A DISPROUFE OF M. NOWELLES REPROUFE. By Thomas Dorman Bachelor of Divinity. Dignare ergo rescribere nobis, ut sciamus quomodo fieri possit, ut ecclesiam suam Christus de toto orb perdiderit, & in vobis solit habere coeperit. August. ad Honorat. epist. 161. Vouchesaufe to write again to us, that we may know how it can be, that Christ should lose his church over all the world, and begin to have it amongst you only. printer's device of Johannes de Laet, featuring a farmer scattering seed in a field (not in McKerrow) SPES ALIT AGRICOLAS Imprinted at Antwerp by john Laet, Anno Domini 1565. 3 Decembris, with special privilege. REGIAE Maiestatis privilegio permissum est Thomae Dormanno S. Theologiae baccalaureo, ut per aliquem typographorum admissorum impunè ei liceat imprimi curare, & per omnes Burgundicae ditionis regiones distrahere, librum inscriptum: A disprove of M. nowels reproof, & omnibus alijs inhibitum, ne eundem absque eiusdem Thomae consensu imprimant, vel alibi impressum distrahant. Dat. Bruxellae. 17. Octob. Anno. 1565. Subsig. Pratt. THE PREFACE TO THE READERS, CONTAINING THE ANSWER TO M. nowels PREFACE. IF as in war where worldly titles use by dint of sword to be determined/ so in skirmisshes of learning/ where truth in doubtful matters/ is only attempted to be tried out: where gods glory not man's preferment is chiefly sought: where the limits and bounds of Christ's eternal kingdom the church/ not of worldly dominions which shall perish and have their end/ are defended it were lawful (good Readers) to use false undermining/ and Stratagems to deceive/ to raise smokes to blind the eyes of the simple readers/ as doth the politic captain when to conceal the better▪ the weakness of his power/ which being known to the enemy might breed boldness/ and increase courage/ he maketh fires of green fern or wet straw/ that under the dark smoke thereof he may the saufflier lie unespied) finally if in controversies about religion/ it were lawful to say with Lisander the Lacedaemonian/ that where the lions Plutarch. in Lac●. skin will not serve, it may and must be eached with the case of the fox: then in this respect/ the auctor perhaps of the reproof/ might for this smoky preface of his have deserved at your hands/ the name at the least and title of a wary and circumspect captain/ and be thought hereafter worthy/ to have the leading of a greater army than hitherto he hath had. But if on the contrary part/ as the nature of the things about the which in these two kind of wars the strife is/ is contrary: so the manner of trial and conquest be also diverse: if truth be strong enough of herself and need not the help of by practices to be supported by: if her bright beams disdain to be obscured with cloudy mists: then hath this auctor not furthered but hindley his ●ause/ then hath he discovered his weakness/ not showed his prowess/ then may he be termed a cowardly soldier/ not a valiant capiteine. Now here must I desire you as many as will adventure to give judgement of the event of this conflict between us/ to open the eyes of your understanding/ and to consider the vain smokes whereby in this preface of his he laboureth to blind you/ and to disgrace both me and all such as have written of late in English. The way (you know well that be of the learned sort) to bring this to pass/ aught to be by comparing matter with matter/ cause with cause/ and reason with reason. But the adversary forcing when it shall come to the close/ and to the point that the matter must so be tried/ how weak and feeble he is like to be found/ thought it a point of wisdom/ first before all things to get by stealth)/ the possession as it were of your minds/ and there leaving prejudice his lieutenant/ himself to be afterwards occupied about the residue of his affairs. For this cause he raised these foul and thick smokes/ that such as have written of late in english, be but silly translators or borowers of those books, whose first authors they would In the first side of his preface. seem to be, that therefore mistrusting that such kind of writing or rather translating, should not appear worthy to be accounted the earnest doing of any learned or wise man, they have done wittily, either to pretend that to be written but lightly for a private friend or twain, and not meant to be printed etc. or else to appoint such to bear the name as authors of their books, as may seem most meet therefore, being accounted of all that know them, for learning and discretion the simplest men amongst them: that these books have been elaborated at convenient opportunity by common conference. Behold here I pray you/ the fond conjectures that have smoked out of M. nowels idle brain/ wherewith he thinketh so to dim the eyes of all men/ that he may under these clouds steal when he To the 1. will in to their bosoms. If no new book may be made (as here he seemeth to maintain) because all that can be spoken is said already: if for this cause/ who so ever will wright now/ shall be but a silly translator Nihil est dictum quod non est dictum priùs and borrower of other: may we not justly say to him and all such: who be you that object to us the translating out of other men's latin works in to our English books? Are you not of the conspiracy of them/ that rob all the heretics that ever wrote before you/ to patch up your clouted Apology? Is there any one sentence there that hath not been filched from some one heretic or other? your great Bassa, if his doings be thus examined/ is he not like to be numbered amongst M. jewel. the silly translators? If he should be cruelly called upon to restore to your apology/ to Musculus his common places/ to his master Peter martyr his note books/ the debt that he hath borrowed of them/ might he not think you become banckerout shortly? Yourself also/ and that other that skirmisheth with the cross of Christ/ should you be in any better case/ the one of you borrowing from Calvin his in stitutions/ Brentius/ and such like/ the other taking out of the history of Magdeburg/ and the English homily against images/ such matter as he found there ready framed to his hands? But what speak I hereof/ seeing that by this means/ neither is there any new book now adays made/ neither of long time hath been/ or hereafter can be made. For neither made Cicero the books De Oratore, neither Plato De Legibus, neither Hipocrates his Aphorisms/ neither Aristotle his Physica, because all these learned what so ever they wrote/ of other that were before them. Thus much may be said to M. Nowell sustaining this paradox (to deface us to the world) that we are silly translators, because nothing can now be newly written for the maintenance of the pope's supremacy, or any other matters which we now treat of, but such as hath been already both written and printed many years ago etc. The which so strange an opinion/ as for his small skill some simple Idiot may maintain/ so is it for the person of M. Nowell/ one that beareth some countenance of learning/ and is in deed in the place and room of a learned man/ altogether unfitting. And this I doubt not but he himself/ aswell by the experience of his own writing of late/ as of other of his side that wright daily/ knew well enough. But to much Rhetoric made him play the fool/ and while he followed to near the precepts of his art/ he strayed to far from the rules of all good reason. For although it be trick of Rhetoric/ to labour to bring the adversary in the very entry in to the matter/ out of credit with the reader or hearer: yet is it a point of reason to foresee and provide withal/ that the means which a man useth/ be not such as may be returned against himself. Well this being now in the hearing of M. Nowell who peeped belike To the. 2. there while in at the key hole) concluded amongst the catholics in this solemn conference of theirs/ that some thing should be set forth in English/ the next devise was of the manner of publishing it. Which was/ if the Reporter lie not) that because they mistrusted dost this kind of writing or rather translating, should not appear worthy to be accounted the earnest doings of any learned or wise man, they should pretend either their books to be written lightly for private friends etc. or appoint such to bear the name as authors of such books, as were the simplest men for learning and discretion amongst them. If malice had not altogether blinded him/ and as it were bereaved him of common sense/ never would he have abused your ears (good Readers/ with such vain toys as these are. For there is none of you I trust/ but that he judgeth better of the whole number o● catholics/ then that he can be persuaded to think/ that there should be amongst them any so wittelesse/ (much less that a multitude should agree in conference) to think/ that to wright of a matter either in the same tongue or any other/ whereof an other hath written before/ were a thing not worthy to be accounted the doing of any learned or wise man. Which if they should think/ what were it else but to condemn all the learned writers of so many hundred years/ of ignorance and lack of wit/ as either being silly translators or needy borowers. Beside this/ there is none of you I trust so simple but that he can easily imagine with himself/ that it is not likely/ that any Catholic should be so far from all reason/ as to fear this that M. nowels fantasy surmiseth/ having especially in his eye the example of heretics themselves/ who writing daily in the vulgar tongues/ be yet therefore counted of none but fools in deed/ the less learned or wise. He noteth in the margin M. Doctor Harding and M. Rastell/ for pretending their books to be written for private friends. And why ought they not rather (being both of them to speak the lest men of no in famous manners or godless consciences) to be believed/ affirming the same in their several prefaces to the Readers/ then M. Nowell with his most vain and unlikely conjectures/ being already infamous for beelieng that learned man M. Doctor Redman/ as to honest/ learned/ and good men yet living it is notoriously known? As for us whom he calleth the simplest amongst the Catholics for learning and discretion: if that be true/ so much have we the greater cause to render thanks to almighty God/ who hath preserved free from the infection of their heresies/ such a number no worse learned/ nor of less discretion than we by god's grace are. Who may when it shall please his wisdom to appoint the time/ and to move the heart of our prince to call us home/ show ourselves workmen in building up that/ which heretics have destroyed and pulled down. But I fear me and would it were not so/ that even in this point also/ M. Nowell hath made a Rhetorical lie. The next thing that he burdeneth us withal/ is common conference. I would it were true that he layeth to our charge. If we were as To the 3. wise as we should be/ it should be true/ and we would in this point imitate our adversaries. But our saviour hath said (it can not be false) filii huius seculi pruden●iores fili●s lucis in generatione sua sunt. Lucae. 