. Every Bishop hath a portion of the Flock allotted unto him, jew. 266. Cyp li. 1. Epi. 3. which he must rule and govern, and yield account unto the Lord for the same. For distinction among Bishops. The Decrees of the Council of Nice, jew. 336. Conc. Aphric. Ca 105 have committed both the inferior clerks, and also the Bishops, unto their Metropolita●es. The Fathers of the Council of Aphrica have decreed thus, that the B. of the first See, jew. 240 Ca 6. be not called the chief of Priests, or the highest Priest, or by any other like title, but only the Bishop of the first See. In the Council of Constantinople it is written thus: jew. 245 Const. 1. Ca 2. Let the Bishops of Alexandria have the charge only of the East, the honour of primaci ever reserved to the church of Antioch. More to this place might be brought, out of M. jew. works, especially Pa. 250. 267. and. 286. But by what Primate, patriarch, or high Bishop would he be ruled, which putteth the Spiritual Government of the Church, in the hands of Temporal Princes, and maketh every Bishop the Vicar of Christ? In such sort, as if there were no higher or better person than he, for Authority, in all the world. And therefore i● these points hitherto, there will be no hold or stay. For Succession. But perchance all things shallbe determined by Succession. jew. 277. For Irenaeus sayeth: Presbyteris illis. etc. We ought to obey the Bishops in the church that have their succession from the Apostles, which together with the succession of the Bishopric, have received the certain gift of the Trnthe, according to the will of the Father. This in deed would serve, if it were considered, but M. jewel liketh it not. For in the next side before, he saith of the Pope. etc. Against Succession. THey Feast and cheer themselves, jew. 276. and Smooth the world with vain talk. But S. John sayeth: Nolite dicere. etc. Matth. 3. Never say (Peter or) Abraham was our Father. S. Paul speaking of his Successors saith thus: Act. 20. Equidem Scio. etc. I know, that after my departure from you, there shall Ravening wolves come amongst you, that shall not spare the flock. And S. Jerome sayeth: Dist. 40. Non est fa. Non sunt sanctorum filii. etc. They be not evermore the Children of holy men, that sit in the rooms of holy men. But notwithstanding all these foresaid perplexities and doubts, at length I trow we shall come to some Resolution and quietness. For the word of God and the scripture shallbe the judge. And yet, here also is a great uncertainty. For M. jewel, for the most part appealeth to the express word in the Scripture. His Reply is full of his brags therein, and with such fair promises the greater sort is seduced. One example in a matter so manifest is sufficient. As: For the Word of God or Scripture. SPeaking, of the schoolmen's conclusions about Christ's presence under the forms of bread and wine, he sayeth: We may not here account, jew. 99 what may be in either of them, by drift of vain fantasy: but rather we ought to consider, what Christ in the first Institution thereof did, and what he commanded to be done. Here lo, he refuseth to have the sense discussed, but sticketh to the bare text. But it will not be always so, as appeareth by these Examples. Against the Word of God or Scripture. CHrist did not therefore so abase himself to wash his Disciples feet, jew. 117. to the intent they according to the letter, should do the same, but in himself to show them a perfit Example of humility. etc. In like manner, Math. 18 10. &. 8 Christ set a Child before his Disciples, and willed them all to be as Children. He bade them to shake of the dust from their Shows, and to carry neither Rod, nor Scrip, about them, and to salute no man upon the way: not, that they should practise these things according to the rigour of the words, but to the intent, that by the same, they might be induced to a deeper understanding: And S. Jerome sayeth. jew. 150. Whosoever understandeth the Scriptures, Hieron. ad Gal. li. 3. ca 5. otherwise then the sense of the holy Ghost requireth, by which holy Ghost the Scriptures were written, although he be not yet departed from the church, yet he may well be called an Heretic. The sense rather and the meaning of the Scriptures is to be taken, jew. 198. Orig. ad Ro. ca 3. li. 3. jew. 211. than the words. To say, The word of God, only because it is written or spoken, is available of itself without understanding, is a Superstitious and jewish kind of folly. Let us make now an end of this Chapter, for there is no end of questioning and altering, as far as is to be learned of M. jewel. And my Deduction or Argument is short. When the Son of man cometh, shall he find think you, faith upon the earth. Lucae 18. If the sense of the Scripture, be the thing that is to be honoured and followed: And if that Se●se is not to be perceived of every one that understandeth the Grammatical construction and exposition of the words: we must learn it of some body beside our own selves. And they of whom we learn it, must be such, as upon whose Authority we may build and never change: But neither by Fathers, nor Counsels, nor Customs, nor present state of Bishops, nor by the text itself of the Scripture, that Authority can be established (for by Master jewels account, never a one of them doth fully satisfy in any matter) ergo we are left upon this reckoning altogether unquiet, and to seeking where to stay our Consciencies. Is not this a perfect Religion? Or is not this a skilful Professor of it, by whom it is brought to pass that no Faith at all, can be appointed unto us? The Catholic yet, may soon be in quiet. For obeying that visible Church, of which the Pope is a visible head, he leaveth to the determination of it, all things pertaining to Counsels, Customs, Fathers and Scriptures. But these fellows, that know not, What to follow or forsake, but by the Testimony of Counsels, Customs, Fathers. etc. and yet dare not fully trust those self same things or persons which are their guides: what a miserable case are they in, concerning themselves, and how Artificially, do they take Faith, clean away in some, and weaken it exceadingly in other? BEWARE therefore of them by time (Indifferent Reader.) And concerning the steadfastness which should be of Faith, be not made alltogeather indifferent, through this last and worst kind of M. jewels Common Places. Thus having declared evidently, that M. jewels great book in Quantity, is of simall matter in substance, and, that his Common places and Digressions are so many, that his strait following of the question, and his direct Answers to the purpose must be soon reckoned: I trust, the Indifferent Reader will BEWARE of him, and not much marvel at that Bo●lke, where little Corn is sure to be found: Nor think those vessels to be full, whose boards are long, and whopes of great compass. Now, to make his behaviour more plain yet and manifest, let us come to certain other Specialties, and look more particularly into his book. And first, it shallbe worth the while to consider, how M. jewel hath ordered D. Harding: In Perverting his meaning, In disgrating his Authorities, In wrangling with him, In Dissimbling and butting with him, In Refelling one truth by an an other, And in Courteous (as they say) reporting of him: Which ended, I wilcome, in the third book, to other men: as, Ancient Fathers, Later Doctors, and so forth, shortly proving it unto thee (Indifferent Reader) that M. jewel hath so abused himself, And thee, And them all, more or less, one way or other: that he will never be able to save his honesty. First then concerning the first point. That M. jewel perverteth D. hardings meaning CAP. 4. I Will leave it to thy further consideration (Indifferent Reader) leisuerly to examine it by thyself, how much it maketh to the ending of controversies, or bringing of these matters to some Issue, that such as be Doers therein, should diligently intend unto the sense of the Adversary, and apply thereunto a just and direct Answer. For if it be otherwise, the Objection first of all, remaineth unanswered: And then, new matter of disputation and talk is ministered, through the perversity of the Answerer. stomachs also do rise, Books are multiplied, Readers wearied, And the further men go forward, in the way, as it were, of finding out the point of the question, the more intricate it is daily made unto them, by making and seeking of bypathes without the question. If I would conclude that we are moved and warned not only by words but also by other Signs, And to that purpose would make mention of the bell, which warneth us, either to come to Sermons, either to attend more devoutly at some special time of the Service: If my Adversary in this case, would tell the Readers, that my meaning is to teach the people by a Bell rope, and to make one of the great Bells in the steeple, A Preacher, and a les●er one in the Quire a Deacon, to what purpose were our reasoning, or what end were like to be, of such a beginning? But as I said, these things I leave to thy further consideration, choosing rather by Examples to verify my sayings, than (as the indignity of the matter requireth) to inveigh against this foul Demeanour of perverting the Sense of any man's sayings, which M. jewel useth. We are bound to follow Christ's Examples, Hard. 28 Quoad substantiam, non quoad externam ceremoniam. For the substance not for the outward Ceremony. Here is great pain taken, jew. 22. The first Example. to prove that Christian men, in the ministration of Christ's supper, are not bound to follow the Example of Christ. Again: Why doth he defend his Sole Receiving, contrary to his own wisshing, 33. and contrary to the Example of Christ, as himself confesseth. You say not truly. But contrariwise D. hardings conclusion is, that we are bound to follow Christ's Example, And that we are not yet forbid Absolutely, from Sole Receiving, though Christ himself Received with company. Because he did not that, for an Example, as being a mere Accident touching that which he then intended, no more than he meant to charge us with Receiving in a Parlour, Or Chamber, Or at Night time only, Or sitting at supper, because all these things are found to have been observed of Christ, and therefore (as some froward Heretic might say) that we should follow his Example. The Communion hath his name of thee, jew. 27 ●nother Example. effect, for that it joineth us to God: Ergo saith M. Harding, if signifieth not the Communicating of many together. No he sayeth not so, but thus rather: Hard. 2● Ergo you can not think yourself to have an Argument against, Private Mass, of the word (Communion) as though the Sacrament were called a communion, in consideration of many receivers together. In which sense in deed, if it be a Communion, then is it no Private Mass. But, as the Truth is, and as D. Harding taketh the word, it standeth well enough with Sole Receiving. And the party receiving alone, is joined to God, and Communicateth with Christ the Head, and his whole body. Note further, that D. Harding made his foresaid Argument, to Answer yours (M. jewel) which are so deceived, that wheresoever you find mention of Communion, thereupon straitewayes ye conclude against Sole Receiving, Or Private Mass. Whereby it is evident, that you have abused him much, & defiled yourself not a little, in reasoning, as it were in D. hardings name, after this fashion. jew. 30▪ It is called Communion. Ergo it may be Private. jew. 30▪ It is called Communion. Ergo it may be received of one alone. jew. 30▪ It is called Communion. Ergo the Priest may receive it without Communicates. Again: jew. 37. By the Communion all faithful are joined together: Ergo the Priest may say Private Mass. Serapions' boy ministered the Sacrament to his Master: jew. 46. The iij. Example. Ergo Serapions boy said private Mass. D. harding sayeth not so, but: Ergo the Example of Serapion (which Hard. Fol. 34 received alone) confirmeth our purpose of Single Communion. And note, that in this kind of Peruersion, M. jewel continueth through the whole first Article, turning the to saying of Mass, which D. Harding alleged for proof of Sole Rerceaving only, either in all convenient times and places, Generally: either at Mass time and in the Church, Consequently. D. Harding, The iiij. Example. in translating a testimony of S. Hierom making for Sole receiving, englished also a piece of Persius the poets Verse, as he found it in the Text of his Author. Wherein, though he did but as faithful Interpreters do use, yet M. jewel, not only taketh it so, as if D. harding of his own head, had put it in, but also, as though he meant to apply it to his purpose in the question of private Mass. His words be these: Here, M. Harding interlaceth (not, jew. 51. he interpreteth only S. Jerome, and addeth nothing of his own) other matter of the office of wedlock, the words of Persius the pagan Poe●e, and the superstitious ceremony of the Heathens, as I take it, little pertaining unto his Mass. True it is (M. jewel) Such gear pertaineth no more to the Mass, than yoke fellows do to Priests, except both should be set to the Cart. And wherefore then do you so speak, as though it were any part of D. Harding●s meaning? It is a Sacrament of Unity: therefore if it be abused, we may seek no Redress. It is nothing like: but thus he concludeth: Ergo let them take heed who moved by slender reasons for both kinds, do rashly and dangerously condemn the Church, for giving of it under one. For this in deed, is a manifest breach of unity. The fruit of the Sacrament dependeth not of the ●ourmes of bread and wine. jew. 99 The sixth Example. Therefore we may break Christ's Institution. The more Impiouse this conclusion is, the more wicked are you, to lay it to his charge, which at all hath none such. For thus he Reasoneth. The fruit of the Sacrament, Hard. fo. 50. pa. 2. dependeth not of the outward forms of bread and wine, but redoundeth of the Virtue of flesh and Blood of Christ, which under either kind is wholly and verily present. Ergo the church standeth upon good grounds, in Minisstring the Sacrament, under one kind unto the people, by which no less fruit cometh unto them, then if they received under both. The Priest consecrateth the Sacrament, and offereth the Sacrifice: Therefore the people is not bound to Received in both kinds. Again: The Church hath her liberty: ergo she is not bound to Christ's Institution. Be not ashamed (M. jewel) to read D. hardings words again: And mark then whether you deal like an honest man with him, or no. The some of his discourse, is this: The Sacrament may be considered 2. ways: Either as it is a Sacrifice, Or as it is a Sacrament. Concerning the first, the forms of bread and wine both, are necessary, Sacrifice. that the shedding of Christ's blood, And separating of his life from his body, Har. 51. may the better be represented. And in this part, D. Har. speaketh nothing, of the people's Recea●ing: though in deed out hereof, as out of A Principle, it could afterwards be deducted, that the people are not bound to receive in both kinds. But it maketh much to the purpose, to place every thing aright: as, though your head be part of your body, yet to set that and your heel together, were no good fashion. Concerning the second, because it is respected as meat, Sacrament. which the people do● receive, to Preparation or Preservation of Body and Soul into everlasting life, in which meat the Substance, and not the Form is sought for, therefore the Church is at her liberty, (not to break Christ's Institution as you M. jewel do jangle) but to serve them, either with both kinds, either one alone, as it shall seem expedient. Some men do loath wine, Some people can hardly get, jew. 113. The 8. Example. some can hardly keep wine ergo. there must be made a law general, that the whole world shall Communicate in one kind. D. Har. words are