16. The children of this world be wiser than the children of light/ in their generation. And so it happeneth unto us. But here I pray you good readers/ mark how he doubleth and faltreth in this tale of his/ that so you may the better understand with whom you deal in this case. First he saith that all our doings be but silly translations/ the which he maketh so easy a matter/ that the meanest (he saith) amongst us (have they only a little understanding in the latin tongue) may after this sort load them with havoc of books. Here/ (forgetting that ever he spoke these words) he saith that these books have been long elaborated by common conference. What shall we say? If this kind of writing called by him translating M. nowels tongue faltreth in his lying tale. be so easy as he maketh it/ what need was there of long or common conference/ which things be only required in matters of great hardness and difficulty? What cause of fear of committing the handling of matters of such weight to a few/ although young men year understanding the latin tongue as well as himself/ then which/ less knowledge by his own confession would serve to load them with havoc of books? If this be true/ what needed M. D. Harding or M. Rastell either/ to use the advise of their learned friends/ to have any survey made by others of their doings/ seeing it is well known/ that as they are both able to translate out of latin books before written in to theirs made in English: so they would for their wisdoms translate out of such (beside Pighius/ Gropperus/ Hosius/ whom in this place he nameth) as being never yet by heretic answered/ have by the consent of all learned catholics/ and very silence of heretics/ been so already allowed for sound and good/ that to make any doubt thereof now/ might seem a thing altogether needless and superfluous? Now here again I pray you considre/ how unlikely it is/ that ever any wise catholics should be of this mind to publish their common devise unto the world/ in the name of a few of the simplest sort among them? Their doings M. Nowell saith were taken out of the books of such catholics as had written before. This being granted/ that minding to overthrow heresies they would choo●e out of the worst/ who is so foolish to believe? If they chose out of the best whom envy herself can not deny but to have been learned/ & to have written learnedly/ Roffensis Pighius Gropperus Hosius. Alphonsus de Castro●. what a high point of policy had this been/ to make a few of the simplest sort among us/ to bear the name of such learned men's works/ whereas contrariwise the most learned (if they would not have their council bewrayed) should have borne the name thereof? This being good Readers M. nowels most fine discourse touching the late printing of certain English books: you see I trust/ how much he hath set forward more hastily then wisely. yet he upon the same as a truth most clearly proved/ bringeth in a comparison between the chief of the catholics/ and the Phariseis sending their disciples to Christ to appose him/ when for fear they durst not come in presence themselves. And to give the more authority hereto/ he bringeth the exposition of chrysostom thereupon. A solemn interpretation in a matter not necessary/ and a sad bringing in of witness to prove that that is not in question. For till this be first proved that the catholics had such politic fetches as he imagineth/ to resemble them to the Phariseis/ and to allege Chrisostomes' interpretation upon the place/ it was to give a sad sentence clean beside the matter. But such is the noble courage of M. Nowell: Luther must be Christ and he one of his disciples/ yea though he be judas that betrayed his master/ who so ever say nay/ as in the process of this Reprouffe of his/ wherein nothing is with him more common/ then to call us Phariseis/ and himself and his companions Apostles and disciples/ most evidently it doth appear. Wherein he seemeth to me (I may say with better right than he applieth against us the exposition of chrysostom) to resemble very much mad Hawkins of Bedlam/ who persuadeth himself and would all other to believe the same/ that he is descended of the blood royal/ his father being well known to be a mean man/ and a brewer of Oxford. Hitherto hath M. Nowell in general words laboured/ to deface The 4. side §. and to speak. the doings of such as have written of late in English: now steppeth he from thence to me/ against whom his special grudge is. Of me he saith: first/ that it was no great labour to borrow out off my master D. Harding his book so lately before written, of authorities and reasons ready framed to my hands, so much as liked me &c. secondarily/ that they that do know me better than he doth, marveling of my doings in divinity matters, do think that I have all my learning not of inheritance but by legacy etc. For the first he might have believed me at my word if it had pleased him/ signifying in the preface of my book/ aswell to him as to all other/ that it was intended to be made/ and the greatest part thereof finished/ before that ever I Understood that M. Doctor Harding meant any such thing▪ And of this could I bring right good witness/ if either I thought my credit not to be as good as M. nowels/ or the thing itself imported so much/ that the trial of the truth of the contents of my book dependid thereupon. Now as for them that knowing m● better than M. Nowell doth/ marvel at my doings in divinity: surely I can let no man to marvel at his own shadow if he list. Of this I am sure/ that there is no cause why I should care much for this their judgement who so ever they be/ if M. Nowell have reported it truly. For he that is so foolish to make his account/ that learning may descend by inheritance/ or be bequeathed and received by legacy/ what were it but to be more fool than he/ to care for such a fools sentence? But I believe if the matter were well scanned/ it would fall out to be one of M. nowels own devices/ uttered now in the A shift to convey a lie. name of some other/ because he himself had so lately before pronounced/ that I had taken my authorities and reasons ready framed out of M. Doctor hardings book/ which if I had met with such a legacy/ it might have seemed needless to have done. But be it his/ or be it whose it shall/ sure I am that the auctor thereof is none of my acquaintance: for never was I yet acquainted I thank god/ with so very a fool. Notwithstanding for the satisfying of his great marveling/ may it please M. Nowell when he meeteth him next (if it be not himself to ask of him by what means he that was but Bachilar of art in the same colleague that I was of/ when I was bachilar of the law/ start up so soon a preacher at Paul's cross/ and a public reader of english divinity in the university of Oxford? May it please him further/ for the Sir Greshop. removing this scruple that so troubleth him/ to demand of him/ whether I were not as likely at that time in the judgements of as many as knew us both/ within three years after to wright the book that I have written/ as he was within less than the space of one year after/ to occupy the place at Paul's cross/ or to preach and re●de publicly divinity in Oxford? Which sermons and lessons (such as they were) would have made diverse books (he may be hold to tell this marveling man) every one of them by many parts greater than mine. If these questions be asked/ I dare assuer you/ this old acquaintance shall be either thoroughly satisfied/ or forced to confess the cause of difference to be● because as saith Tertullian: Nusquâm facilius proficitur * He meaneth the schools of heretics rebelling against God and his church. quâm Lib de prescript. heretic. in castris rebellium, ubi illic esse promereri est: men come forward no where sooner than in the tents of rebels/ where the very being/ is to be advanced. Where M. Nowell scoffeth at my proceeding bachelor of divinity/ this I do him to understand/ that I proceeded not upon the bridge/ but in the public schools/ in the face of the whole university/ in the presence of an honourable and a learned audience. I answered for my degree in two several questions/ the●rst being. De primatu summi pontificis: the other/ a liceat homini Christiano divertore ab uxore propter adulterium, & aliam ducere? I disputed after the manner of the schools/ a question out of the Sentences pro & contra. I declaimed in the praise of the study of divinity: I read for my form the beginning of the. 6. chap. of the first epistle of S. Paul to the Corinth. And all this under a most Learned precedent (as to the world his sundry writings have made him known for no less) Matthaeus Galenus Vestcappellius. How I behaved myself in these exercises/ if modesty would suffer it/ I could here by the inserting of the testimony of the university und the seal thereof/ make it appear to the world. This I trust without offence being urged thereto by mine adversary I may be bold to say/ yea in conscience I take myself bound to say/ seeing this contemptuous abasing of me/ tendeth to the only discrediting of the catholic faith (which by god's grace I maintain) that my demeanour was such/ as neither my country sustained dishonour/ nor myself dishonesty/ nor the part of the questions which I chose to defend (being yet the first of them/ impugned with as learned arguments as M. Nowell hath hitherto brought) any prejudice in the judgement of the learned hearers: as by the degree bestowed upon me by the colleague of divines/ and the honest commendation given to me by Franciscus Balduinus, pnsent while I answered in the first question two hours together/ afterwards it appeared. Thus much hath M. nowels slanderous report/ forced me (good readers) to utter of myself/ which otherwise it could have becomed me in no wise to have done. If his good Master M. grindal/ would try them as well and sift them as near/ whom he admitteth to preach at Paul's cross (a place sometimes for bachelors and Doctors in Divinity) as I was tried/ such store of unlearned but most railing sermons/ should not be made there as daily there are. Now I could here imitate M. nowels Rhetoric/ were I disposed to enter in to such vain contentions and fruitless comparisons/ and tell him also/ that some one of his acquaintance who knoweth him better than I do/ merueileth also at his doings in divinity matters/ the knowledge whereof being neither to be found in Rodolphes logic (wherein his greatest learning & study both was in Oxford) neither in westminstre school where Terence his comedies will give no place to Paul's epistles/ he thinketh that he met at Geneva or else where/ with some scattered scraps of john Caluins/ old/ caste and overworn/ heretical divinity/ or else he thinketh he could never returning home/ before he was known to be a student in divinity/ become so suddenly of a mean schoolmaster/ so valiant a preacher. Unless perhaps/ the same spirit that hath created of late divines (not on the bridge but in their shops/ or disputing upon the alebenche for their degree) so many tinkers/ cobblers/ cowheardes'/ broom men/ fiddlers/ and such like/ have also made him a preacher amongst the rest. Now followeth a reason of M. nowels/ why not provoked The. 5. side § Now if any do marvel. as may seem, he answereth my book written against the B. of Sarisbury. I think no man w●ll marvel of his writing/ and therefore he might have saved that cost/ and rather have satisfied men in this/ why writing only against fifteen leaves of my book/ he is so impudent leaving the substance untouched/ to pretend that he answereth my whole book. After this he addeth certain other causes/ why he answered no sooner/ and why he proceeded no further. He stayed he saith in answering/ because he understood at the length/ that M. Doctor Harding his book and mine were so agreeable in substance/ that M. jewel who had than he heard say made his answer to D. Harding ready to print/ should in answering the one/ in effect have answered both/ and therefore he would in no wife prevent his good Lord. That this is a false forged cause invented only to save the honour of the brotherhood/ who lingered so long in answering/ he that hath readen both our books will easily perceive. For of the second ● proposition handled in my * That temporal princes may not govern in religion. book/ it is clear/ that it hath no manner of affinity with any article handled by D. Harding. Except M. nowels discretion will serve him to say/ that if M. jewel should be able to disprove the pope's supremacy/ it would follow thereupon that lay princes should govern in causes of religion. Which if lack of due consideration should move him to say/ yet the wisdom of other would not suffer them to believe. And therefore this being no article of M. Doctor hardings/ it was never likely that M. jewel would ever do such a work of supererogation/ as to encumber himself any further than occasion was given him. Besides/ if this were the cause of M. nowels stay/ why began he then to answer me at all: Forsooth he preventeth this objection by saying/ that he knew not before he begun/ that our two books were so agreeable. Now forsooth a discrete writer by his own confession/ that will begin to answer a book before he have readen it over. Is this credible good Readers? And yet thus must it needs be were it true that he pretendeth. Except having read over my book/ he had not readen M. Doctors/ against which nevertheless being long in England or my book came/ he had uttered before his malice at Paul's cross/ and therefore belike had first readen it/ or elles like wrighter like preacher. But well know all men/ that/ that grave and sober stayed head of his/ could not admit any such rash and temerarious fact/ and therefore this was but a zealous lie/ whereby to excuse the common lingering of them all/ he was content to hazard his own worship. For whereas now he feared lest it would be espied/ that all this patched tale is but a lewd lie/ seeing that he needed no more to fear to go before M. jewel in answering my whole book/ then in answering fifteen leaves thereof/ which having in his hands he might have chosen whether he would have delivered to the printer or no/ to help that he saith: For even now being come thus far, the bishops answer as The 7. side § But when I had passed. the report went being then not fully finished, and many good men much desiring some answer, and as many adversaries as much bragging that their books would never be answered, the council of some friends, and continual brag of so many adversaries, caused me to suffer this little taste as untimely fruit, the sooner to come abroad. You must here imagine good Readers/ that even just at that time when the report went that M. jewels answer was not fully finished/ M. Nowell was come to the 15. leaf of my book. You must also think that this knowledge was brought to him by common report/ because you may not suspect any conference between them. But above all things as you tendrelye regard M. nowels poor honesty/ you must understand two reports/ and one of them a false report/ or else must he be a false reporter. And all this doth M. Nowell/ because for his experience he knoweth/ that a lie may better be fathered upon report or common bruit/ than upon one man alone. The first report cried as it were to M. Nowell: hold your hands for god's sake/ the B. of Sarisbury hath killed them both with one blow. His answer to D. Harding is already made/ and ready to print. hereupon M. Nowell (as he is a very pitiful hearted man) loath to kill them that were already dead/ by and by stayed. But this was false report/ who was no sooner out of sight/ but in cometh the other report/ accompanied with certain of M. nowels friends/ and here began a new cry/ that he should give the onset/ the bishops band was not yet ready. And so he did/ so hard a matter it was for him and his companions/ to obtain (they had gone so long upon their credit) any long time of sustaining the expectation of M. jewels answer/ at the hands of either friends or adversaries/ that needs must M. Nowell be thrust forth against his will/ to go before M. jewel. How likely these pretences are to be true/ time will discover it M. Nowell stay here and go no further. In the mean season how likely they are to be true/ the wise will be able to judge by the circumstances of this his halting and doubtful tale. We are now come to that part (good Readers) of M. nowels § Now that I have preface/ wherein he giveth certain reasons/ why he hath so diligently, largely, and as it may seem carefully also answered me: whose own doings he affirmeth/ to be more worthy of laughter then of any earnest answer. I perceive it troubleth M. Nowell to think/ that Demit honoem aemulus Aiaci. But I pity him the less/ because he made the match himself. His reasons are/ that he The first. answereth not the reasons alleged by me as mine, but as D. hardings, and not only D. hardings, but of Eckius, Pighius, and Hosius, yea & of all those that have written in latin for the pope's usurped power etc. Lo the noble courage of M. Nowell/ for whom no one man can be found alone able to match with him/ but they must be all called forth at once/ that ever wrote in latin for the pope's supremacy, Which seeing it is so/ now be of good comfort M. Calfhill/ whose Calfhill in epist. ad Martialem. only sorrow you say was/ that M. Nowell had not a more learned adversary. You see that there is not only no cause of sorrow/ but much occasion to rejoice/ that with the answering of 15. leaves of my book/ all that ever wrote for the pope shall be answered in me. Where was your wit when you feared this? Thought you that M. Nowell would not provide for such a fowl blemish to his honour? But to the matter. I am not ashamed good readers to confess/ that in writing Ipse the learned arguments of such as have handled the like matter before/ and that if any reasons be weaker than other/ they be those especially that be of mine own framing. And is it not so think you with M. Nowell? Those amongst you that be of the learneder sort know that it is so/ & that in answering him I answer their apology/ Calvin/ Luther/ Melancthon/ Bucer/ Brentius/ Peter Martyr/ in whose writings the like reasons are to be found/ and that what so ever he hath not in them/ is foolish/ fond/ & unworthy to be answered. The second The. 2. reason why M. Nowell answereth me so diligently and carefully/ is he saith/ because I have set forth a book, slanderous not to several persons only, but to our whole country, to our laws, and to our gracious Sovereign, whom (he saith) I charge as usurping undue authority: slanderous, not at home only, but abroad also in foreign countries. Wherefore whom so ever I show myself to be, and how sclendre an answer might best become me, he thought it should become him not sclendrely to esteem the honour of his prince, his duty to his country and to the laws of the realm, but with earnestness to repel such reproaches, as I have attempted to blemish them withal. As I have slandered in my book no private persons/ nor said of any one that which is not publicly known to be true: so have I in the whole discourse thereof/ had that regard to my duty towards my most redoubted sovereign/ that reverence to her laws/ that natural affection to my country/ that although truth of herself be sour and hateful/ yet have I been always most far from these slanders wherewith I am burdened. Neither doubt I any thing/ but if not before/ yet in that great day of revelation her highness shall most clearly see/ whether our plain dealing be slanderous to her person/ or their hypocritical flattery traitorous to her soul: whether he be a good bishop or no/ qui laicis (to use the words of S. Ambrose) ius sacerdotale substernit, Ambr. lib. 5. epist. 