these, after the foresaid causes alleged: Har. 56. Ergo, it had been beside reason, to have bound all to the necessity of both kinds. For there be two extremes, in the middle of which is the truth: All must receive in both kinds, Is that Protestants heresy: Truth in the middle of Extremes. Against which, D. Har. in his place concludeth. The whole world must receive in one kind, Is an other heresy, which M. jew. forceth here, upon D. Har. & yet he neither spoke it, nor thought it, I am sure. the middle & Catholic way is, that, It is an indifferent thing in itself, the Say people to receive in one or both kinds, And that the Churches order & counsel herein is to be followed, without any further vain bragging of Christ's Institution, as though that heretics were that expounders thereof. judge therfeore whether M. jewel hath not in his place done like a jolly clerk, so to mysconster a plain sense & meaning. M. Har. would have us put God's word to daving, The 9 Example. jew. 121. Slanderously. And none otherwise to be obedient to Christ's Commandment, then if a few bishops gathered at Trident, shall allow it Who would not think, upon this report of M. jew. y● D. Har. had spoken blasphemy against God himself. Yet he said no worse than this: Har. 60. We condemn not the Commnnion under both kinds but confess, it might be restored again, by the Authority of the Church lawfully assembled in a General Council etc. And is there any harm in this? Specially being proved sufficiently that the Lay people to receive in one or both kinds, is not commanded precisely & necessarily by God? But this is a General perversity of M. jew. through this whole Article, to burden the Catholics with the Contempt of God's word, and Christ's Institution, in that they minister unto the laity, under one kind whereas, to speak Indifferently, the matter is yet in controversy, between us and him with his fellows: Or if it be certain unto them, that it is against Christ's Institution, the contrary is as certain also which us. So that it is very pevisshly done, to frame the Catholics Arguments, not according to that Principle which they followed in making them (As, that to Receive in one kind or both is Indifferent) but according to the measure of that heretical conclusion, in which the Catholics do withstand them, As, that, it is Christ's Commandment, the people to receive in both kinds. The bread which Christ blessed at Emaus, The 10. example. and gave unto his two Disciples, was the Sacrament, And, as soon as they knew him in breaking of the bread, Har. he vanished away from their sight, ere that he took the cup into his hands: Ergo, saith D. Harding, they received in one kind. But how taketh M. jewel the Antecedent here? He maketh an Exclamation, Or he taketh an Indignation, Or he falleth into a Lamentation, Or surely he speaketh with much Affection. O (saith he) what miserable straits these men be driven into. jew. 125 Schoffer. To make up their tale, they are glad to say, that Christ lacked leisure. Sir, if you find any such blasphemous word, in D. hardings book, I will thank you for giving us warning: but seeing there is none such, what haste were you in, to be so perverse and impudent? Surely, there is some occasion, why you cry out first, And then accuse D. Harding, for speaking so of Christ. And in deed in your Reply, the Reader will not perceive but you inveigh most justly, with, O what miserable etc. For the words, which immediately go before written in a distinct letter, as if they were all D. hardings, are these: But Christ strait way vanished from their sight, Falsifier upon the breaking of the bread: And therefore had NO LEISURE to deliver the other portion: neither is there any mention made of the Cup. These you attribute to D. Harding, but that which you put in the middle of, Christ's Lack of LEISURE, is not at all in D. Harding. Why cry you then upon the miserable streictes that we are driven into, whereas ourselves made them not? Or what a miserable juggler are you, to number it as in D. hardings own text, that Christ lacked leisure, which at all is not there: And afterwards to Cry out against him, for saying that, which is of your own putting in only, & not of his? The sick man's mouth was dry: The 11. Example. jew. 134 Scoffer. Ergo he could not receive the Cup. Who would make such reasons but M. Harding? But M. Har. maketh them not: Ergo, who would be so blind or Wilful, in conceiving an other man's reason, but M. jew? For D. Harding gathereth his Argument thus: Bassus the Archepriest, washed the mouth of Simeon lying sick & feeble, Har. before he gave him the divine Sacrament, And, such procuring of moisture had been needless, if Simeon should have received the holy Cup: Ergo he received under one kind only. Where find you here M. jew. that he could not drink, because he was dri●? It appeareth that yourself at this place had taken of some Cup to much, which could either mock in an earnest matter so drilie, or understand a reasonable argument so dronkenly. I can not see what necessity is in this reason. jew. 140 The 12. Example. The man is fantic, Or lieth Speechless: Ergo he can not receive the Sacrament bread. In deed your eyes herein serve you well. and every reasonable man will bear you witness, that no necessity, is in this Argument. But what necessity was there, why you should not rightly, either perceive Or report D. Harding'S reason? For thus it is: The Sacrament was powered into the mouth of him, Har● which in his sickness demanded his housel, And ere he died, fell into frenzy, or became speechless: Ergo it was given, under onekind and in form of wine. For how think you, M. jewel, have you seen or read, that when men have been extreme sick, Bread hath been powered into their mouths? by reason them, it was wine which is said to have been powered. Consider also what followeth in D. Harding, out of the Council of Toledo: where you shall find it proved, that Some sick men are so unable, to take the Sacrament in form of bread, that they received only A draft of our Lords Cup. Therefore, you are much deceived, which think D. Har. to be as mad as you, and of frenzy or lack of Speech to gather, that they received in Form of bread. If the Manichees would not believe Leo or Augustine, jew. 147 The 13. Example. Wickedly. that Christ had one body, how much less would they believe M. Harding, that Christ hath two bodies, the one in the Bread, the other in the cup, And each wholly in the other? Where saith D. Harding so? In no place at all, you may be assured. but this is that which you carp at, M. jewel. The Catholics believe, and D. Harding for his part confesseth, that under either kind, whole Christ is verily present. Har. Fol. 50. Christ therefore is not divided, by one, Or two, Or more, as your blasphemous In●ention dare make, but, the self-same Christ, is by divers and sundry ways dispensed. For in A natural and lesser Example: Your Anima, Life, Or Sowle, is but one: the same is Whole in your little finger, Whole in your thumb, and in every part of your body, Whole. Yet, you have not (I trow) so many lives by tale, as you have toes and fingers. Now, if your brethren, Or other unlearned, will not perceive this true Principle, that, Anima est tota in toto, & tota in qualibet part, which yet yourself, I trust, do admit, how little can they comprehend of Christ's whole presence, under either kind of the Sacrament? And how desperate are you, to make some believe, that D. hardings opinion is, that one body of Christ, is in the Bread, An other in the Cup? Whereas you can not be ignorant, of the Catholic and Received Faith herein. M. harding, The 14. Example. jew. 158 Fancy. seemeth to reason thus: Ephrem made homilies in the Syrian tongue: And S. Jerome translated the Bible into the Slavon Tongue: Ergo, the Common Service, was in the Latin or Greek tongue. Many things seem unto you M. jew. which are not so in deed. For D. Harding in these places which you allege, sustaineth the person, not of an Opponent (as to you it seemeth) which maketh argument for his own side, But of a Respondent (As his book declareth) which putteth away the objections of his adversary. Har. Fol. 74. 〈◊〉 75. As in Example: The homilies which Ephrem made in the Syrian Tongue, and the scripture which S. Jerome translated into the Slavon tongue, were not part of the Public service, nor served to that purpose: Ergo, It is to no purpose to prove by them, that the Public service was in the mother tongue. To this effect D. Har. answereth: And doth not at all gather by holy Ephrem Or S. Hierom, that the Service was in the Latin or Greek tongue. There is a proper Place to do every thing in, And the Opponent and Respondentes parts, are distinct one from the other. Here M. harding taketh in hand, The 15. Example. jew. 158 to Answer the Authorities by me alleged, And that with this special note of Remembrance in that margin, M. IVELS' ALLEGATION SOLUTED. It appeareth his Solutions be very short. For what so ever be alleged, it is sufficient for him, to say, WHAT THAN? For whereas I said etc. What a do●●pon no ●ccasi●● saugng M. jew. 〈◊〉. All this is soon Answered. For M. Har. saith, WHAT THAN? 〈◊〉 alleged the saying of S. Basile, That the sound etc. The saying of S. Jerome, THat the noise etc. Likewise of Chrysostom, COmmon petitions etc. But WHAT THAN? saith M. Harding, why WHAT THAN? Thinketh M. Harding, that the Authority of Arnobius, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Basile, S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom and other holy fathers is so light, that he is able to blow them all away, with these two vain syllables, WHAT THAN? Here lacketh no Invention, here lacketh no Amplification, but only a Just cause to bestow them upon. For in deed, D. Harding saith unto M. jewel (rolling in his Authorities) WHAT THAN? but he addeth further, No man denietb you this. How then, M. jewel? Doth D. Har. think, the authority of holy Fathers to be light? Or, that he is able to blow them all away, with two vain syllables? No verily his Spirit is not so mighty. But he directeth his (WHAT THAN) only to you, no Father yet, nor Holy one, asking, to WHAT END you be so earnest, in that which no man denieth you? Because he revereuceth the holy Fathers, therefore doth he admit their Authorities: but because it grieveth him to see them brought forth, for a show only and countenance to be made on your side, without any just occasion or purpose: therefore he demandeth of you, by a WHAT THAN, to show the cause wherefore you alleged them. You draw a fair length M. jewel, but you shoot at a wrong mark, Or at none rather at all. But he saith, The 16. Example. jew. 199 Needless Fear. The place of S. Paul, is doubt full etc. S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Chrysos. etc. understood it diversly. And will he therefore conclude thus: These Fathers mistake S. Paul's Sense, Ergo S Paul had no sense? Or, divers Doctors, touching this place, had diverse judgements: Ergo, we must have no judgement. Trouble not yourself M. jewel, with any of these doubts. for he giveth you no occasion. But in answering your argument, and not in forming any of his own, he requireth of you, 1. Cor. 14 that, S. Paul's sense, where he speaketh of the blessing, and speaking with Spirit, being so doubtful as it is, you should not so precisely conclude that he meaneth by praying in Spirit, ●ar. Fol. 〈◊〉 the praying with a noise of strange words, after your strange Interpretation: Or crack before the people, that S. Paul's words, are most manifest, that all public Service, should be in the Vulgar Tongue. Now let us consider M. hardings reasons. The state, saith he, The 17. Example, jew. 204. Slanderously. of the primitive Church was far unlike the state of the Church we be now in: Ergo we are not bound to S. Paul's Commandments. For shame of yourself, why make you D. Harding to speak so Contemptuously of the Apostle, and so proudly of himself? Har. 95. His mind rather is, that, It is no Commandment at all of the Apostle, because there were necessary occasions, to geave it in the primitive Church, which are not so necessary now: And so it ceaseth to be a Commandment unto us. As, that women should go covered, it was his express Commandment, yet now, I trust, you make no conscience of it, 1. Cor. 11 to suffer your Sisters to go with open face. Not because you Reason thus: we are not bound to the Apostles come mandment, but, because the state of this time, and that, being divers, you would interpret, that it continueth no more to be ● Commandment. Again he saith: The 18. Example. jew. 204 Some one or other in a parish understandeth somewhat of the Latin tongue: Ergo they ought to have the Serulce in a strange Tongue. Har. fol 95. Not so M. jewel, but: Ergo the latin tongue is not utterly Strange and unknown, And therefore not forbidden by S. Paul. The People is sufficiently instructed in Religion: The 10. Exemple. jew. 204 〈◊〉. They come together now, not so much to be instructed, as to pray: ergo, they ought to have the Service in a Strange tongue. Neither is this so, M. jewel, but Ergo there is no necessity, wherefore it should be in the vulgar. As, for this Absolute conclusion, that it ought to be in Latin, how can any Catholitie make it, Whereas it is confessed, that the Pope hath dispensed with the slavons to have their Service in the vulgar Tongue, And may, if cause so require, permit it also unto other Countries. It were good (saith M Harding) the people understood the Service. The 10. Example. jew. 206 Forget not this good Reader, that the People understood their Service M. Harding himself confesseth it were good. And why so? Yea but remember, good Reader, or else mark D. hardings own words, in which, he speaketh not absolutely of the people, but of people having humble and reverent hearts. And such to understand their Service it were (he granteth) good. but see what followeth in M. jewel. And why so? doubtless because is forced to see and say, that it would redound to the Glory of God, And to the great Cumfort and profit of the people. Therefore he faith, it WERE GOOD. whereof we may gather this argument, of the contrary: Then, that the people in this brute sort, is kept still in ignorance, Much making of nothing. not understanding any portion of their Common Service, by M. hardings confession, It is ill. And is it not lawful to do that is Good, to Redress that Is il, to seek God's glory, And the comfort of his People, without consent of a General Council? etc. It were Good M. jewel, every man to know, The Rules of physic, (to have thereby how to help himself) The Statutes of the Common Law, (the better to keep them,) The Counsel of God in working our Redemption: And may you then, well gather this Argument of the contrary, that it is ill to be ignorant of Physic, Law, & Divinity? Surely, lest you should take this advantage, And show after a wise sort your folly, Shameful Craft or Error. D. Harding provided very well, but that you divide his sentence, which is but one. For, after he had said: It were good the people having humble & reverent hearts understood the service: Har. I deny not: Although you make, not only a full point there, but also an end of your 31. division, as who should think, D. Har. had said as much as he will in this sentence: Yet there followeth immediately this adver sative, yet all, standeth not in understan dinge. By which he meaneth expressly, that though it were Good, the people to understand their service, yet it is not ill, to be unskilful thereof, because all standeth not in under standing, as he proveth out of two places of S. Augustine. Now (see your fidelity M. jewel) this Aduersative YET, which openeth the matter, And should go together with the former part of the sentence, you cut await clean from it, And begin your 32. division with it: that you might seem not to have Reasoned all in vain, in saying: This is good, ergo the other is ill. Whereas if you take D. Har. whole meaning, you shall find him to say no more in Effect, but, This is good: yet the other is not to be misliked. Have you any Privilege thus to pervert right Senses at your pleasure? Out of Origine M. Harding gathereth this Reason: The 21. Example. Few. 210 The Angels are delighted to hear us read or Pray although we of our weakness know not thoroughly what we speak: Ergo the people in Origens' time had the Common Service in a strange tongue. Not so M. jewel, although the Conclusion be true. but if you add further to the Antecedent as you should do, that the Reading of Psalms though not under standed, do provoke the Angels to help us, then followeth the right consequent in deed, Ergo there cometh profit to the Reader and hearer of the service in the Latin tongue, Har. 97. though it be not understanded. The people, The 22. Example: jew. 214 saith M. Harding, is gross and simple, And can not understand the scriptures, by hearing the same in the Mother tongue: Ergo, they must hear it pronounced in the Latin tongue. This seemeth to be a very simple Argument. It is so in deed, yet it is of your own making which mislike it. For D. Har. concludeth after an other sort, saying: Ergo, if our new masters will condemn the Latin service in the Latin Church, Had. Fol. 98. for that the people understand it not, they must also condemn, for a great part, the English service, Which, the common people, for the greatest part of the Scriptures read therein, do not understand. Service in the vulgar Tongue, The 23. Example. jew. 216 is cause of Schisms and errors: Ergo, within 6. hundred years after Christ, it was ministered in some place, in a tongue unknown unto the people. Falsely. The force of this conclusion is evident. A very child may soon see through it. Much more then, you see through it yourself. And do ye not then perceive, that it is of your own subtle making, and none of D. hardings, whose Reason is this: The people of those countries, Har. 99 where the service was in the vulgar tongue have continued in schisms and Errors: Ergo, example is not to be taken of them, for the service in the vulgar Tongue. Of S. Ambroses' words, M. Harding reasoneth thus: The 24. Example. jew. 246 Peter, was the Chief of the Apostles, Ergo, the Pope is Head of the universal Church. This Argument would be better considered. for as it is, it holdeth but weakly. Verily this is a weak Solution. But let the Argument be better considered, & form in those terms which D. Harding useth. S. Androw followed our Saviour before the S. Peter did, Amb. 2. Co. 12. Har. 106. And yet Androw received not the Primacy, but Peter: ergo, the Apostolic see & Church of Rome hath the Primacy. Consider you now what Answer you may devise. For this Argument doth not meddle, with the question of the Apostles pre-eminence among themselves, unto which only you bring it: but of Primacy in that Church of Christ, over which though other Apostles were general officers, yet the supremacy was singularly in S. Peter. Paul went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter The 25. Example. jew. 253. Ergo, the bishop of Rome, is Head of the Church. Folishely. Is it not time, M. jewel, either that some Physician, or God himself visit you, either to purge you of that cuil humour which occupieth your head: Or to take vengeance of you, which do so abuse your Readers in matters of so Great weight? D. Harding himself maketh no other Argument in this place, but of Authority. and the reason which he bringeth, and you pervert is Theodoritus an Ancient bishops: who writing to Pope Leo saith thus: Har. 108. If Paul, the preacher of truth and trumpet of the Holy Ghost ran to Peter to bring from him A determination And declaration, for them who at Antioch were in Argument and contention, concerning living after Moses' Law: much more we, which are but small & vile, shall run to your Throne Apostolic, that of you we may have salve for the sores of the Churches. Do you then, M. jewel, call this going for determination in a doubtful question nothing else but S. Paul's visiting of S. Peter? And would you have it conceived, either, that S. Peter was sick there & il at ease, Or that for good wills sake and courtesy only, S. Paul went to visit him? Byside this, D. Harding grounded not his Conclusion upon this argument, but that rather which followeth in Theodoritus, which is this: For in all things it is meet, that you have the chief doings: Ergo it followeth well of Theodoritus authority, that the Pope is supreme. The Church of Christ is one: Ergo, the Pope is an universal bishop. The 26. Eyample. jew. 255 That is an other question, Which D. Harding went not about to prove by Natural Reason, but his present conclusion is this: A multitude can not continue ONE, Har. 108. unless it be contained and holden in, by ONE: But the Church continueth ONE, Ergo: it must have ONE Head or Governor. Now, whether the bishop of Sarum or London, or Rome, or Constantinople etc. shallbe that One Head, over all the members of Christ's mystical body in earth, that may be afterwards considered: but in that mean time D. Har. goeth no further than Natural reason doth lead him, that, in A great multitude and company, it is meet to have One over the rest, if they shall be kept in Unity. Mankind dependeth most of sense: The 27. Example. jew. 257 Unsensible. Ergo the Pope is the Head of the Universal Church. Here is a very unsensible Argument▪ nor sense nor reason can make it good. Why make you it then? For D. Har. concludeth not so. But, whereas you in sayeing Christ only to be the Head of the Church, would infer that the Pope is not any Head at all: in Answering this your objection, he declareth that, mankind dependeth most of sense, and receiveth all learning and instruction of sensible things: Har. 108. Ergo notwithstanding Christ be the chief Head, yet because he liveth not visibly among us, 109. the Church hath need of a man to be her Governor, whom she may perceive by outward sense. Which man, whether he must be the Pope or no, he cometh not so low in this place. M. hardings reasons proceed thus: The 28. Example. Iew. fol. 260. God is careful and hath special Providence for his Church: Doubtful places of that scriptures must be expounded: General Counsels must he summoned: bishops being at variance must he reconciled: Ergo, the bishop of Rome is Christ's General Vicar, and Head of the Universal Church. Ergo, Indirectly. (saith D. Har.) by natural reason there must be One Head in the Church and one chief servant in the howsehold of Christ. Mary that the Pope is he: that is out of the compass of natural Reason. which although it attain unto it, that by most perfit way of Government, there should be One head: Yet that this or that man should be he, by her own power she can not bring it to pass. & therefore, it was not directly so concluded of D. Har. in this place, as M. jewel full perversely gathereth. This is a very poor help in deed. The 29. Example. jew. 274. faultless. M. Harding here is feign to resemble the bishops of Rome, touching their doctrine to Balaam, to Caiphas And to a Leaden Seal: And touching their lives to confess, False. they are Lamps without light. The first is false, through your reporting: the second is faultless, in D. Har. saying. Concerning doctrine, he saith: that the See of Rome hath this singular Grace, that he which sitteth in it, is compelled to teach truth, like as Balaam and Caiphas were made to fulfil the blessed will of God, notwithstanding their falsehood and wickedness. The comparison therefore is not Ignominious to the Catholics, but must Glorious to the praise of God, and most comfortable to the consciences of true Christians. And it consisteth, not as you report it (M. jewel) spitefully enough, in resembling the doctrine of the bishops of Rome, to the Persons of Balaam and Caiphas: but in resembling the Providence, Assistance, and Grace of God, Sophistry. in directing their doctrine unto the like Spirit of Truth and Prophecy, as God himself uttered by Balaam and Caiphas, without their good wills. In resembling also the doctrine of the B. of Rome, not unto the matter of a leadden Scale, but unto the Form of a Seal, which is as true in the basest metal, as in the purest. And so let the Bishop of Rome be as he will, his doings shall not let the working of God: but as perfit a print of his Truth, shall be made with a Leaden Seal, as a Golden. Concerning now the other point, of lamps without light, he maketh not a General Rule, nor saith that the bishops of Rome are so, (which word you M. jewel do use) but, sometime (saith he) the see hath failed in Charity, and it hath been in case as it might truly say: Our lamps be without light. And this may be said, either charitably enough, naming no persons, and sorrowing the case: either very discreetly against Heretics, which so object unto us the evil lives of Popes, as though it were an Article of our faith, that a Pope can never sin: or our cause were utterly destroyed, if so much were confessed or granted, which is so far otherwise, that it proveth rather the providence & mercy of God towards his Church to be exceeding sure & great in assisting the See of Rome, in which evil men are constrained to tell Truth, that the hope of the faithful might be steadfast in God, August. epi. 166. and not come & go at the good or evil life of any Pope. These Examples (I trust) are sufficient and plain enough of themselves, not only to prove, that M. jewel hath very dissorderly behaved himself, in repeating of D. Harding'S Arguments, but also to warn every Indifferent & Gentle reader of the Danger which needs must follow, if without further search or Consideration of the matter he take that for a Truth and Certainty, which M. jewel once committeth unto printing. Note also, that all these foresaid Arguments which M. jewel hath thrust out of their right way, to find fault with them: continue yet still in their true sense and meaning, without any just Reply or Answer to the contrary. And so must those points of the Controversies, between him and us, remain as well proved on the catholics side, which are touched specially in these foresaid arguments and Examples, unto which he hath given no direct or clear Answer. How M. jewel disgraceth D. Har. Authorities. CAP. V. IT followeth now shortly to declare, how M. jewel Disgraceth and extenuateth, the Authorities of D. Har. For among Sophistes, it is one of the kinds of Answering, when they can not directly or sufficiently put away the argument: to deface then, by A crooked word, and a wry mouth, Or a Lip (as it were) the whole matter. Which, the more ungracious it is, the deeper it is printed in the minds of to many: And the viler it is, the more it needeth to be discovered, that earnest and sad Truth, may not be so easily outfaced. Surely if in temporal matters, where the things that men strive upon are sensible, this manner of dealing (of which Examples shall follow out of M. jewel) be used, the stomachs do so increase, that it maketh men quickly to let go Words, and to come to blows. Yet God forbidden, that I should wish for any such Conclusion: but this do I mean only, that if so great offence be taken of a Temporal Injury: much more it should grieve us to see matters of Religion depraved. And truly in Temporal causes, men oftimes are to quick, but concerning the State of right faith and understanding, they need not mistrust lest they be to devont and diligent. Let the Examples declare, whether I burden M. jewel rightly, or no. D. Har. after other causes which moved him, not to discredit the Treatise of Amphilochius upon S. Basiles life & miracles, he sayeth at the last, that this Treatise, is to be seen in the Library of S. Nasarius, in the City of Verona in Italy, Written in Veleme, for three hundred years past, bearing the name of Amphilochius bishop of Iconium. 〈…〉 But, A calves skin (quod M. jewel) is no sufficient warrant of truth. In deed who can deny it? Neither doth D. Harding Conclude that it is to be credited, because it was written in veleme: but because it was written so long ago, and kept to this day in a Library at Verona. D. Harding putteth a case of four or five, Another Example. which in time of sickness should be desirous to Receive: And, if neither the Priest be able, neither other be willing to Communicate with them, may not (saith he) they Receive severally? And do not they Communicate together? See now, M. jewels demeanour. Alas (saith he) must he leave all the old Doctors and holy Fathers, and beg at deaths door, to get somewhat to help his Mass? Alas M. jewel, are you so unsensible, jew. 31. Kind heart. that you think it to be a leaning of all Old Doctors, to make an Argument of A Sick man's case? And, as you have already made a Rule, that no Authority against you shall stand, but that which is taken, just out of the next six hundred after Christ: will you so now perchannce contemn all Reasons as beggarly, which are not without a certain precinct of deaths Door? I permit it to your Conscience, whether this your (Alas) became your State, Or can be suffered in an earnest Question. another Example. A Third Example. Here first I would ask the Indifferent Reader, whether an English man borne might not use in his writings the Authority of S. Basile? And whether, S. Basile reporting it, that they which lined in wilderness, Or in Alexandria, Or in Egypt, had the Communion at home, And kept it with themselves, And received it of themselves: it were not lawful to speak it again, and to use that Testimony? Yet M. jewel sayeth: Verily, jew. 138. if M. Harding could find any thing in the Church, he would not thus hunt the Mountains: neither would he flee for aid into Egypt, if he could find any near at home. What would this fellow call the Living itself of holy men in Mountains, which nicknameth the diligent gathering of Arguments out of their living a hunting of Mountains: And calleth the using of the Fathers of Egypt's Authority, a fleeing for aid into Egypt? How far I pray you, will you suffer us to go for an Argument, without Objecting of fleeing, unto us? Yet what ask I you Leave Or Counsel in this matter, which am sure, the Truth is not found only in Europe: but in every place of the world, where Christ is confessed. Again, Who goeth farther? He that goeth in his Answer beyond Reason, Or he that Reasoneth upon a fact done beyond the See called Mediterraneum, And applieth it to his purpose? Keep yourself warm at home M. jewel, as long as you may: for if you be once out of your own Country, your Religion is so Universal and Catholic, that many miles before ye come to the Mountains or Egypt, you will be taken for a Renegade. He hath alleged (saith M. jewel of Doctor Harding) two women, The fourth Example. jew. 142 Disdainfully. three sick folk in their death beds: persons excommunicate, Infants, Phrenetikes, and Mad men: He hath alleged Napkins, Chests, Chambers, Mountains and wilderness. He alleged these in deed, to prove Sole Receiving. And if your Mastership contemn the persons, because they were Women, Sick folk, Infants, Phrenetikes: Or the things themselves, because in telling of them, mention is made, of Napkins, Chests, Chambers and Mountains: Yet let the Indifferent Reader consider, that these base Persons and Things were not, by or for themselves respected of D. Harding: but the Authority of Tertullian, Eusebius, S. Cyprian, S. Basile, S. Ambrose, and other (out of whom these Examples of Women, Infants, Mad men, Napkins and Chests, were taken) was only regarded and followed. By such Eloquence as M. jewel useth, the professed enemies of Christ's Gospel, might furnish their wickedness. Matth. 8. 