32. that bringeth the priestly right in subjection to lay men. I charged never her highness with the usurping of undue authority: I charged those clawebackes & flattering parasites for forcing upon her grace a Fol. 28. a. in my first book. title/ which Calain himself as I proved) denied to her father. And now I charge them again for the same/ and add thereunto beside/ that they are the men themselves that are slanderous to the Queen/ to her laws/ to the whole realm. First for bringing in laws ecclesiastical the like whereunto in all christendom are not to be found: then/ for forcing upon her grace a title/ which no king or Queen christened will use beside: but above all things for this/ that they that call her grace supreme governor in all things and causes aswell ecclesiastical as temporal/ The protestants doings slanderous to the Queen and the realm. are noted/ not at home only but abroad also in strange country's/ most lewdly to abuse the same/ while even in a matter of no greater importance than is the wearing of a square cap/ they refuse the order of the supreme governor in all things and causes & as in words they call her) ecclesiastical and temporal: while for the sign of our redemption (the cross) which her majesty keepeth most revetently in her chapel/ she is in her own realm (by a book printed and set saith) by a mean and base subject/ inalapertly controlled▪ What may foreign princes think of such a cont●●mely/ if as her grace's affection towards the cross is unknown to none/ so the only knowledge of the title of such an infamous libel rather than a book/ be brought to the ears of any of them? But what may they say/ if understanding the tongue/ Calshil. in ●pist. ad Martialem. pag. 7. they should read▪ within four leaves of the beginning: As for her private doings, neither are they to be drawn as a precedent for all: nor any aught to creep in to the prince's bosom, of every fact to judge an affection. What could they gather hereof but that the prince's honour were villainously touched/ as though in religion which is but one and therefore not subject to change/ she did use one religion her self/ and deliver an other to her subjects: as though (which is worse) she kept for her own private use the bad/ and gave to the rest the better: yea (which is yet worst of all) as though she should pretend one thing outewardly/ and be of an other affection inwardly/ which could not be perceived but by creeping into her bosom. But if he that setteth forward so unhappily) sail the rest of his course with no better fortune/ he should in all wise judgement have done more wisely/ if he had continued still in the quiet haven at the ancre whereat once he lay/ then he hath done by committing himself to the mercy of the winds & waves of these troubelouse seas of controversies/ wherein no skilfuller pilot than he showeth himself to be/ may easily make a foolish shipwreke/ and be cast away. These be the slanderous persons good Readers/ whom M. Nowell (if he have that regard to the honour of our sovereign lady the Queen/ his duty to our country & laws thereof/ that he pretendeth) will shortly have in the chase/ and let me and such as I am alone/ who protest never to desire to live hour longres/ then we shall be contented to live like true subjects under the humble obedience of our gracious sovereign The prince god's image in earth. / whom we acknowledge to be the image of God in earth/ in all civil and politic government. But now here I pray you behold/ how M. Nowell that maketh these great brags/ of repelling with earnestness such reproaches as I have attempted (he saith) to blemish my prince, laws and country withal, quitteth himself of his promise. Doth he not even then when he cometh to that article where these surmised reproaches should be/ flee back and give over in the plain field? Is not this repelling with earnestness a plain mockery to be laughed at/ when about the matter that made him (he saith) to wright so carefully and diligently/ of 124. leaves/ he bestoweth not fully three: when he endeth there/ without entering in to the article/ where he should rather have begun? The third reason that hath moved M. Nowell to wright the more largely against me/ he expresseth in these words: because the simple & unlearned readers have often best liking in books more boldly then learnedly written, and are most in danger to credit most lewd and slanderous lies, I therefore, have in answering more at large, applied myself to such as be of mean understanding, to whom the guileful dealings of the papists can not with brevity be made manifest. These be M. nowels causes for his excuse why in so many words he hath uttered so little matter. But the truth is/ when after long straining of curtosy amongst the brethren which of them should answer my book/ they all agreed/ first in this/ that something must needs be said thereto/ and finally that M. Nowell of all other should take the matter in hand/ as he that for his rare gift of railing were best able to feed the humour of such simple and unlearned/ as here himself saith/ have often best liking in books more boldly then learnedly written, than he deeply considering/ that the greatest vantage that he could find against me/ must be by making men believe/ that the places of S. Cyprian. S. Jerome and such like/ brought for the confirmation of that first proposition of mine/ That there must be one head in earth to govern Christ's church, were alleged directly for the B. of Rome's supremacy/ to the which being contained withein the compass of 15. leaves of my book/ if he should but answer after like proportion/ his answer were The true cause of M. Nowell les so large writing. like to be counted but a twopeny book/ and he for no better than a three-halfepeny doctor: his high wisdom in respect of these considerations found it best/ to dilate so that little stuff that he had to utter/ that he might seem to have made a just volume/ and to have answered therein the whole. For this respect/ because to have entitled his book: A reproof written by Alexander Nowell of a piece of a book etc. Why he termed his book a reproof. had been to great a blemish to his worship/ and call it a confutation or an answer to my whole book by any means he could not/ he devised to term it a reproof of my book/ a word as he thought such/ as in reproving only 15. leaves he might seem to be able to justify/ and which should sound in the ears of the unlearned (not accustomed to look so narrowly in to the nature of words) asmuch as a confutation of the whole. For this cause/ to pacify the learneder sort whom he saw he should not be able by such a trick of ligier de main so easily to deceive/ and who would he knew well not stay at the title/ but take a diligent view of the contents of the whole/ he ransacking all the corners of his jugglers box/ brought forth at the length a trick of deceptio visus, whereby he would make them believe (as you have heard) that M. Doctor hardings book and mine were so like in substance/ that M. jewel in one should answer both/ and that therefore his further travel should be needless: whereas you know/ that my second proposition & the whole conclusion of my book/ have no manner of agreement with any argument handled in D. hardings book. You have heard the effect of M. nowels smoky preface/ wherein all his labour taken is bestowed to this end/ to excuse the not speedy answering of the whole brotherhod/ his own parcel answering/ his so large & earnest answering to so mean a man as I am/ finally to deface me and other that have written/ by most lewd/ foolish/ and untrue surmises. Which nevertheless he avoucheth so confidently/ as though he had been present at Louvain and privy to all our doings/ and thoughts/ yea and to more than ever we thought toe. Wherein how vain he hath showed himself to be/ if nothing had been said already/ even this that he hath of M. Rastell/ whom he affirmeth to have had his book lienge by him ready made four years at Lovayn (whereas yet he hath been Nowell in his preface 3. side 35 Calfhill in his epistle to M. martial, and preface to the reader. scarce on this side of the seas half four year/ & at Louvain when he printed his book not four full months) were alone sufficient to declare. This deceitful dealing of his/ by defacing us to the world/ liked so well him that came next after him to wright/ that he thought his part not to be well played/ unless he endeavoured also & enforced himself to do the like. And for this cause forsooth ruffling in the figure of Ruffinis●us, he calleth M. Doctor Harding * How much better would this name have becomed M. jewel, that of a catholic became an heretic, of an heretic a catholic, of a catholic an heretic again? Apostata: at my name he scoffeth calling me worthy Man who gave but a Dor. M. Rastelles because it lay not so open to his scoffing spirit/ he depraved utterly/ calling him Rascal. But o I would it might please almighty God/ who hath bestowed upon him whom he so calleth/ so bountifully so many excellent gifts of virtue and learning/ that they were both thoroughly known to the world for such as they are. Then should M. Rastell to speak the least/ be found to be as far in all respects from all base and vile condition/ as this shameless man is himself from all honesty and Christianlike behaviour in so calling him. To M. Stapleton this painted poppet threateneth dry blows/ yet wisely under an if/ and in the name of an other. The book of Staphylus he compareth to a Ruffians sword all to be hacked/ calling by the way a most learned and grave councelour to the late Emperor Ferdinandus/ Ruffian. In deed there was a rude black * jacobus Smidelinus. smith/ that did the best he could to break the edge and to leave so●e gashes in this sword/ but those little nicks that he made/ the * Staphyl. In defence. Apol●g. Calf. fol. 17. b. 33. owner thereof ground out so cunningly again/ that the edge of it was after more sharp than ever it was before. Lest all this should not be enough to discredit us/ last of all he chargeth such of us as being in Louvain have been of new colleague/ with the smoky stirs blown in Scotland, the fiery factions inflamed in France, the Pholish treason condemned in England, the popish conspiracy attempted in Ireland. cometh not this think you of a high wit/ and a great discoursing head? Thanks be to God it is yet no horned beast that assaulteth us thus cruelly. He chargeth us with gaping for bishoprics/ but surely if himself laboured not ambitiously to be chief councelour to some lord of misrule at Christmas/ he would never have stremed so far the straits of his simple brain/ as by this most singular discourse upon these late troubles and treasons (which beside himself never a man I believe in England could have dreamt of) to give a most undoubted experiment/ what wonders he were able to work by his wit/ if he listed to bend it. But this is the lewdness of our adversaries/ when to the doctrine that we defend they are able to say nothing/ to deface as much as in them lieth our persons by untrue surmises/ by false and slanderous reports/ by all means direct or indirect. For this they are once as it should seem by their doings persuaded (how truly God he knoweth) that they shall be able to write nothing so absurd/ that shall not with some get credit/ and find friendly entreteinement. Wherefore this is good Readers the common request of us all unto you/ that rejecting utterly these vain/ untrue/ and impertinenent exceptions of our adversaries/ whereof your ears be long since full/ it may please you to have a diligent eye to the matter itself/ and not to suffer yourselves to be thus shamefully abused/ and carried from thence to such sciendre considerations as are these: whether the writers be young men/ or old: many in conference/ or few alone: whether they wright in short space/ or take long leisour: whether they translate or make of their own. For surely they that propose these exceptions/ as it is an evident argument that they mistrust their cause/ so seem they not to savour of the spirit of humility/ which seeketh nothing but the honour and glory If S. Cyprian writing this epistle to Cornelius the B. of Rome, M. suell in his Reply fo. 228. beginneth to shrink from his challenge. name him either the high priest, or Christ's vicar general in earth, or universal bishop, or head of the universal church etc. then may M. Harding seem to have some honest colour for his defence. For these respects therefore I say/ and other which here for good causes I conceal/ it hath been thought good to require you/ to signify to us/ whether you will ratify the doctrine contained in that book made against the cross/ lest after you flee to the Praetor his exception: Quod nomine meo gestum non est raium non habebo. It is reason that we demand/ and it is law. Consult your lawyer so well known in Oxford for his three gifts of heresy/ frenzy and jalousy/ and he will tell you no less. When we understand your mind herein/ you shall know more of ours. It would do well that you declared it at Paul's cross/ from whence we are contented to take notice: the rather/ because we trust you will say nothing there/ but that whereto you will stand hereafter. Faults escaped in printing. leaf. side. line. Fault. Correction. 23 a 25 wolud would 26 oversthrowe overthrow 27 b 25 tho wart thou art 51 a 32 betwe between 57 b 3 saunderouse slanderous 58 a 29 as in well as well 64 b 2 plaees places 65 b 3 praesbiterum presbyterum 74 a 24 ades heads 81 b 25 Macedonio Macedonia 82 b 5 next chap. next chap. save one 96 b 6 Agipto AEgipto 98 b 26 Aricans Africans 108 a 1 took on take on 155 b 10 amsuer am sure 179 a 15 churchand church and 182 a 13 not not compare not compare 192 b 23 * Specially to be corrected. fidei ecclesiae 198 b 1 call then call them 205 b 32 African Africanes esbeare bear 211 b 7 in ipiet incipiet * Specially to be corrected. ipsa est sedes Petri ipsa est petra shall not do not In margin. 86 a 21 Dorman. Nowell. 108 a 28 Gods goods. If you find any other faults I trust you will friendly amend them yourselves, and consider that we print not with such ease as do our adversaries, whose books yet lack not their faults. blazon or coat of arms of England and Wales, surrounded by the garter HONY. SOYT. QVI. MAL. Y. PENSE: God save the Queen. A DISPROUFE OF M. NOWELLES REPROUFE. THAT the sentence prefixed before my book to prove the Protestants Schismatics, was not abused: and that M. Nowell hath passed over in silence the chief point in it. The. 1. Chapter. I TOLD you M. Nowell before, that in this your long reproof of mine so few leaves, you had for your pleasure walked oftentimes far out of the way, and that therefore I would in no wise bind myself always to follow your steps. As even here in the very entry (to give men to understand what they are like to find you in your whole process) leaving S. Austin's interpretation upon the place of scripture whereby he proveth them to be Math. 7. the ravening wolves that are schismatics, and those to be schismatics, who communicate not with all nations, nor those churches that have been founded by the Apostles labour: you slily slip from that to your own, and bear us in hand that we are the Phariseis of whom our Saviour spoke the said words, Because we walk gravely in long garments, pretend long prayers etc. Leaving therefore all this by talk of yours, as wide from our purpose, I will come to the point of the question, which is between us M. Nowell, whether I lacked judgement or store of choice in choosing this sentence of S. Austen to set before my book, or no. Of the which I say, that all were it so that you had clearly vanquished S. Austen, and proved that this text had been to be understand against us, because we go in long gowns gravely, and you climb in cloaks up in to pulpits, or walk in long robes lightly: yet had this missed to leave no one such sentence unanswered. Ergo, the reader may judge by this, how likely you are to deal truly hereafter, that begin so trustily. That the places alleged by me out of S. Cyprian, Lib. 3. epist. 11. and lib. 4. epist. 9 were alleged to the purpose. The. 2. Chapter. I conclude therefore; that these places are by M. Dorman falsely, Nowell. Fol. 2. b. 7 and shamelessly alleged, to make a show or as he calleth it an introduction to the B. of Rome's authority, whereunto they appertain nothing at all, but only to the eversion thereof. I never brought these places M. Nowell to prove the Dorman. pope's supremacy. You need not therefore to trouble your self with the prouse of this, that they appertain to the deacon disobeying his bishop Rogatian, and to Pupianus abusing S. Cyprian. But although I grant you thus much M. Nowell, yet that these places because they prove not the pope's supremacy, appertain therefore nothing at all to him, but only to the eversion of his authority, that faulty and untrue conclusion I can in no wise grant to you: not although you think to underprop that ruinous collection (as you do) with this sclendre stay, that there is not one word in these places of the bishop of Rome Fol. 2. a. 1. &. b. 6. or his Supremacy, nor he as much as once named therein. For you should have considered M. Nowell, that I entreat here in this place of the manner and nature of heretics and schismatics. Which is I say to rebel against their heads, to contemn their superiors and lawful governors. Now as yourself would not I trow say, that if any of you should by writing or any other unlawful means (which god forbidden) go about to stir up the people against our lawful Queen, he should speak impertinently to the purpose, that to dissuade them therefrom, should begin his purposed talk after this manner: Remember my friends, that the nature and property of heretics is and always hath been, after that they be once waxed strong, to rebel and make war against their lawful governors: Remember the late tumults raised in France by the Huguenotes there against their governor: as I say, it is not to be thought that you would reject this man's exhortation, calling it impertinent to the matter, tending to the eversion of the queens authority, because the example brought, was of disobedience to an other prince, between him and his subjects, and not in terms of the Queen our masters: so surely ought you no more to have quarreled against me bringing these examples out of S. Cyprian. Especially seeing that I presupposed and afterwards proved in the discourse of that article, that the B. of Rome's authority was no less over the whole church in spiritual matters, then is that of other princes over their several kingdoms in temporal jurisdiction. The which point (if you had done orderly) you ought first to have confuted, that so justly after such disprove you might have reproved the applying of these authorities. There is no mention made in any of these places of the B. of Cauntorbury, ne yet of London neither, all though yourself grant that by these places it is proved, that every inferior aught to be obedient to his own bishop as Fol. ●. b. 14. his superior, and that the disobedience of such is cause of schisms and heresies. Whereupon what letted me in my preface, to apply aswell these places to the disobeying of the B. of Rome, although he be not there named, as for you when the case shall so require, to apply them to the bishops of Cauntorbury or London, no more there then the pope mentioned by name. Who is as I said before as truly the bishop of the whole church, as any other is over his own proper diocese. You go forward and say. Only this is most evident in what sense so ever S. Cyprian Nowell. fo. 2. b. 19 taketh these words (One bishop that ruleth the church) the B. of Carthage is that one bishop, and not the B. of Rome, and therefore that phrase of one bishop can make nothing for the B. of Rome his supremacy, but rather doth utterly overthrow it, as appertaining specially to the B. of Carthage in Africa not to the B. of Rome in Italy: and declaring in deed the bishops of all places to be equal in authority, and consequently overthrowing the supremacy of one over all. I deny not but that this phrase may here specially appertain Dorman. to the B. of Carthage. No more ought you make strange to confess, that if S. Cyprian would say that heresies and schisms rise of the contempt of the B. which is one in a diocese, much more of him which is one in the whole church, and who is the chief and root of bishoply order as shall hereafter be by S. Cyprian declared. And thus you see, that I applied it not evil to the purpose, although it prove not immediately the pope's supremacy, the thing which here I take not upon me to prove. That which you say of these testimonies, that they declare the A lie fathered upon. S. Cyprian. 3 bishops of all places to be of equal authority is a most vain and impudent lie fathered upon S. Cyprian. That the place of S. Basile was alleged to the purpose, and that the same and the other taken out of S. Cyprian, are both falsely impugned. The. 3. Chapter. It is far (you say) from all purpose that I allege by Nowell. patching here and there out of Basilius magnus his 69. epistle to the bishops of Italy and France etc. If you in this reproof of yours had brought nothing Dorman. further from the purpose, it would never by the tenth part have been half so great as it is. For I tell you once again that my purpose was not here (as you untruly surmise) to prove the B. of Rome's supremacy. My meaning was to persuade men to continue and abide in the obedience of the head of the church: the rather, because as Cyprian before gave a general rule, that all heresies and schisms rise by going from the head: so here S. Basile exemplifieth the same, in that unreverent demeanour and unseemly behaviour that the Arrians of his time used towards their heads and governors: how say, you maketh the place for this purpose or no? I abuse both the Readers, mine own, and other men's time Nowell. fol. 3. b. 1. (you say) in charging you with the crimes of those men whose heresies and wickedness it is well known you detest. I trust no man thinketh so but you and your fellows Dorman. M. Nowell. For standing the case so, that you detest the Arrian heresy where withal I charge you not and therefore A lie. 4. you have beelied me: yet may you this not withstanding right well agree with them in other their evil manners. I will not charge you to be infidels with julian the Apostata, yet is your hatred against the cross off Christ no less than his. You note me in the margin for turning the words Nowell. fol. 3. a. b. praesidentias invadunt, they invade and set upon their heads, and say: He should have said, they do invade the chief rooms or places, and again: for joining blasphemias protulit, to those which follow ad populi episcopum. For the first I sustain that I translated the words well Dorman. and truly, as he should, that would give to the word potestati resistit in S. Paul, this english, resisteth the magistrate, Roma. 13. by the figure called Metonymia. As for the fault in pointing (if it be one) yet of this am I sure, that neither is