9 12. Saint Matthew (all faithful believe) did write a True Gospel, the Authority thereof is most undoubted and holy. Would M. jewel then think it sincerely done to scoff out the matter, And to deprave the whole, by telling us, that all the discourse or the most that he maketh, is of, Lazares, Boys, Old women's Agues, Sick folks, Blind beggars, Dumb persons, Mad men, lunatics, Old Nets, Barley Loaves, two fishes, and Great Store of Hey. S. Augustine testifieth of the People's affection in his time, that for Reverence towards the Sacrament, they were careful to have a clean Linen Cloth to carry it therein home with them, Hard. fo. 54. And receive it, when they were disposed. S. Cyprian witnesseth, that the Sacrament was kept in a woman's chest, & that when she being unworthy, would have opened and Received it: fire came forth and frayed her away. And in this sort could I rehearse other authorities, to prove, that Sole receiving was not only used, but Reverently also used, in the Primitive Church. And will M. jewel so Extenuate these matters, as though it were no more worth than a chest, or a Napkin, that which is alleged of the report of S. Augustine, and S. Cyprian? If it loathed those Holy and Reverend Fathers to speak of Chests & Napkins, when the narration and history so Required: may it freely be scorned at, to rehearse the self same fact after them again, and to make mention of Chests and Napkins? But here also, let any Indifferent man be judge, whether it standeth with the Gravity of an high Minister, so contemptuously to speak of the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers. D. Harding allegeth the Counsels of Agatha, The fifth Example. Hard. fol. 42. 43. of Auerna, and Constantinople, which make mention of private Oratories & Chapels to say Mass in. Here upon saith M. jewel: In his former allegation, he sought his Mass in little Towns and Villages: now he hunteth for it, in private men's houses. jew. 73. Much in his pastim Was the last Supper of Christ, Or his Institutinge there of the Sacrament, and Sacrifice of the new Law, any point the worse, because it was but an obscure Parlour, where he wrought those Mysteries? And call you this A Hunting for a Mass in Private houses, to Reason out of the open decree of three Ancient Counsels? If you would use less barking and biting, then to hunt after Ancient Records, we would not mislike it in you. D. harding proveth out of Leontius a bishop in Cypress, that: john the holy patriarch of Alexandria, The sixth Example. Hard. fol. 43. said Mass, and Received alone. M. jewel inferreth: A strait case for M. harding to run to Alexandria, A thousand miles beyond all Christendom, to seek his Mass, and that not in Open Church neither, but in Private Oratories. Why is it a strait case? May not a learned man as soon come from England to Alexandria, jew. 78. Childisshly as he may turn from one book to an other, and think now of one thing, then of an other? Alexandria is not so far in miles beyond all Christendom, as you be far in your degrees beyond all Gravity. For if the Authority of Leontius doth not weigh with you, it is A plain answer to refuse it: but to object the bringing of an Argument out of an History reported for done in Alexandria, and to Term it A running beyond all Christendom, it may be found in children which in their Declamations are permitted to use what so ever Figure they can, Or in the Vice's part upon the scaffold, Or in jesters months at the tables of Secular men: but in their writings, which would seem to follow the Spirit of Christ, and Zeal of Truth, it can not be suffered. S. Basile (Amphilochius writeth) was thought of Christ to celebrate Mass, in which he divided the Sacrament into three parts, and Receiving one by himself alone, the other two he Reserved. And so by this Testimony, Private Mass is sufficiently proved. Or, if it prove nothing to him which refuseth the Authority of Amphilochius by whom it is written, yet to him which would take it for a true history, no doubt but it serveth for Private Mass. M. jewel then supposing it to be true, let us see how he tranaileth to disgrace it. His words are these: But if all this (that Amphilochius reporteth of S. Basils' Saicing of Mass) were good record, and matter of truth: yet & caet. What intent you by this Yet? Would ye not believe it? Would ye not embrace it? Would ye not be ruled by it? Would ye not yield and Subscribe? Considering that Amphilochius lived within the six hundred after Christ? No surely, you would not. For you have so many ways to deprave things, that you may grant our ask unto us, and keep yourself still to the winning side. Which how cunningly you do in this place I will take the pains to consider. If all this were good record etc. Yet were it but a Miracle. Do ye make a But at a Miracle? And such a Miracle, Mark to the 〈◊〉 of this place the exquisite exceptions against the witness. as standeth with a Truth? I ●oked, that you would have diminished somewhat of the price of the Good Record of which you ●oake, and to that end your YET did lead us: but you have so forgotten your slfe, that you make it the stronger, by that very thing, which you brought to weaken it by. For a Record may be true and good, and yet it followeth not the fact to be allowed: but if a Miracle be wrought about it, it is not only to be counted as True, because of the thing itself & witness of Man, but also to be allowed as Good, because of the testimony of God given to it by Miracle. It followeth in M. jewel: But a Vision. As who should say, that an History were the worse, because it consiseth of a Vision from God, and not of the external sight and Record of man. What wise man would ever say: Let it be true, that jacob saw Angels going and coming up and down upon the ladder between Heaven & earth, yet were it but a Vision. Is this your sight in Divinity, to diminissh a Truth by the manner of Representing it. It may be proved that to see things in a Vision, when the mind is elevated from bodily senses, is perfiter in degree of dignity, then to see them with corporal eyes, where more means and more gross are occupied. Yet (sayeth M. jewel, contemptuously) it were but a Vision. It followeth in him: And perhaps a Dream. Wisely said, I promise you, and agreeably to your former words. For how can these two Propositions stand together? If it were a matter of truth, yet perhaps but a Dream. Do not these, the one plainly hinder the other? Or can ye grant that one, and fear the other? Nay, if it were of good Record and matter of truth, then undoubtedly it was no Dream. But you, of a great confidence and courage do permit us the first, And yet of a miserable forgetfulness or fearfulness, are not resolved in the second. In saying: If all were good Record: you permit us to take it, and yourself, by putting the case, do grant it: In adding, Yet were it perhaps but a Dream, you take away from us that which you granted, and your own self are contraried by yourself. For (to say it again) if it were matter of truth, it was no dream: and if perhaps it were A Dream, you should not then have been so absolute or bountiful, as to let us receive it for a matter of Truth. It followeth: But one man's fact. You asked but for any one sufficient example, when you challenged us. The fault therefore can not be in that it is One, but if you dare answer that S. Basils' fact allowed by Christ himself, is not sufficient, then say you somewhat. It followeth. But once done. Once done is truly done, and so much is enough against them which deny that it was at any time done. Again, Once done in the presence of Christ, and by his appointment, is for ever done, to confirm the faith of the Catholics. I followeth: Not in the day time, but at midnight. What think you then M. jewel, that there is no Truth, when the Sun is down? Or that evil Spirits only do occupy the world at midnight? Or that God is A God of the day, and not of the Night? Is not this A worthy cause to set loss by S. Basiles Mass, for that, when other were asleep, he waked And that Christ made him not tarry till broad day, but strait ways to rise and Say Mass at midnight? What fault you find with midnight I can not tell: but your Literal sense in this place being so foolish, either you have some pure and fine Mystical sense, Or else you take so little rest in the night, that in the day time your wits be not your own. It followeth: And that without company, and without Witness. Concerning the company, Christ and his Angels were present: concerning the Witnesses, take away Eubulus which saw it, yet as many were present, as were at the Annunciation of our Lady, Or the Resurrection of Christ our Saviour. at which though no man was present, yet by the event of things, and credit of them which ha●e reported it, it is as true as an Article of our faith. Again, what need witnesses, yourself permitting the Record of Amphilochius to be good, and the matter true? How hangeth this together M. jewel? If all were true, yet was it done without witness For what would you say I pray you? mean you this, that if it were true, yet it was false? Or, if the Record were good, yet is it not to be credited? For to what other purpose ye complain of lack of witness, I can not tell, but for that you judge the Record without it, not to be good. Otherwise if you will not pluck back your Liberality, nor take away that which you have granted, but let it stand that the Record is good, why disgrace you it by saying, yet it was without witness? And so by consequence, no good Record. Thus in this Testimony also, it appeareth, what wisdom and Art M. jewel hath in defacing of Authorities: and that after, himself (all circumstances considered) hath permitted them to stand for true and good. D. Harding, The vi●●. Example. out of S. Bede, doth make report of one james a Deacon of York, a very cunning man in song: and of Cednom a Divine maker of Ditties, Hard. fol. 88 90. whom M. jewel calleth Cedname (For so his name is read in Beda written in parchment saith he, forgetting himself that a sheepeskynne can be no more sufficient warrant▪ of truth, than a calfeskinne) but (be it Cednom or Cednam) what saith he to him, Or to james the Deacon? I little thought, M. Harding would so much have bewrayed his want, 18●. Blind Harper. to prove his matter by Pipers and poets. Make you no more account, of Musicians and Versifiers? Many a Minstrel is in your ministery, and many A Twanger upon his harp A: & whom venerable Bede commendeth to the posterity with singular praises, are they but pipers and poets with you? Asaph, Heman and Idithun, because they made, and song praises unto God, might a sober paynim call them Pipers and poets? Iwencus, Sedulius, Prudentius, ought they to be of little price or estimation, because they were makers of Verses? Cednom (sayeth Bede) made songs, containing matter of the holy Scripture, with such exceeding sweetness, and with such a grace: that many feeling their hearts compuncte and pricked, with hearing and reading of them, withdrew themselves from the love of the world. Speak not therefore M. jewel against the Grace of God: And these sweet means, which he hath provided, to allure men thereby to his Love, term them not Pypinge or Poetrye. Perchance, if ye had some such pyper as Cednom was, to sing and play before you, when the Spirit trowbleth you, there might be hope, that you would be more quiet and reasonable. Hope, I say, there might be, but no assurance, because sometimes you are so taken, that I fear, if King David himself should play before you, though you would not be so furious, as to cast your spear at him: yet you would be so madly merrily disposed, as to call him a Piper. By these few Examples then, let it be tried, whether M. jewel hath followed an honest fashion, in his Replying. And whether it becometh him, which would be counted upright in his Do●inges, so to play the Child's, the Woman's, the Madmans', the Phrenetykes, Or the Mynstrels part, in Toyinge, in jesting, in Imagyninge, and in harping so as he hath done, about D. hardings Testimonies. For what is there now left, which may not be (after M, jewels Rhetoric) contemned? If the Authority of such as have written at any time these nine hundred years be alleged, it is (sayeth M. jewel straitewayes) out of the compass of the first six hundred years. If we bring the Example of such as lived solitarily within those six hundred years: Ye flee (saith he) for aid into Egypt, or ye hunt the Mountains. If the Example of populous Cities far distant from us be alleged, than ye go (saith he) A thousand miles beyond Christendom. If ye speak of their case, which are nigh their death, Alas (saith he) ye beg at deaths door. If the Ancient Fathers, S. Cyprian, S. Basile, S. Ambrose, and others, be brought in, to confirm your purpose, you must take heed, that no mention in their testimonies be made of Boys, women, Infants, Phrenetikes, Cheastes, Chambers, wilderness & c? For then all the whole shallbe disgraced, because of those base things and Persons. Beside this, a confessed Truth is not to be esteemed, if it were either but once, Or without company, Or done at midnight. To be short, no physician shallbe allowed, because he is a Piper, and no maker of verses, never so good, because he is a Poet. And so the conclusion will be, that nothing almost shallbe brought so worthy and evident: but M. jewel, by his art and policy, will make it obscure and simple. If this be tolerable, them is D. Harding answered: but if this be unreasonable, then hath not M. jewel used a necessary point of discretion Or modesty. Of M. jewels wrangling with D. Harding. CAP. 6. THis, which already I have specified, is to much for a sober man to use: but this yet is not all that M. jewel abuseth himself in, against D. Harding. For beside perverting or defacing of his Authorities, he wrangleth also, very contentiously with him. And that, not after a general sense only or meaning of this word, but after a Singular & proper fashion. For (to speak in general) All the depraving of D. Harding'S Arguments, all the disgracing of his witness, all the turning and shifting from one point and state of the question to an other, which (as I have showed) M. jewel useth in the first four articles: all this (I say) may well go under the name of contention and quarreling: and in this sense, the whole Reply, is stuffed therewithal. But, in this place, I note that singular kind of contentiousnes, by force of which, any man driveth his adversary to proving of that, which is either so possible, that a thousand experiencies declare it: either so credible, that they themselves which ask for proof of it, do openly and plainly confess, that they do not deny it. As in three or four Examples: What if four or five (sayeth D. Harding) of sundry houses in a sickness time, being at the point of death, in one parish, require to have their rights ere they depart? This case, is not only possible by course of time, but also common through infection of contagious aiers. But yet M. jew. replieth. What if no man happen to be sick? Then hath M Harding lost a good Argument. But what if some happen to be sick? Then have you (M. jewel) found a Rude Objection. For of the two, which is more possible? To have in a plague time, four or five sick: Or to have a time of sickness, and none at all sick in it? For, of a time of sickness, D. harding did speak. And if you will put (A what if) against the time itself, and suppose that there is no plague at all: as this I grant is possible, so is, by like Reason, the other also. Neither can you by putting your case, so distroie the contrary supposition, that you might seem to make it frustrate and void: Or disapointe thereby your adversaries purpose. What if four or five Principal Protestants should be connerted by Reading the Books of catholics: could not they utter many secret devices of yours, for Open professing of which you lack but a better world? Yea, but say you again, what if such