it great, nor came of malice such as it is, but of some such small oversight as may happen some time to the diligentest writer that is. How ever it be, this the rigorous nothing thereof may give men to understand, that it went hard with you when you were driven to seek after such advantages. You say of this place of S. Basile, that it doth most Nowell. b. 30. lively represent the doings of the Papists. your only proof hereof standeth upon a heap off Dorman. slanderous lies: Because the place of S. Basile is extant to be seen, I will trouble no fardre the learned reader, but desire him only to confer it with these M. nowels slanders. Here M. Nowell you charge me once again with a conclusion, gathered (you say) out of that which hitherto Nowell. fol. 4. b. 22 hath been alleged out of S. Cyprian and S. Basile, and say that I am not ashamed to apply the places before mentioned to the proof of the B. of Rome's supremacy. First, I gather here no conclusion out of the places before Dorman. alleged, and therefore apply not by the way of concluding these authorities to the B. of Rome his supremacy, and so that is an other lie. It is a transition rather, so drawn A lie. 5. out of the 3. first alleged authorities, that it served also to make a step, and a new degree to the second point touching more specially the pope: wherein I much marvel that you should so foully miss your terms M. Nowell. And as here you miss the quisshin: so played you as homely a part in making me to reason upon the pretended conclusion in this wise: The entry into all heresies M. Nowell maketh me to reason after his pleasure. fol. 5. ●, 1. is to make open war against the bishop appointed by God to be the lawful governor and head of the church: but the B. of Rome is the bishop appointed by God, to be here in earth the lawful governor and head of the church. Ergo, the entry into all heresies is to make open war against the B. of Rome. The which reason although it be most true in itself, and I minded to defend every part thereof, yet reasoned I not so here, but minded only in this place to pass to the example of Novatus the heretic, that as before I had showed how heretics in diverse particular churches went from the obedience of their lawful bishops: so here I might set before the Readers eyes one, who spared not even the Bishop of Rome himself, that so this property of heretics and schismatics might appear and be the better proved, while they forsake not only the inferior bishops, but him also that is the chief of all other. But what if I had reasoned as you would make me to reason M. Nowell, might I not have defended that argument trow you? yes forsooth might I, not proving my minor by this place of S. Cyprian, but supposing it to be true, till such time as I came to the place where it ought to be proved. So that you need not to torment and vex yourself about these words (the bishop appointed by God to be the lawful governor and head of the church) which I never alleged, (as you untruly say of me) to prove directly the B. of Rome's supremacy, but only to prove A fortiori, that much greater occasion there was of heresies and schisms, when men should depart from the obedience of the pope the chief bishop of all other, and therefore neither without cause or guilefully to deceive the simple, as you uncharitably surmise. Which yourself also perceived very well, and therefore by the figure called extenuatio, you term this reason of mine a simple collection, after this manner. Now if he think yet that he might make such a simple collection Nowell fol. 5. a. 31. of S. Cyprian and S. Basile his words as this, that as the beginning of heresies in their time was the contempt of the inferiors towards their own bishops (for so Saint Cyprian teacheth) so in likewise is the contempt of the Pope as the highest of all bishops, the beginning of heresies now: First I deny the argument, for that it followeth not, though it be evil for the inferior to disobey his own bishop to whose obedience in all godliness he is bounden, therefore it is evil for a stranger not to obey a strange foreign usurper, to whom he oweth no duty of obedience. Again I say, though it be the beginning of heresy to disobey Cyprian, Rogatian, yea or Cornelius being godly or catholic bishops: yet is it not likewise the beginning of heresies, to disobey any the late Popes of Rome, who were not only no godly bishops (as were Cyprian, Rogatian, and Cornelius) but both most wicked, and in deed no bishops at all, but false usurpers of worldly tyranny. Whom for the subjects of an other Christian and lawful sovereign to obey, and not to disobey, is the beginning of heresies, treasons, and other mischiefs. This is my simple collection you say. I acknowledge it D●●man. for mine as simple as it is, and to your double answer thereto reply as followeth. First, to the first, that it is most false that you lay for a grounded truth, that the bishop of Rome is a foreign usurper, as when I so gathered in my introduction I minded to prove in the handling of the first principal article of the pope's authority, and so sense have done. Whereof seeing yourself are not ignorant, you have dealt not simply but doubly, labouring to deceive the simple, by defacing (as you thougth) my preface as unskilfully written, for that I have there only said and not proved, that the pope is the chief head of Christ's church in earth, whereas that I referred (as by good order of writing the learned know I ought) to the first article of the pope's supremacy. To the reasons and proofs in which place brought, as in all your answer you never come near, but cavil and wrangle against my Introduction, which showeth the cause of schisms to be disobedience against pastors and bishops: so if they be applied to this place as they must, then shall it appear how falsely you say, that the words of S. Cyprian were alleged without all cause. But because the whole force of this first answer of yours to prove my argument nought standeth in this, that the bishop of Rome being a forriner, no such reason can be made from S. Cyprian and S. Basile his words: I will here over and above that which I have already said in the handling of this article in his proper place, presently prove The pope taken for no foreigner by S. Cyprian and S. Basile by S. Cyprian and S. Basile both, that he was taken by them for no foreigner, neither in Africa, France, Spain, neither yet in the east church, of the which S. Basile was. For Africa first, was the B. of Rome think you taken Africa. there by S. Cyprian to be a foreign usurper, whose church he called ecclesiae catholicae radicem & matricem, the root, Lib. 4. epist. 8. and mother church of the catholic church? If the church of Rome be the root and mother to all other churches, then, if the mother be above the children: if the mother and root be no foreigners to the children and branches of the tree, it will follow very well, first that the church of Rome, as it is no foreigner to the churches of Africa and to the other churches through out the world, but above them all, that so the bishop of the same is above the B. of Carthage and all other bishops, and no foreigner or usurper. And as carnal children how far so ever they live from their natural parents cease not therefore to be their children, nor their said parents become thereby foreigners: even so the bishop of Rome who governeth that church that is mother to all other, ceaseth not to be a father to his children dwell they never so far of. Was the B. of Rome reputed a stranger to the bishops of Africa, Lib. 4. epist. 8. who used to send their legates to him to pacify matters, and to bring knowledge of the truth? Whose communion to hold, S. Cyprian calleth in this epistle the firm holding and allowing of the unity and charity of the catholic church. When all the African bishops assembled together in council, directed their letters to the bishop Apud August. epi▪ 90. of Rome, praying him to confirm their doings by the authority of the Apostolical See, pro tuenda salute multorum & quorundam perversitate corrigenda, for the preservation of the health of many, and the amendment of the frowardness of diverse: took they him think you for a forriner? If S. Cyprian had had of the See of Rome that opinion that you would gladly persuade men he had, would he think we have said of those schismatics that sailed out off Africa to Rome to complain upon him to Cornelius: Post ista adhuc insuper, etc. Beside all this they have been so Lib. 1. Epist. 3. bold having appointed to them by the heretics a false bishop, to sail even to Peter's chair, and the principal church from whence priestly unity sprang, and to carry from schismatics and profane men, letters: not considering that the Romans are they whose faith by the Apostles mouth is praised, and to whom false faith can have no access? Would he have said: Romam cum mendaciorum suorum merce navigarunt, quasi veritas post eos navigare non posset, quae mendaces linguas rei certae probatione convinceret? They are sailed to Rome with their merchandise of lies, as though truth could not sail after them, able to convince their lying tongues by sure and undoubted proof? Nay he should, and would you may be sure had he been of your mind, have said: Let them go on god's name, what care I for the bishop of Rome. Shall I be so foolish to follow them to debate the matter before him, who is a plain forriner to us, and hath nothing to do therein? For thus would you I dare say, at this day answer, if one should go to Rome and complain of you. But now considering that saint Cyprian said not thus, but contrariwise made his account to stand with them and try the matter before the bishop of Rome, as it is manifest by these words (as though the truth could not sail after them, etc.): seeing that this whole epistle was chiefly written to Cornelius to exhort him to give no credit to those schismatics, as by this amongst other may appear, that he saith to Cornelius: Non attendas numerum etc. Consider not their number: seeing that the words, rei certae probatione convincere, to overcome by evident proof, again: Ita enim scelera festinant quasi contra innocentiam festinatione praevaleant, for so do wicked deeds hasten as though they should by haste prevail against innocency, be words of judgement (for where be proofs offered, where do men prevail in suits but in judgement?) finally, seeing men that think themselves wronged, never use to complain but to such as they are persuaded have authority to help them: of all these things it followeth, that in Africa where S. Cyprian governed, the Pope was taken to be no foreigner. Now from Africa to France. Of Arles a town in France was bishop in S. Cyprians France. time one Martianus, a follower and professor of the heresy of Novatus. Of him S. Cyprian writeth to Stephanus the Pope in this wise. Dirigantur in provinciam & ad plebem Lib. 3. epist. 13. Arelate consistentem a te literae, quibus abstento Martiano alius in locum eius substituatur, & grex Christi qui in hodiernum ab illo dissipatus & vulneratus contemnitur, colligatur. that is to say: Address your letters to the province and people of Arles, by the which Martianus being excommunicate, an other may be put in his place, and the flock of Christ which to this day being scattered and wounded is contemned, may be gathered together. Now consider I pray you that have learning and wisdom to judge, whether it be likely that S. Cyprian if he had taken the B. of Rome to be a forriner in other countries, would have ever willed him to have sent such letters, as whereby he should excommunicate, and deprive of his bishopric a stubborn or wilful heretic, when with as good right as M Nowell dother here, the heretic bishop might have bidden him go shake his ears foreign usurper as he was, and meddle in his own diocese with excommunicating, depriving and placing of his own subjects, and let Arles in France where he had nothing to do, alone. consider whether these words (and the flock of Christ scattered etc. may be gathered together, do not argue as much, as that when peculiar pastors do not their duties, recourse ought to be had to the bishop of Rome the head and chief shepherd of all? Finally Let M. Nowell considre, whether he would himself (having that opinion that the B. of Orleans for example, in France, were as he is, a forriner in England) writ unto him, to send his letters to the city and people of London to excommunicate, and deprive M. Grindal because he is an heretic. If he would not (as that is to be judged) truly he should do S. Cyprian wrong to make men believe that he would play such a foolish part as he would not himself. It followeth therefore, that in France by the judgement of S. Cyprian the B. off Rome was taken for no foreigner. Spain. Of Spain, whether there the B. of Rome were a foreigner, let the restoring of Basilides by Stephanus the Pope to his bishopric, be a witness. Against which sentence when S. Cyprian with the other bishops of Africa gathered to gather defended Sabinus the new made bishop, they had no other thing to object, but that Basilides the heretic had Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist. 4. deceived Stevin the bishop of Rome, longè positum, & rei gestae, ac veritatis ignarum, dwelling far of, and being ignorant of the case and truth, by wrong information. If Stevin the Pope had been taken by S. Cyprian to be a forriner in Spain, would he not rather have taken against his sentence that peremptory exception, then have used that which confirmeth his authority in Spain? For seeing the sentence was unjust for no other cause, but because the suggestion was untrue, it followeth that if it had been true the sentence had been good, and the judge not foreign but lawful. Otherwise should S. Cyprian never have said: Neque enim tam culpandus est ille cui negligenter obreptum, quám hic execrandus qui fraudulenter obrepsit. For he is not so much to be blamed that was stolen upon by negligence, as he is to be abhorred that guilefully did steal upon him. But he should contrary wise have said rather: He is not so much to be blamed, that to help his own matter told a false tale, as he is to be abhorred, that would presume being a forriner, to meddle in strange countries where he had nothing to do. But S. Cyprian said not so, and therefore upon this place, and also the virtue and holiness of Stevin considered, who dying after for Christ's faith a blessed and constant martyr, would not it is like do willingly such wrong as to invade an other man's jurisdiction, I may be bold to conclude, that as in Africa and France, so in Spain also, the B. of Rome was by S. Cyprian taken for no foreigner. To come now to S. Basil, Let his epistle written to Epist. 52. How the Pope was esteemed of S. basil. Athanasius, wherein he showeth his advise to be, that the bishop of Rome be written unto, to send his legates in to the east where they were, to condemn the false council of Ariminum, be a sufficient testimony, whether at that time his power were counted foreign or usurped. For if they had judged his authority there to be none, never would they have used this word: ut ipse auctoritatem rei conciliet, that he may get authority to the matter, or devised between them selves to have such men sent from Rome as might be meet to govern, and admonish those that should be found froward and perverse amongst them, to undo and overthrow the acts of the heretical council holden at Ariminum before. If S. Basile had taken the bishop of Rome for a foreigner, never would he have sent to Rome for visitors Epist. 57 to be sent from Italy to visit them in the east part of the world. Finally if the B. of Rome had been a foreigner, never durst he have been so bold as to have sent to Caesaria, so far from Rome, his legates Lucifer and Eusebius, to appease the strife that was there between S. Basil and Eusebius. Grego. Nazianz. in Monodia. By this that hath been alleged you have heard M. Nowell enough, and more perhaps than you would toe, to show that S. Cyprian, and S. Basile took not the B. of Rome his authority for foreign or usurped. So that I may now be bold to conclude, that this first answer of yours being proved to be false, there is no let in that, but that my simple collection (as you call it) may be taken as it is, for good and sufficient. Your second answer (for the first it seemeth that your Evil manners of rulers no cause to with draw obedience. self mistrusted, and therefore added this as it were to undreprop it) is of all other most vain and fond. For what scripture have you, what Doctors, what councils, if it were granted to you that the bishops of Rome have been of late years wicked men, to prove that because of their evil manners, their subjects may forsake them? Our Saviour said of the Phariseis (although Matth. ●3. naughty and wicked men) to his disciples, that no man should withdraw his obedience from them, but every man Do what they taught to be done, but not what they did themselves: upon the which words S. Austen saith. Illa ergo De doctr. Christ. l●b. 4. Cap. 27. cathedra, non illorum sed Mosis, cogebat eos bona dicere etiam non bona facientes. Agebant ergo sua in vita sua: docere autem sua cathedra illos non permittebat aliena. That chair therefore being not theirs but Moses his, compelled them doing evil, to speak good things. They did therefore in their own life their own deeds, but to teach their own an other man's chair would not suffer them. If moyses his chair had this privilege (as if you will believe S. Austen it had) that they that possessed it, how vile so ever their lives were, were yet assured always to teach no evil doctrine: what object you for defence of your running out of the church, and forsaking the head thereof, the evil life and wicked manners of them that of late years have (you say) sitten in Peter's chair, for whom our Lord prayed that his faith Lucae. 22. might never fail. as though our Lord god had only remembered the jews and forgotten his church. But consider I pray you M. Nowell against what men you speak. You reason against the government of the bishops of Rome, whose succession hath continued these 1500 years, and hold, that because of the evil manners of the latter pope's they are not to be obeyed, as who would say, so long as their life was upright, and manners honest they were to be obeyed: otherwise this exception should be in vain. Noweturne that part of the wallat that hangeth before you, and is ever in your eyes, behind, and placing the other before, look upon your own bishops not yet settled in full 15. years quiet possession. See whether they that before cried out upon ambition, pride, covetousness, lack of hospitality and such like, have not in these few years overtaken the bishops of 900. years before them, and gone beyond them toe. What were to be looked for then (might you quietly continue) after one hundred years, that have profited in wickedness so much in these few? Might not your scholars think you even by your own lesson, both now and then give you over in the plain field? But if there be no remedy but that you will needs conclude thus of the pope's of this latter age (by which I think you understand as you are wont all since S. Gregory's time, and without any great straining of curtosy him toe) that because of their evil manners they were no bishops at all: then give me I pray you leave good sir, to say as much to you being as yet no bishop, but taking upon you to reprove the chief of all bishops, as did S. Cyprian to Pupianus judging his rulers, no less than you do now all the latter pope's Quis est enim hic superbiae tumour etc. What swelling pride is this? What arrogancy Lib. 4. epist. 9 and puffing up of mind, for the to call to thy examination thy rulers and priests, and except we make our purgation before thee, and be absolved by thy sentence, for the space of six years, neither had the brotherhood any bishop, neither the people any head, neither the flock any shepherd, neither the church any governor, neither Christ any bishop, nor God any priest. Is it not so with us M. Nowell, not for the space of six years, but for the continual space of 900, if it were true that you Absurdity. say? Should not the church by this means have been without any head at all, universal or particular? Seeing that all other bishops through out the world have been made bishops by the pope's, who being themselves no bishops could not have the authority to make other. And then will it follow also, that the church having no bishops, could have no priests: if no priests, no sacraments rightly ministered, beside infinite absurdities more that will follow, if that of all other most foolish doctrine of yours were true, that naughty manners should make of bishops no bishops. Thus your double answer made to my simple collection being confuted, it remaineth that either you confess the collection to be good, or seek out new matter to impugn it. One slanderous lie of yours there remaineth yet to be confuted. Which although to the learneder sort be needless, yet for their sakes who be of the simpler, with whom your chief labour taken in your book, is to deface me, I shall shortly answer thereto in mine own defence. Nowell. fo. 5. b. 23. In the conclusion it is to be noted, when Basile speaketh of all the bishops of the East as the shepherds stricken, M. Dorman altering the number, speaketh it of the Pope as the only shepherd. Here appeareth M. Nowell your singular honesty, who burn with such a hatred towards my person, that so that somewhat you may say to ease your stomach, you pass not, all is one to you by what right or wrong. For I A slanderous. lie. 6. never alleged these words as the words of S. Basile, but alluded only to the scriptures, where the prophet hath: Zachar. 