ways be taken for letting of catholic Books to come into the Realm, that by Reading of them, none shall see what is Answered? In deed, you have put me a case, jew. 3●. which is likely enough, and I could soon Answer unto it, that it is a hard Case also, to Provoke, and Challenge, And bid men speak, & make as though we should have commendation for our freeness. And at that very beginning, to let them that would and should, or read or hear what we say. But yet, what were this to the answer of my question? For it is possible enough, that although you make the search never so diligent, yet some wise men of your own side will be desirous to understand our answers, & not be hasty to condemn us before judgement. Therefore, when a likely or possible case is put, to make a clean contrary unto it, as though it were then fully refelled, what other thing is it, but to fight upon anger, & not for truth: And to procure trouble only to the adversary, and not to manifest and open your own doctrine. Of what affection & humour shall I say it cometh, that you dare permit the history which Amphilochius writeth of S. Basile to be true, jew. 91. & yet will not be ruled by it? Doth not this prove, that you have a spirit of contention within you, and that you shift to make exceptions against the Truth? jew. 89. That you mislike not daily preaching, & yet that you reprove D. Harding for saying that in Antioch the scriptures were daily expounded & preached, doth it not argue a contentious stomach? for suppose that it were not true, yet no harm coming thereof unto the reader, what need was there of a special and solemn refelling of it? No doubt but if you were disposed (M. jew.) you could quickly find it out, that daily exposition of the scripture might be in Antioch, and yet the common people be called thereunto but once a week, as S. Chrysostom saith. For it might be throughowt the Churches of Antioch by course, and in that course, the sermon might be one day in S. Chrysostom's church. Also there might be daily expounding of the scriptures to the Clergy though not to the people: And the Proposition containing in it nothing against good manners, or truth of doctrine, a quiet man in so much matter beside, requiring in deed a full Answer, would not have troubled himself with this question. When you say in an other place, that, jew. 16● It is neither denied of you, nor any part of your question, that sundry nations in Asia the less understood not the Greek, and yet notwithstanding, is not M. Harding able to prove it with all his Gheasses do ye not signify by these words, that your good will is not, plainly and peaceably to declare the Truth of your doctrine: but your Stomach is against the person of your adversary, and that ye seek to contrary his sayings? When you say: Verily if a man by way of contention, would say, the Licaonical tongue was a corruption or difference of the Greek tongue, & not a several tongue of itself, M. Har. should have much a do, jew. 164 to prove the contrary: And in saying so, when yourself by, & by, do contrary D. Har. therein, is it not straitewaies manifest, that you follow the way of contention? More might be brought against you, M. jew. in this kind: but if by these few Examples it be perceived, that you have wrangled and strived, where no cause was offered, I trust that although yourself be so affected, that you will never submit yourself, And yield to the Catholic and Roman Church, yet other, which love truth and Sincerity, will take heed how they commit the settling of their minds & consciencies, to the Positions and Answers of a man so contentious. As on the other side if these so manifest Examples, prove not plainly what you are, it profiteth not to bring more copy, where store sufficient is not considered. Of the Butts Which M. jewel useth with D. Harding. CAP. VII. THe mark, that M. jewel shooteth at, is to Refel D. Harding'S answer: which how many ways he hath pricked and roved at, as also how artificially he hath bestowed his strength therein, I have, by example, declared. And now I think it good to show, what butts he useth. Such butts of his I mean, which like an Hypocrite he would seem to have set up of his own motion, where as in deed D. Harding had made them unto him before, that he should not, all at pleasure, Rove or hob abroad at every mark that liked his fancy. As in Example D. Har. thought it good, (before he should speak of Sole receiving or private Mass) shortly to allege such authorities, by which the Mass or Sacrifice of the new testastament, was confirmed. Against which, M. jew. speaketh his worst, & proveth three leaves together, the either the witnesses be not lawful, either that they prove not Private Mass. Now the Truth being this, y● D. Har. brought them not in, to confirm Private Mass, M. jewel therefore lest he might seem to have taken his Mark amiss, so long together as three leaves are in his Reply, he cometh (as I say) from Roving about the matter, to the very state thereof, saying: BUT he will say, The first Example. jew. 12. well shot. he alleged all these doctors to an other purpose, to prove the Sacrifice. Will he say so M. jewel? and hath he not rather said it already? Are not these his express words: that, although you in a printed Sermon, Har. 24. and preached at Paul's Cross, pretend enmity against Private Mass in word, yet in deed, that you extend your whole wit and cunning, utterly to abolish the unbloody and daily Sacrifice of the Church? And hereupon, doth not he name shortly the Authorities, by which he might prove the unbloody Sacrifice? In the end of which maketh he not a transition saying, Now this presupposed, that the Mass standeth upon good and sufficient grounds, let us come to our special purpose, & say somewhat o● Private Mass? What vanity then was it of yours, (M. jewel) to make so great a talk against the witnesses alleged that they prove not Private Mass, for which yet they were not brought, and how like an hypocrity come you in with your, But he will say he alleged all these Doctors to an other purpose, whereas D. Harding so plainly declared it, that in deed he used them not for proof of private Mass, but only of the daily and unbloody Sacrifice. After a like sort, The 1. Example. concerning the number of Canons which were made in the first Nicene Council, you ask this question, and to seeming, oppose your Adversary with it, saying: What leadeth M. Harding to say, jew. 239 The bishope of Rome hath these three score and ten Canons in safe keeping? Why doth he thus dissemble and mock the world? Certainly the bishop of Rome himself disclameth it, and saith he hath them not. for thus he writeth touching the same: There are in the Church of Rome only twenty Canons of the Council of Nice, By what negligence the rest are lost, it is not known. The Pope saith there are but twenty Canons extant: M. Harding saith, there are three score and ten Canons. I trow, it is no reason we should believe M. Harding, and leave the Pope. It is no reason in deed. Yet if they speak not contrary one to the other, then is it no Reason, that you should in such sort handle the matter, as though they were repugnant. For true it is, that as the Pope said, there are but twenty Canons extant, yet that there were once more than twenty, it appeareth by these words which follow immediately: By what negligence the rest are lost, it is not known. Also that there were in Time Past three score and ten Canons of the Council of Nice, Har. 104. true it is, and so it is said of D. Harding: but that there are at this Present Time so many, he saith it not, though you boldly report it of him, to make A Contradiction, between him and the Pope. Now, may we think, that you perceived not this much by yourself? yes without all doubt you did. and therefore not ignorant that you had overshott yourself, and that the Catholic would bring you from your Roving, to certain and set Marks, yourself come well-favouredly to them, and say: BUT Steven the bishop of Rome saith: there were sometime in Rome the full three score and ten Canons. O M. jewel, do you see, that this will be your Answer? Or rather that so much is included in the words of Pope Stephanus, And yet did you bring his Testimony in, to prove D. Harding'S report false, which said no more, then that the whole number, of these three score and ten Canons, was kept diligently in the Church of Rome? Tell us now, who dissimbleth? Or who mocketh the world? And therefore was not this BUT of yours first considered, before you did so sharply inveigh against D. Harding? For both the Pope and he, speaking of the Time Past, it is true that three score and ten Canons of the Nicene Council were in Rome: And the Pope speaking of the time Present, that twenty only are extant is not contrary to him that speaketh of that Time Past, saying that, three score and ten Canons were kept in Rome. And therefore it may be justly returned upon you again M. jewel, that, Non satis commodè divisa sunt temporibus tibi Daue haec. jew. 237 Let us bring an other Example. The third Example. To prove the sovereignty of the Church of Rome, D. Har. allegeth S. Iren. saying: Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. Ad hanc ecclesiam propter maiorem principalitatem etc. To this Church (of Rome) it is necessary all the Churches, that is to say, all that be faithful any where, to repair & come together, for the mightier Principality of the same. In answering to this testimony: first, saith M. jewel, Irenaeus speaketh not of the Supremacy. Roving. Then, saith M. jewel again: Irenaeus writeth only against Valentinus, tinus, Cerdon and Martion old Heretics, whom he biddeth for trial of their doctrine, to behold the Churches which the Apostles planted. After this, he telleth us that Ireneus resteth specially upon the Example of the Church of Rome, & by this roving, he would have it thought, that he hath not Answered nothing. And then it followeth: But they will Reply, Irenaeus saith, propter maiorem principalitatem. jew. 244 Hypocrite Have ye found it now at length? and did ye not perceive at the first alleging of Ireneus, y● the force of D. hardings Argument consisted in these words, propter maiorem principalitatem, because of the greater principality of the Church of Rome? Why dissemble you then? And why play you the hypocrite so artificially, in keeping that back, which should have been at the very first Answered: And in delivering it when it cometh, after such a sort, as may cause the Reader to conceine, that it is of your own pure Invention, and not of your adversaries objection: And that you do freely of your own will and wit increase the strength of the witnesses brought against you, and speak more for your Adversary, than he hath done for himself? They will (you say) Reply. Will they? Nay they do: And not Reply, as though it would depend of a former argument, but Object, without any preambles, that, The Greater or mightier Principality of the Church of Rome, which Irenaeus speaketh of, doth prove the Supremacy thereof above all other Churches. Yet you But only, at it. There is also a very plain Testimony The fourth Example. of S. Ambrose, alleged by D. Har. for the Supremacy of the see of Rome: And the strength of the argument consisteth in this that the chiefty of the Apostolic priesthood is affirmed by him to flourish there. Amb. lib. ●. cap. 6. Note the words, chiefty, and priesthood. For until answer be made to them, all beside is but Roving. As in Example out of M. jewel. He admitteth first, S. Ambrose words, and addeth more unto them, to the praise of the Church of Rome. He preferreth (and worthily) the Glory of Christ's Gospel before the power of the Roman Empire. All byside the mark. He increaseth the matter, by the testimonies of S. Augustine, and S. Chrysostom, and leaveth it as a most plain and manifest Truth, that Rome was more noble for the Gospel of Christ then the Empire of the world. And whereas he is not so dull, but perceiveth well enough, that all this gear cometh not to the point of the argument, than he cometh to his familiar BUT, saying: But S. Ambrose saith, jew. 248 Apostolici sacerdotij principatum: The principality of the Apostolic Priesthood. Yea forsooth M. jewel, of the Principality of Priesthood, S. Ambrose speaketh. And we may well wonder, that all this while, you have dissembled, as though you had not seen the mark which we set before you, to direct your answer there unto. Now how well you have Replied concerning these two Testimonies. of S. Iren. and S. Ambrose, it shall be examined in the place proper for it, which will be in the third Book. At this present, I note your Craft only and Hypocrisy, by which you convey the matter so, that you may first wander abroad, without scope in deed, yet not without some appearance of direct Answer, and that, afterwards, you come with A BUT to the very point of the argument, and make it seem that this BUT was set up of your own self, and not of the adversary. Of which kind, he that will require more examples, may for the seeking, easily have them. And when he findeth them, let him remember, that it is but a lewd kind of Rhetoric, either so to daily with the Adversary, either so to delay the right Answer unto the matter proponed. And now to an other point. Of M. jewels Refelling one Truth by an other. CAP. VIII. IT is A common thing with you (M. jewel) in Answering, to put away one Truth by an other: Or by adding one to an other, so to confound them both, that no certainty shallbe found in the question. Which surely is a good provision, that you may have somewhat always to Reply: but except there follow a better Application, it should not in any part satisfy. As in Example, When Ireneus witnesseth that bishops of the Greek Church coming to Rome, The first Example. Eccl. Histor. lib. 5. ca 24. had the Eucharistia sent unto them, to signify their mutual Communion in Sacrament, notwithstanding their Diversity in keeping of Easter: though you should bring never so many Examples, that, Paulinus sent at one time a loaf of bread to S. Augustine, jew. 40. at an other, five loves, and them in token of good will: yet do ye not prove hereby, that the Eucharistia, which S. Ireneus speaketh of, was not, as the Catholics expound it, the Sacrament. For neither is the bread which S. Paulinus sent, called Eucharistia, neither do such Presents from one to other, prove a consent in Religion: And that which S. Ireneus speaketh of is called Eucharistia, and the cause for which it was sent (which was to signify their unity, Eucharistit. in the Substance of our Religion) doth require that it should be the Sacrament. And so I say, true it is that bishops presented bishops, with tokens of mutual friendship: but this Truth must not destroy or confound an other Truth, of the Custom in the Church of Rome, to send the very Sacrament to the bishops that came from the East Church. And in this place (M. jewel) you lack not Invention, but Application: And you bring forth in deed fair loves, but you match them not rightly with the Sacrament. The sum of M. jewels Answer is this: The loaf which Paulinus sent unto S. Augustine was not the Sacrament: Ergo, the Eucharistia which S. Irenaeus witnesseth to have been sent to bishops of the East coming to Rome, was not the Sacrament. Leontius a Breeke writer, The 2. Example. reporteth of the Patriarch of Alexandria, that he said Mass (fecit Missas) in his Oratory. yet will it not necessarily follow (saith M. jeu.) jew. 78. Missa. that Missa in this place, importeth the mass. For, as I have already proved by sundry Authorities, Missa is oftentimes used for any kind of prayer. But what then? If it be oftentimes so used, must it not be otherwise used in this place df Leontius? How prove you this Consequence? Or how Apply you the one place to the other? Briefly then to repeat it, M. jewels answer is this: Missa is often times taken for any kind of Prayer: Ergo the Mass, which holy john the Almener said, was not properly mass. In the same history of Leontius, D. The 3. Example. Harding expoundeth (cum benedixisset sancta) thus in English: when the Patriarch had consecrated. Benedicere sancta. Which proveth (by the way) that (missa) the Mass, of which the Story speaketh, is not taken for any kind of Prayer, because, blessing of the holy things or consecration is not used generally in every kind, but in Special matter, Time, and place. But to note, what M. jewel concludeth, of Benedicere sancta: These words do no more signify (faith he) the consecration of the Sacrament, jew. 78. as M. Harding hath translated it, than these words, Extollite manus vestras in sancta, do signify the lifting up of hands to the Sacrament. And why so? Chrysostom in his liturgy useth the same manner of speech, to a far other purpose. What is that? He allegeth the words, and then inferreth: It may appear, that Chrysostom by these words, meant a solemn prayer to conclude the whole. But how apply you now these things to your purpose? because, S. Chrysos. meaneth by Benedicere Sancta, a prayer to conclude his liturgy, doth Leontius understand, just the same by those words? In what Logik find you that Consequence? Or, by what manner of likelihood, make you it probable? Mark it better (M. jew.) & you shall perceive, that which you would conclude not only to be unlikely, but also impossible. For, the benediction of which S. Chrysost. speaketh, was you say a solemn Prayer to conclude the whole: but the Benediction of which Leontius telleth you, was before the Pater noster, of the mass, which Prayer is used, when the Mysteries are not yet Received. Therefore undoubtedly the meaning is not one in them both, concerning Benedicere Sancta, which is referred to so distinct times and Conditions, And your Craftiness may be espied which would destroy one Truth by an other. The Answer which M. jewel maketh is this: Benedicere Sancta, signifieth in S. Chrysostom a solemn Prayer made to conclude the whole: Ergo, benedicere Sancta, that is, to bless the holy things, doth not signify in Leontius History, Consecration. Let us come to an other Example. The 4. Example. Matth. 16. Petra. Our saviour said unto S. Peter, Thou art Peter, A Rock, and upon this Rock will I build my Church: Ergo, S. Peter was most fast set above all other in worthiness, and he was a most sure and Principal person in the building of Christ his Church: Such, as by which, all the faithful should be stayed. Which proveth his singular Prerogative. But (saith M. jewel) Christ is the Rock. jew. 222. Who denieth it? Again, The confession of S. Peter, is the Rock. Neither this is denied. And to prove this, that no Catholic denieth, he lacketh no Authorities. But how followeth this, that because Christ is the Rock, therefore S. Peter is not the Rock? Or because the Church is builded on the faith of S. Peter, therefore it was not builded upon the person which had that faith? By like Reason you might conclude, By such arguments all religion hath been confuted. God is our King and our Father: Ergo, we own not supreme Reverence in their kind, to our Prince, Or our Parents. Which is nothing else, but by one Truth, to destroy an other: And for lack of Understanding, And abundance of Presuming, neither to distinct duties and offices accordingly, neither to refrain from determining, that which we know not, over hastily. Otherwise it were quickly to be perceived, that Christ is the Rock by merit, S. Peter by mere mercy: Christ by Absolute Authority S. Peter by means of Legacy: Christ before and above all other, S. Peter above all other, but yet after, and not before Christ. By which commodity of distinctions, those propositions which Protestants feign to be contrary, one to the other, will stand and agree well together. The brief Argument of M. jewels is this. The Rock which Christ spoke of to S. Peter, signifieth the confession of S. Peter's faith: ergo it signifieth not S. Peter confessing it. another Example. The. v Example. Ambr. 2. Cor. 12. S Androw followed our saviour before S. Peter. And yet (saith S. Ambrose) Androw received not Primatum, the Primacy, but Peter. But, jew. 245 M. jewel Auswereth: It is easy to be showed, that Primatus among the old fathers, is far otherwise used, I mean, for any Superiority or preferment before others. primatus And this he proveth at large by Phrases of Speech used about Esau, about the Heretic Abbate Eutyches, Or towards any of the four patriarchs. But what concludeth he? thinketh he▪ because the Primacy that Esau lost for a dish of pottage, was to wear a better cote than his fellows, Or to sit highest at the Table, Or to have thrice or five times more meat for his part, than an other, Or any other such thing belonging to the honour of the first borne: that the primacy which S. Ambrose attributeth to S. Peter, may have the very self same sense in it? Or, because Eutyches had a Primacy in his Abbey, may it therefore be lawful for us to imagine, that all the Apostles lived in one Cloister together, and that S. Peter was no more than an Abbate among them? Beside this, if Primatus doth signify any Preferment, it serveth also to signify the Supremacy. And so, as you wish that it should be taken in your sense, so should you justly have provided for it, lest it were taken in an other sense. And this truly had been your part, (M. jewel) to prove that S. Ambrose doth not mean by S. Peter's Primacy, the General Government over all the world. As for the bare showing of it, that Primatus hath divers senses, it is meet & convenient for a Schoolmaster or maker of Dictionaries: but in an Answerer it is not reasonable, except there follow an Application thereof to his purpose. You love always to drine the Catholics to the proving side, knowing it to be safest & easiest for you, to stand still at the denial of every thing. And who so foolish that can not do so? If (say you) this word Primatus must signify that power and Government, jew. 145 that M. Harding fantasieth: then must it follow of necessity, that Esau, Eutyches, the bishop of Antioch, and the Bishop of Alexandria, had the Universal power and Government of the whole world. As who should say, that the question had been, whether Primatus hath any more significations than one: Or that D. Harding had taken upon him, to prove that Primatus where so ever it be found, must needs signify the Supremacy of the B. of Rome. No, (M. jewel) let Primatus have as many divers significations, as you have devices to confound A truth, D. Harding objecteth you, the testimony of S. Ambrose where it is plain, that S. Peter had a Primacy. To this now make a direct answer, not by telling a long Tale & True enough of the Significations of Primatus, but in Applying them to the Purpose, and Instructing us, in what one sense it is to be taken in S. Ambrose. And if you dare say, that he meant such a Primacy, as Esau lost for a dish of Pottage, Or such, as the Heretic Eutiches had in his Abbey, then shall we provide an Answer for you. But whereas the very words themselves do give it, that it could not be so Simple a matter, (for S. Androw, as every other of the Apostles, had Authority given him in the whole world, and yet the Primacy was bestowed upon S. Peter only, of which it followeth, that among the chiefest he was the chief) What helpeth it you, to the Answering of S. Ambrose, to declare that Primatus is taken for any Superiority or Preferment? Again whereas you can not deny it, but S. Peter had a Dignity & Preferment above other, how well should you have done to Specify wherein it consisted? But you think it enough perchance, to show that you are not altogether unlearned, and that you have in your days, Herd, read, and Seen many things. Which in deed were enough to do, if Christians might seek for their own Praise only, and not the setting forth of the Truth, but the case being other wise, content not yourself herewith (M. jewel) to play the bare part of a Grammarian: nor think the office of an Answerer fulfilled, if in telling one Truth, you destroy an other. The Answer that M. jewel maketh is this: Primatus doth signify any Preferment, Ergo, it signifieth not in S. Ambrose the Supremacy of S. Peter. Again: Esau lost his Primacy for a mess of pottage, Ergo S. peter's Primacy was not an universal Government. Now as I have said of this word Primatus, The. vj. Example. so might I also of this word Principatus, Principality, Principatus. which S. Augustine useth to Bonifacius Bishop of Rome in these words: Who is he that knoweth not, that, that Principality of Apostleship, (which undoubtedly was in the See of Rome) is to be preferred before any Bishopric that is? August. de Bapt. cont Don. lib. 2. which place proving so evidently, that the See of Rome passeth in Dignity what soever Bishopric in the world, yet M. jewel answereth, that it signifieth not here a Supreme Government. Ask him the cause why, and he can say no more but that, Socrates is called Prince of Philosophers, jew. 249 And Plato Prince of Orators, And Pompeius' Prince of the world, And Elias head of the Prophets. In which places, Princeps is taken, not for a Prince or Governor, but only, for A man that for his qualities is to be esteemed above the rest. And in this sense S. Augustine calleth the See of Rome, as it was in his time, principatum sedis Apostolicae. Well Sir, that, Princeps is often used for A man had in estimation for his virtue, room, or any singular quality, every Grammarian can witness. But that it is always so used, who telleth you? And except you prove that it hath no other Signification beside, how can you infer, that because Socrates is called Prince of the Philosophers in respect of his knowledge, so the See of Rome should be called Princeps or chief in respect of some quality only, (you tell not what) and not of Supreme Government. For Supreme Government itself, is it not a certain quality? And Pompeius whom yourself name as Prince of the world, though he were so in deed: in respect either of Virtue or Office, yet was he not Supreme Governor. How hangeth this Tale then together, that Princeps is not taken for a Chief Governor, Like Germans Lips. because it is often used to signify an Estimation above others in virtue. & c? Or who would ever so confound a Truth by a Truth, but he that loveth not the Truth? I would ask you also (M. jewel) what quality that should be in the Apostolic See of Rome, for which it should be preferred above other bishoprics of all the world? It is not (you say) for Supreme Governments sake. Wherefore then? Is it for Estimation of virtue, Gloquence, Philosophy or any such like? Name the quality if you can but you can not. Only you stay upon the Negative, that it had not the Principality because of Supreme Government: And to that you add that Princeps is taken, in the places which you allege, only for a man that for his qualities is to be esteemed. As well you might prove, (M. jewel) that Socrates was not Prince of Philosophers, because Princeps is taken oftentimes for A Chief Governor in A country, which Socrates never was. See then (indifferent Reader) whether this be an honest and plain manner in answering, to refel one Truth by an other, Or so to deny one Sense of A word, that he can not tell, what other Sense of the same word, to follow? Surely where M. jewels senses in this matter should be, I can not tell. For like as when we say, Socrates is the Prince of Philosophers, we are understanded to make the Comparison between him and other Philosophers, and not to meddle with Orators, Captains, Artificers, Or any of a divers state and condition: So, when S. Augustin witnesseth, that the principality of the Apostleship (which is in the Sea of Rome,) is to be preferred before all other what so ever bishoprics, what wise man doubteth, but that the Comparison here is to be made, between the degrees of Power and Charge that are lesser or greater in that kind of Office? Now by a bishopric, what is imported? Is not a Spiritual Function and Charge over Souls understanded thereby? And in this Charge are not Archbysshoppes above bishops, and patriarchs above Archebisshopes? But in what thing above? In jurisdiction undoubtedly, & Government, larger than their Inferior have. Therefore, if the See of Rome, do pass in Principality, all other bishoprics (as S. Augustine witnesseth) And if the Superiortie or Inferiortie in bishoprics must be considered according to the greatness or smallness of the jurisdiction which is appointed to them (as the Definition of the Name will declare) how should not the See of Rome have an universal Authority or Government over all Christendom, which hath such a Principality given it, that all other bishoprics are not comparable unto it? Not comparable, I mean, in those things, that pertain to Authority and Government, such as is annexed to the Condition, Substance, or Nature of bishoprics. For in Virtue, Policy, Eloquence, Favour of Emperors, Abundance of Riches and livings, and many other like things which are Personal or Temporal, the bishops of Constantinople may far excel the Pope. Yea, in such bishoply and Spiritual things also, as concern their Character and Order, every bishop in the world, doth baptize, Confirm, Absolve and Consecrate as perfitly and excellentely as the B. of Rome. But yet for all this, concerning the examining and practising of these self same things which by Virtue of their order they may do, and concerning the power of jurisdiction, As, to plant and to pull up, to Cite, to dipense, To Forbid, to Command, To prescribe Orders, To determine doubts, and so forth: what so ever bishopric it be, The Principality of the Apostleship, that is in Rome, must be preferred. And what lacketh then here, to Supreme Government concerning causes Ecclesiastical? How lilte also must it be, to pass all others in Degree of Bisshoprike, if any one were exempted from him? The greater & fouler is your fault therefore (M. jewel) which would make your Reader believe, that the Principality of the Apostolic See of Rome, in respect of other bishoprics, consisteth in any other Quality (what, you can not tell) and not in Supreme Government. Whereas, in Comparing of Bysshoprike with Bysshoprike, the Authority of Government is directly to be considered. The Answer of M. jewel is this. Princeps is often used for a man had in estimation for any Virtue, Room, Or Singular Quality: Ergo, the Principality which S. Augustine attributeth to the Apostolic See consisteth not in Supreme Govermment. It would be over long and tedious, to teken up all Examples, by which I might evidently confirm, this objection of mine, that Master jewel useth the setting further of one Truth, to the disgracinge or dissanulling rather of an other. As when the Catholics say, to prove the Supremacy of the bishop of Rome: julius restored Athanasius: The vij Example. jew. 290 M. jewel Answereth: Maximus also restored unto him, his Communion. When they say: The viii. Example. Touching faith and Religion the See of Rome hath always been consulted: He Answereth: jew. 294 Marcellinus, Dulcitius, Bonifacius, Euodius and other sent their questions to S. Augustine. When they say: The ix Example. S. Peter was called, Princeps or Chief of the Apostles: He Answereth: So we reed in Scriptures, Princeps Familiae, Princeps Legationis, Princeps Coquorum, that is, the Chief of the house or stock, jew. 302. the Chief of the Embassage, the Chief of the Cooks. When the Catholics say: The ten Example. S. Peter the Master of the whole world appointed S. james to be bishop of Jerusalem: jew. 303 He Answereth: That unto Michael is committed the nation of the jews. But, Land and Sea, and all the habitation of the world, is committed to S. Paul. When they say, The xi Example. that Rome is the most notable and chief Church of the world: He Answereth that, Cicero to blaze the nobility of that City, calleth lucem orbisterrarum, at●ue arcem omnium Gentium, jew. 304 the light of the world and the Castle of all nations. To make an end, when they say out of S. Ambrose, The xii Example. That Damasus the Pope is called the Rector and Ruler of the house of God: To put the matter out of all doubt, see what he answereth thereunto. But to put the matter out of doubt, let us consider whether the self same form of Speech, jew. 306 have been applied to any others in like sort. And then he telleth where other bishops have been said to be Rulers in the Church. But doth this kind of Auswer, either satisfy the Objection, Or Determine the Truth, Or quiet a doubtful mind? Doth not this kind of Reasoning bring us rather into perplexities, that it may not be known, how to be resolved in any matter? Is there any fit way for the Antichrist to work by, Antichrist high way for 〈◊〉 then, by Form and Phrases of Speech, to confound all Faith and Religion? Do you believe (M. jewel) that Christ is the Son of God? But do you believe that he is the natural Son of his Father, of the same Substance & Eternity with him? If you do so in deed, what say you to this Argument, that judges in the Scriptures are called Gods, Ex. 22 and that, the friends and Servants of God, are called Gods? psal. 81. Would this put the matter out of doubt, that Christ is not the Son of God (I mean by Nature) because you could find it out (after you had considered it) where the self-same form of speech is applied to others in like sort? And where such, as are not the natural Children of God, are called yet the Children of God? Christ saveth us, & in Form of Speech S. Paul sayeth to Timothy: doing so, thou shalt save thyself, 1. Tim. 4. and them that hear thee. And would you conclude hereupon, that the Power of saving is all one in them both, because the Form of the word, is all one? Or that it is not properly and worthily verified of Christ, because it is but improperly attributed to S. Timothy? Consider then I pray you (M. jewel) whether this will put the matter out of doubt, if in Refelling the Sense of some one place which pleaseth you not, you bring a like Form of Speech used in an other place: And without further probation, require to have the understanding which your Aduersaie gathereth of his witness, to be reform according to the meaning of the sentences which you allege: As, because Princeps, that is Chief, is used in both places, whether you say Princeps Apostolorum, or Princeps Coquorum: Therefore to conclude, that the chiefty of S. Peter among the Apostles, was no other thing than the chiefty of N. among the Cooks. Beware therefore (christian Reader) of M. jewel, And especially in those places: which as they make most for the catholic Faith, so hath he no other refuge for saving himself from subscribing unto them, but this very Simple one and Feeble, to seek where like Phrases may be found of an other Sense yet and meaning, thereby to bring in to doubt (or as he supposeth) to putre out of doubt, that the Sense of the catholics Objection can not continue. Which, in few words, is no other, then to show himself A Grammarian only, And to destroy one truth by an other, as though. One phrase might not have two good Senses, each one agreeing with the place in which they are appointed to serve. The sum of M. jewels Argument is this: The like form or phrase of speech is to be found in an other sense: Ergo, to put the matter out of doubt, this Present place (of which the question is) hath not a different or sundry sense from that other. The Sum of my meaning, is this: that no man be deceived through this kind of M. jewels Answering, wherein, he so telleth one Truth, that he dissuadeth an other. This practice of the Protestants hath already done harm enough. let them begin rather to amend, their former iniquities, then to add fresh unto them. They have answered: God must be worshipped in Spirit: Which is most true, and have thereby taken away an other truth, that, God is also to be worshipped with our body and bodily things. They have answered: The true Fast is to abstain from Sin. Which is undoubteely True: but by that fair show of pure holiness, they have Destroyed an other Truth that, Together with the fasting from sin, we must also take pains in our body, and abstain now and then, from meat and drink. They have Answered: We must receive the body of Christ by faith, which in some sense is most true. But they have there withal taught the people, not to believe the Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament: which presence yet is as true, as the other is certain. In other cases more, they have done the like. It is to much that they have already done: let them not therefore continue in this trade of Answering, nor of dealing in matters of Religion. Specially when they bring the matter, to Phrases of Speech, and Signification of words, and by one Sense take away an other, whereas both in their several places do agree with Truth: this kind of handling or Tumbling rather of things, the more further of it is, from the Common Capacity and judgement of the Reader, that sorer it troubleth his conscience, & the harder it is to be remedied. For the less he is able to examine it, the more he mistrusteth, when he seeth many words made on the contrary side about it: and by that same reason, because he lacketh the learning and Intelligence, he will not so easily conceive what is told him, or perceive what is what in the question. For, like as you M. jew. have now instructed us, in the significations, of Missa, Princeps, Principality, and Rector: so, if an other would teach us, as concerning the Motherheade of our blessed Lady, The excellency of Christ, the Resurrection of our flesh, that A Mother, Christ, & flesh, signify not always a natural mother, Or the Saviour of the world, or this sensible and palpable flesh: would it not cost us so many words in that refelling of it, & cause us so narrowly to examine, every circumstance about it, that the common reader should either not intent, for slewth or weariness, to consider it, Or not be able to perceive it, or if he did, to say yet to himself, Byr Lady, this gear is not so clear and manifest, but arguments may be found out against it? To what purpose then is it, to peek up phrases only, & to give us the sundry significations only of words? Surely to no other end, than to bring in a confusion. In so much, that a man shall not be able to affirm any thing almost, be it never so manifest, but by the like feat a Reply will be made against it. Is it not true at this present, that you (M. jew) stand for a Bishop of Sarum? Let so much then be written unto Geneva, And let the brothers there, Rejoice, and Praise the Lord for it, that so learned and Fervent a Minister is set over the congregation. But in the beginning of their joy, if it should be said sadly unto them, that they were not best to be so glad before they be sure thereof, because A bishop is not always taken for a preacher of the word, or minister of the Sacraments, but signifieth sometimes a man which for any singular Qualities sake, hath a Charge & sight over any thing committed unto him etc. would not this objection, let y● forth going and course of their gladness? No doubt thereof. For by that time his needless talk were answered, and he for all that would reply again, that it followeth not Necessarily, M. jew. to have any spiritual office in that he is reported to be a bishop, because Cicero himself in his Epis. useth a lyk word to a far other sense, it would make some to doubt of the matter, & other to marvel at the putting up of the doubt, & every one to be troubled with some affection either with it or against it, the end therefore will be confusion. I speak not here against distinctions: neither can I mislike with his diligence, that when one word is taken sundry ways, doth set every sense of the word in his proper Place. But this is that, which would be amended in M. jewel, that in Reasoning against us, he be not content to tell us Barely, that Princeps, or principatus, or Rector is used diversly: but that he declare, in what one sense it must be taken, concerning that place about which our question is, Or in what other sense, then that which we do take it in Otherwise: If the question were, Whether any Mass be, at this day, said in Rome: we affirming, that there is: He Replieth in deed, when he Answereth, that, Missa is taken for any kind of Prayer. but, if he add no more, and if he can not say, in his conscience that the Mass at Rome is such a kind of Prayer only, he Replieth but like A Sophist, and maintaineth only a Contradiction, to the increase of Contention. And, neither will he yield to our proposition, because he replieth against it, neither doth he veny our proposition, because it is but a Truth which he saith, and therefore nothing contrary to that of ours: Neither will he apply his own sense of the word Missa (or what so ever other it be) to the question proponed, but like a man not only Amazed himself, but that would have all other to be uncertain in every matter, so he leaveth it as he found it in some note book or Lexicon, that Missa, Princeps, Principatus, are taken not always in one Sense. Beware therefore of him. Of the Courteous, Mild & Gentle, behaviour of M. jewel towards D. Harding. CAP. IX. YOur friends (M. jew.) believe it, & yourself do also acknowledge it: that you have dealt in this Conflict with D, Har. very honestly & modestly. And, if they think so, I marvel not, because a good will is so ready, to allow the Praises of him whom it liketh, that of every occasion, it doth admit the persuasion, that leadeth there unto. In so much, that without further Looking into your Book, & Considering of the Specialties, it is unto some a plain Demonstration, that you are of a very Quiet & Gentle Spirit, because you have charged your adversary only with Untruths, and abstained from the Term of Lies. Wherein, though they be greatly deceived (because in deed, in doing your worst, you could never have rightly called them Lies, which shallbe shortly proved, to be not so much as, Untruths) yet are they easily to be pardoned, because it is A common matter in good Natures & dispositions, quickly to be moved with the show of Virtue and honesty, without long tarrying and further trial, whether it be true or Counterfeit. But: As for you, M. jewel, it is great wonder, not, that you speak Sweetly and mean bitterly, or speak sharply and think it Truly: but, that you do pretend Modesty and practice Extremity, showing in words, as though either you had no Choler at all, either kept it down from Inflammations, And in deeds expressing such passions, as declare exceeding copy of bitter humours. jew. ●: Gentle M. jew. I will not (you say at the beginning) Answer heat for heat, but in such kind of Eloquence, will rather geave place. And again: 42. No, No, M. jewel triumpheth not, but giveth all triumph, victory, & glory unto God. 79. & inan other place: Of my arguments I make no Vaunt. If they sound well In God's ears, they are well in tuene. Do not these phrases and the like declare, the man to be much mortified, that useth them? And, that he is so far of from giving Reproach or Taunt of his own making: that he will not so much as use the occasion, when it is offered, or requite like with like, being Provoked? And who is he so perfit by his own Testimony? Forfoth M. jewel. And that M. jewel, which (bysyde those foresaid behaviours, of which I have spoken) spareth not to call men Innizers, Renegates, jew. pa. Robbers of the people, 2. and deceivers of them in all comfort, 3 Blind Guides, Sovereign Heretics, Wilful Devisers, Modest M. jew. Against their own knowledge, violently to repel the institution of Christ, 55 Deniers of Christ's institution, Improvers of God's commandment, 96 Men that use scornful and slanderous tales. 114 That M. jewel, 118 which chargeth them with Wilful malice, 2 Hatred of truth, 3. Childissh fables, Lies & slanders, Vain folly, and Manifest falsehood. Even that jewel, which sayeth of the bishops of Rome (to let go other, as favourable & gentle words towards them) that as julianus the Emperor in his frenzy, some times imagined y● that great Alexander's soul was come by succession to dwell in him: even so now the bishops of Rome Imagine by like fantasy or frenzy, that S. Peter's soul cometh by succession to dwell in them. Such Privilege & grace he hath boldly to set forth so Incredible & Slanderous Lies: & yet to be taken for a Quiet and Peaceable man. But against Strangers & Foreigners, he is (you will grant) somewhat Ernest and zealous: Marry towards D. Har. his old acquaintance & countryman, he is very sober So I trow, & temperate. jew. pag. 1. as by these his familiar Terms it will appear. 4 He laith to D. Har. charge, 5 Cavils, Inton perat humours of speaking evil, See what store He hath kept unto himself for all his leaving such kind of Eloquence unto his adversary. Inflaming 14 of his choler, 19 Villainy, Unhonest countenance, wicked wilfulness, Wanton folly, 23 Well broking of his own learning, 73 Bringing of blind Geasses, 79 Scorning, & that as his manner is, Wilful renouncing of gods known truth, 84 Presuming of his own wit and eloquence, 85 Bravery, 129 Ostentation of learning, Gross error, pomp of words, 165 New fantasy, Kind of learning not only peevish, but also fantastical & mere frantic, 149 refreshing himself with one poor syllable, 254 leving his learning utterly, 39 & holding by bare Gheasses as he commonly doth, 106 Speaking only by authority and ꝓuing nothing, 112 as his manner is, Narrow seeking to find some covert for his error: 122. Leaving the whole rout of his company, 127 & gladness to run alone, 145 Blindness, Bitterness of talk inflamed 〈◊〉 Malice, 172 whereof it seemeth he wanteth no store: 174 wanton denying of Christ, 175 amazing of the ignorant Reader with a countenance of great learning: Faction, 181 Contention, 217 maintaining of untruth, contrary to his own knowledge, 219 Doctrine serving only to maintain Ignorance & the kingdom of 231 darkness, 269 Liking of those authorities above all others, 284. which are most vain & shameless above all others. Manifest corruption and falsifieng of Doctors, Purposely corrupting both the Greek & the Latin of Socrates. These words be yours, M. jew. not only for that they be uttered by you: but also, for that they pertain directly & properly unto yourself. With these and other like pearls (As a jeweller abunding in such preciousness) ye have thoroughly beset your whole book, that it might the more glitter in the eye of your reader. Here 〈◊〉 your Stage is fully fraught. Some man would think, it were Vetus Comoedia: But it is not Absolutely so, because ye admit unto your Stage the Novam also. And like A cunning and wise Player, ye temper one humour diversely, keeping still the sharpness of your sense and meaning, but expressing it not always uncourteously. For like a good natured & nurtered adversary you order sometimes D. Harding mannerly & shamefastly, As: This argument is very weak, jew. pa. 27. jew. 104 Tender Compassion. I will not say it is unlearned or proceedeth of ignorance. Again: if it be, either the violence of nature, or the manner of his Catholic doctrine, that driveth M. Harding thus to taunt, he must be borne withal. 204 And again: O what meaneth M. Harding thus to deal? Loath I am to make the comparion, 225. but true it is: very children do not use to reason in so Childissh sort. Again: If I List to use his own terms, I might well call this, foisting or cogging, or I know not what. Lo what a kind heart here is? He will not say that he may say, he will bear which his adversary. Loath he is, to do that he doth. If he List, he could he sharper. As who should think, M. jew. of himself surely is of A Sweet & Gentle disposition, he inflameth not his Choler, not because he hath none: but either he will not, either he is loath, either he listeth not. He answereth not heat for heat, not only because he promised so: but even of very pure mildness of Spirit, and Moderation. Yet saving for the civility in utterance, all in effect is one: Whether one say, he lieth, or saving his reverence he lieth. And I like M. jew. no better when he saith: Loath I am to make the Comparison, jew. pa. 204 but true it is, very children do not use to reason in so childisshe sort: 164 than when he goeth plainly to work without dissimulation, 245 calling it, 60. lewd Logic, Where now is Loath I am, and he must be borne withal. that D. Har. useth, And with these Phrases disgracing his sayings: This Argument is much acrase●, It is utterly unsensible and void of reason, It halteth down right of one side, It hangeth only upon lack of carriage, A very Child may ●one see through ht it, It is a good fridays Argument: 166. 129 216. Again: This conclusion is faint, It is single sold etc. 135. 65. 137. 263. For both ways the adversary is grievously touched. Yea rather, where by other Signs it is plain and evident, jew. 308. that D. Harding is nothing at all spared, there to pretend A Good Countenance and a Quicte Affection: it is the more bitter and odious. What mean you by these words M. jew? here by the way, I must put M. Har. in remembrance, notwithstanding for his estimation sake, he would feign have his forth in these matters: Yet should he not therefore thus beguile the eyes of the simple, & thus mysreporte and falsi●ie the words of the ancient Fathers? Do you not herein charge him with high Pride, extreme Cruelty & wicked falsehood? When you call him Somewhat short witted, 198 29.26 54.143 & object against him wicked wilfulness, Wanton folly, Broking of his own learning, and tell him that His word is not yet Canonised, And, that his word is no Charter: do ye not Accuse him, by these words, unto that world & condemn him or contemn him in your own heart, for a Solemn, arrogant, high minded, foolish, Light and Unskilful man? This being then so evident, that you nothing regard him, when so ever you speak so Courteously as though in deed you had no Disdain or Choler: it is, to the betraieing of your Craft and Hypocrisy, & no proof at all of your Sincerity or modesty. Neither do you mystic the sharp & bitter Terms, because of an inward humility of your own, & earnest Imitation of Meekness: but because you shall make your adversaries sayings appear that more Fervent, the more quietness in Answering yourself do Pretend and Counterfaiete. I marvel (say you) M. Harding being so grave a man, jew. 173. would borrow Ruffians Terms to scof withal. M. jew. marvel. This you say, because he used the Terms of Cogging and Foisting that die. And to make this more odious, you extol the Gravity of your adversary on the one side, & increase the vileness of the terms on the other side: as though they could never have been learned but of Ruffians. And between these Extremes, yourself stand a marvelling, as if you should think: Surely if it were to me, I would never use such Methaphores, as are taken of Shameful Occupations. But, If these Terms offend you (M. jewel) why call you them out of season to memory? jew. 22● Why are you not content which once noting of so Grave A man for them, but again and again repeat them, out of Time and Place: 235. I might (say you) call this Foisting or Cogging. Likewise, Here might M. Harding well bestow his terms, here might he truly say, the pope coggeth and foisteth. Doth this Cogging of your Adversary, become your Modesty? Or, is it for love of Meekness and Purity, that you can not abide the words which are used in some Art or Feat of small Honesty? I would or might conceive so much, if yourself practised not the contrary. For when you say: He heweth and Mangleth Chrysostom's words, jew. 65. jew. 225. He Mangleth and Maimeth S. Gregory's words, 269 He Shuffleth in words, Now have an eye Good Reader to M Har. 124 fingers, 160 And mark how he juggleth with S. Augustine's words, Marvel at yourself 198 M. jew. unless thou eye him well, he will steal from thee, He Playeth round about, merely, with his own fantasy, 221 Here M. Har. saith, 225 he will trip & Dance lightly over the Doctors, 237 Was he stayed with the Choinecough? 240 Non satis commodè divisa sunt temporibus tibi Daue haec. 299 He bringeth in Counsels in a Mummery, 302. O what Ranging and Hunting here is to beat up that thing, that will not be found? He cometh in only with jolly Brags and Great vaunts as if he were Playing at Post, and should win all by Vieinge: When you say all this (M. jewel) in half your Book only, besides that which I have already spoken, and that which I have left untouched: Into what company shall I say you have fallen, to borrow these Terms of them to skof withal? What Hewers, Ruffians, Shufflers, jugglers, Tumblers, Dancers, Davies, Mummers, Rangers, and Cardeplayers Have you met withal: of whom you should borrow fit Terms for expressing of your Gentle Affections? Doubtless (you say) such kind of dealing, jew. in the answer to D. Har. preface. Matth. 11. An Holy Lesson. as is without gall or bitterness, as it is most commendable in itself: so it seemeth most sitting in them, that travail in God's cause. Christ saith, Learn of me: for I am meek and Gentle. You therefore which know so much: with what Spirit have you multiplied your reproachful Metaphors, against D. Harding? Or how speak you, against Ungentle and Sharp Terms: yourself in this very foresaid place (where of purpose you frame your talk to a singular form of modesty) calling by craft, a man of Professed gravity, as yourself acknowledge, A SCORPION, Quickly forgotten. & objecting unto him, his younger JANNIZERS? And in the next leaf, that He thinketh all the world singeth SANCTUS, SANCTUS, & receiveth him with OZANNA. Is this your Remembering of that Good Lesson of Christ, which you teach D. Har. Learn of me, for I am meek & gentle? Cometh this, of your Smooth and Calm Affections? Do you stand fast and quiet upon the shore? Think you D. Harding, for calling you Goliath, Thersires &c. to be blown out by the tempests of his affections and to be tossed from the shore: And were you in no storm at all, when the Spirit moved you to say, that with those words he Solaceth himself, and refresheth his Spirits? Yourself (M. jewel) are not a meet man to geave Rules, Or to geave sentence in these matters, being so Eager and Light of mind: that neither ye have any stay of yourself, Nor yet do refrain, from commending yourself of Modesty. But, if there be among your brothers any so perfitt, that can tell, When, Where and in What sort etc. the Adversary may be sharply spoken unto, And can show us an Example thereof, in his own writings: let him put his Couclusions, and we shall 〈◊〉 be at a point, to know what behaviour we may boldly follow, when the cause itself giveth us to reprove you. As for such humbleness and Meekness that a man should not in any 〈…〉, an Heretic an Heretic, Or an Hypocrite an Hypocrite: Well it may be perchance the counsel of some indifferent man, which neither loveth y● one opinions nor hateth the other: but precept and Commandment of God, it is not. Our Saviour himself without any Inflaming of his Choler, using the Terms of Hypocrite, Math. 1●. 13. & 23. Tit. 1. Phil. 3 jud. epis. 1. Io. 2. Blind Guides, Fox, and Dalbed Sepulchres: And the Apostles after him, not sparing to name such as deserved it, Naughty Beasts, Idle Belies, Dogs, Clouds without water, Antichristes' & caet. Perchance therefore, if the mind be Simple, and the heart uncorrupted, and if the Reproach which we geave, be truly occasioned of our adversaries sayings or doings, and not invented of ourselves: our whole Act, is out of danger. But this I am sure of, that it becometh not him, which will be Exact against others in such matters, and take upon him the Countenance of a Quiet, Gentle, Courteous, Patience, and holy man: to offend more extremely in the same kind of thing, for which he misliketh with others. And because, you are so Reported and Praised (M. jewel) to deal in this your Reply, very Modestly and Charitable, like A man that sayeth less than he could, And that favoureth the estimation of his Adversary, choosing rather to diminish somewhat of that fire which is enkindled, than to add more matter unto it: I thought it expedient to declare A part of such Notes and Signs, by which it may be perceived, that for all the fair show of a good Complexion inwardly, yet you be full of ill humours. And that, notwithstanding the sweet Spirit, that favour reporteth to come from you, you are so bitter and sour in Experience, that the Reader needeth advertisement, To BEWARE Of you. It followeth now, shortly to declare, in what sort M. jewel hath abused many other, with whom he hath to do in his Reply. I mean, not only Ancient Counsels or Fathers within the First six hundred years, but any kind of writer, whose Testimony he useth or Refuseth. His Contradictions also, his Gross Errors or Heresies, And the Places or Arguments, which for all his Great Reply, he hath not Answered, they would not be left untouched. But, because these points, though I mind, but shortly, to note them, will occupy more time and Paper, then, at this present, I think good to tarry, or this Book will commodiously bear, being already of a sufficient bigness: I will therefore put it over to A Third Book. Which if it should, either not come forth at all, Or more slowly come forth, then either my intent surely and purpose is, Or thy desire perchance and expectation will be: yet do I leave this, in the mean time, sufficiently proved, that M. jewel is, in deed, such a man, as of whom thou oughtest to BEWARE, though in word, he seemeth to be one of the most uprighteste Protestants, that in these days, laboureth in the english vineyard. For Who so zealous as he, for setting forth of the procedings? who so copious as he, in alleging Ancient Fathers and Counsels? Who so stout in challenging & bragging? Who so sweet in alluring & flattering? What he is in Sermos' by lively utterance, I never hard, or I have forgotten: but what he is in his writings through a sad and loving countenance, I see, and am both weary of it, and sorry for it. For I find in his words so great reverence & remembrance of God, so tender compassion and care of his Reader, that except I did certainly know it, by all his writings, that he dealeth unjustly, I might easily think it, that he feareth God, & regardeth men. I speak not this (saith he) in vehemency of spirit, jew. in his Sermon. or heat of talk, but even as before GOD, by the way of simplicity and truth. Again: As truly as GOD is GOD & caet. And again in an other place of the same answer, In the 1. answer to D. Cole. 〈◊〉. I protest before God. And in this Reply, When I read these words of M. hardings, I am stricken with horror, to consider the terrible judgement of God: It is much to be feared that he that is lead away of this sort, offendeth not of Ignorance, for so were the fault more pardonable, but against the manifest known truth, and against the spirit of God. Here lo in these phrases is expressed the similitude of A right good man, which continually walketh in the sight of God, and hath such consideration of his maiesrie that the mind sometimes being attentively se● thereupon, draweth (I can not tell how) much of the corporal Spirit & sense with it, and ieaveth the body in an horror. Concerning then his affection towards men: God grant (saith he) unto all his people the Spirit of wisdom and understanding & caet. Again. O good Reader, they deal not simple, they dissemble, they mean it not. Again, Alas this was no part of S. Augustine's mind. jew. pa. 5. 3●. 124. 117. Beware good Reader, this man seeketh ways to deceive thee. Again. O good Christian Reader, mark the dealing of this man, and Beware of him. Again. Take heed good Reader, M. harding hath here thrown A great Mist of learning, to dasle thy sight. Here lo again such Charity and Conscience is pretended, as though M. jewel (good man) did hate nothing more than deceiving of the Reader, and casting of any mist before his eyes: And that he so intendeth the Glory of God, In his 〈…〉 and wealth of Souls, as though without any request made unto him, he did, for his part, utterly deny his learning, deny his Bishopric, deny his estimation, deny his name, deny● himself: Only The Faith of Christ and the Truth of God he could not deny. Yet, all these devout Affections, and Earnest sayings notwithstanding, thou shalt find him in deed so contrary unto them, as though he cared neither for God nor for man. Remember (if thou hast read this book) or Consider (if thou wilt he assured) what Hupocrisie and Injury, he useth in the first Article, of private Mass? For whereas D. Harding reasoned only about Sole receiving, he draweth mast violently & wrongfully, all his arguments to saying of Mass, of Receiving under both kinds. In the second Article, what A Trifler, and Shifter, and wrangler doth he show himself to be? First he stoutly saith, The Communion in the primitive Church was not ministered unto the people in one kind. If you prove the contrary by some Examples, yea, saith he, but it was not ministered so unto the WHOLE PEOPLE: Again, not in the OPEN CHURCH. further yet, NOT ORDINARILY, and last of all, NOT AS IT IS NOW USED & caet. In the third Articie, of the Public Service in the vulgar tongue? How Contentious & weyward is be? Nothing can please him or satisfy him. All that D. Harding doth allege is but Conjectures and Gheasses. In that fourth Article of the Supremacy, he calleth for the name of Universal Bishop or Head of the Church. And A name as good as y●, shall not suffice: the very Name itself, he must have, or else the Catholics (let them be sure thereof) shall here of it. As long then, as the Name cometh not, he braggeth: when it cometh in deed, be contemneth it, and showeth how it was no great maestrie to find it. So contentiously and so shamefully, as though 〈◊〉 were not A God which beholdeth 〈◊〉 judgeth our secret thoughts, or as tho● 〈◊〉 it should not pertain to any man's C●●● science, to care or pass much upon th● 〈◊〉 matters, but only to have some what to 〈◊〉 always for himself, least he should 〈◊〉 at any time to his Adversary. How, for the second book, his Common Places and Digressions, his Abusing of D. Harding so many ways, as I 〈◊〉 specified, do meetly well prove (I thank) that he followeth not the plain way of Simpliciti of Truth. If they do not, than 〈◊〉 some Charitable Protestant, deliver me of my opinion therein by answering my Examples and Arguments. If they do, I pray them to remember themselves, & either to move M. jewel to the amending of his faults, & the Correcting yet once more Again, of his Reply: or to make no more of this which he hath done, than it deserveth. But to make here an end: If my 〈◊〉 do bring any profit unto thee (Indifferent Reader) I am sufficiently recompensed for them, by the vantage 〈…〉 take of thy profit: If they 〈…〉 all, they yet can not be all lost because of 〈◊〉 〈…〉 considereth my Intent, & knoweth 〈…〉 for just causes endued to take these 〈…〉. Being therefore myself out of all 〈…〉 of loss by this bargainen, for thent, I 〈…〉 him, that thou also mayst win 〈…〉 or if thy occupieing be not hitherto 〈…〉 that thou shouldest look to win, yet I ●ay God heartily, that thou mayest not le●se, 〈…〉, to speak it more plainly unto thee, that thou mayest BEWARE OF M. JEWEL. Faults escaped in the Printing. Folio. Page. Line. Fault. Correction. 60. 2. 2 the he 70. 1. 12. left let 86. 2. 4. the he 104. 2. 20. put out (the) 116. 1. 6. shifted sifted 128. 2. 23. Received Receive. 141. 2. 17. must most 75. 1. 24. Cogging. Egging. ¶ Faults in the Margin. Pa. ●●. ying lying