13. Percute pastorem & dispergentur oves. Strike the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered. You have therefore dealt uncharitably so falsely to slander me, and given the world withal to understand, that your malicious affections bear no less sway in your pen in writing, then in your tongue in preaching. That the history of Novatus is truly applied, and that I am clear from those lies which M. Nowell slanderously layeth to my charge. The. 4. Chapter. You say M. Nowell, that I may be ashamed to forge so manifest ally, as that Novatus exacted an oath against the Pope's supremacy, Nowell. Fo. 7. q. 3 or that you follow Novatus in exacting the like oath as he did, and to prove this conclusion of yours, you lay for a ground, that Novatus his oath is not only unlike, but clean contrary to your oaths, that the controversy betwixt Cornelius and Novatus was not, whether the B. of Rome were the supreme head as it is now between you and us, but whether Cornelius or he was by right the B. of Rome. I never said that Novatus exacted an oath against the Dorman. pope's supremacy. I said, and do still, that he exacted an unlawful oath against Cornelius then Pope, and in that respect the head and governor of Christ's church. The likeness of the oath wherein I matched you, was, that both that oath which Novatus offered, and this which you tender, tend to one end, to trouble the beautiful order of Christ's church, and to withdraw men from the obedience of their lawful pastor. For as lawfully is the B. of Rome in spiritual matters our head, as he was head to Novatus. So that what so ever you say here of the controversy between Cornelius and Novatus for the bishopric of Rome, what so ever you imagine of the laufulnesse of your oaths, being as you say of obedience to your natural prince and ours, and of the iniquity of Novatus oath being against his lawful bishop, all is to no purpose. For I sustain still, that let the controversy be as you imagine it was, yet till you be able to prove that the B. of Rome is to us a forriner, and that our obedience to him in spiritual causes can in no wise stand with our lawful odience to our prince in temporal jurisdiction, the resemblance made between Novatus and you, will ever hold and be good. Of our obedience towards our prince (whom as God's ministre in earth in worldly affairs we honour and reverence) as our doings for the time past can bear sufficient testimony: so shall I trust our demeanour for the time to come be such, as shall be able to stop the mouths of all such fawning parasites, as labour to make princes believe, that these two obediences can not stand together, as here M. Nowell doth, making that the ground of this lie of his, that Novatus his oath was not only unlike but A lie. 7. clean contrary to theirs. You bring for an other difference between Novatus case Nowell. Fo. 6. b. 27. and yours, that his oath concerned the maintenance of his heresy, which aswell S. Cyprian B. of Carthage, as Cornelius B. of Rome with all other godly bishops condemned. What conclude you M. Nowell hereof? Do the that prove any difference? Nay doth not that match you together so Dorman. much themore? For your oath is it not for the maintenance of your heresies, which be so horrible, that aswell by all general councils, and all the godly learned bishops in the world, as by Pius the Pope thy are condemned. You say that as Novatus required an oath of his followers &c: Nowell. fol. 7. a. 7. So did the professors of the same heresies travel in Africa with their disciples there being Africanes, that they should not return to Cyprian B. of Carthage to communicate with him, which as it maketh nothing for any supremacy of S. Cyprian B. of Carthage, no more maketh the other for any supremacy of Cornelius B. of Rome. If you mean that the professors of Novatus his heresies Dorman. in Africa did exact an oath as did Novatus, as your words, so did the professors &c. (which must needs have relation to that which goeth before) do import no less, or if you mean not so, but that they travailed to win men from Cyprian, as the other did from Cornelius, how so ever you mean, you can not prove so much out of the place that you allege. If you could, yet would it Lib. 4. epist. 9 make nothing for your purpose. for I never alleged the oath of Novatus to make for the bishop of Rome's supremacy, and therefore care not whether this that you say the followers of Novatus did in Africa, make for S. Cyprians supremacy or no. I alleged the fact of Novatus to prove that heretics trouble the order of the church: that did they that you speak of in Africa, aswell as Novatus in Rome. If Dorman had written thus absurdly he had dreamt, but such eagle birds as M. Nowell is, never sleep I warrant you, but be always waking. It followeth: And where Novatus began first his heresy in Africa by striving Nowell. fol. 7●. 24. against S. Cyprian, and not by striving first against Cornelius B. of Rome (as M. Dorman untruly reporteth) the beginning of heresies is rather to make war and strife against the B. of Carthage, then against the B. of Rome. You observe well the precepts of your art, to stay Dorman. upon small points, when to the greater you be able to say nothing. But to the matter, where so ever heretics begin: in Africa (as you say of Novatus concerning his heresies untruly, though concerning schism truly) or in Germany, as did Luther, or in England as diverse have done: as immediately they make war against the whole church, so strive they specially against the head, whose part is to provide for the body. For seeing that no man is to be counted an heretic, but he that renounceth the unity of the church: no man do the that, who is contented to obey the head thereof: it followeth very well, that who so ever is an heretic, whether he begin in Africa, England, or else where, striveth forthwith against the pope the head of the church, which can not be said of the bishop of Carthage, who hath no such office in the church. I have done (you say) maliciously and untruly calling Novatus Nowell. b. 11. your ancestor, and your bishops as his disciples, indurate heretics. You purge yourself of that which before I charged Dorman. you not withal. For I compared you only together in that one point of forcing men by oaths to forsake the B. of Rome. yet forasmuch as you take the matter as you do, bragging here of your most earnest and pithy sermons and writings against Novatus doctrine etc. I shall desire the learned reader to confer this place of S. Ambrose, Lib. 1. de paenitentia cap. 2. Hist. Tripart. lib. 8. cap. 9 written of the novatians, with your doctrine of penance: Sed aiunt se domino deferre reverentiam cui soli remittendorum criminum potestatem reseruant. But they say that they are reverent towards God, to whom only they reserve power to forgive sin. Do not you maintain that man hath no authority to remit sin, and call us at your pleasure for saying that God hath given the same power to man his ministre? Be not you the followers of Novatus in this point? You say. I believe also that M. Dorman in the allegation off Nowell. Novatus his oath, had a further respect to that he maketh mention of the body and blood of Christ: by the which because Novatus caused them to swear, M. Dorman thought belike, thereby to prove, or at least to make an insinuation to the simple, that the body and blood of Christ should be corporally present in the Sacrament. But the daily oaths of blasphemous men swearing likewise in his corporal absence do confute that collection. What respect so ever I had, this answer of yours to Dorman. this place, borrowed of Ruffians and ribalds, not of any that have either learning or wit, is most far from the auctors meaning, which as any that vieweth the place will easily perceive: so is it in Eusebius from whom Nicephorus took it, most evident even at the eye. For Eusebius hath, that Novatus made them swear per ea quae unusquisque tenebat in manibus, by those things which every one Lib. 6. cap. 34. of them held in his hands: but they swore by the body and blood of Christ saith Nicephorus: ergo, they had the body and blood of Christ in their hands. Well although you doubted whether your stamping, staring and swearing alehouse solution, should find with all men such credit that they would by and by believe you: yet of this you doubted nothing, to make some men at the least believe, that the doctrine of transubstantiation Fol. 8, a. 4. were by this place quite overthrown, and withal to set forth yourselves to the world as the very followers of the primitive church, in delivering the sacrament into the receivers hands. But this joy (if you conceived any hereof) you are like to enjoy but a while M. Nowell. For both Eusebius and Nicephorus calling here the sacrament by the name of bread, are to be understand to have followed therein, the phrase of scripture, which either so calleth it (as did S. Paul) because a little before it so was, as Moses rod being 1. Cor. 11. turned in to a serpent was in scripture called notwithstanding Exod. 7. a rod, and said by the name of a rod to have devoured the rods of the enchauntors, which were also serpents, or as our saviour himself did, not meaning by this word bread, the substance of material bread, but the true bread of life. joan. 6. Whereas you say out off Nicephorus, that they Fol. 8. b, 5. tasted that which they received, and expound it thus that is to say bread, that is your own blind gloze, and is not in the text. If you would needs play the expositor you should have referred that tasting of theirs to the body and blood of Christ, which he made them swear by, and which went next in the sentence before. So should you have done the part of a true interpreter and have made Nicephorus agree with the ancient fathers of Christ's church, and namely to omit Tertullian, chrysostom, and diverse other, with Cirillus the B. of Alexandria, who saith of this matter: quomodo Lib. 4. in joan ca 14 non vivemus qui carnem illam & gustamus & manducamus? How can it be that we should not live who do both taste and eat that flesh? But what speak I of making him to agree with other, when by this means you should have made him to agree with himself? who in other places for that which he calleth here simply bread, joining thereunto an epitheton calleth it vitalis panis, lively bread. And (whereas Lib. 1. cap. 30. you would have him to say, that in this place the communicantes held bread in their hands and tasted bread) in rehearsing the oration which S. Ambrose made to Theodosius the emperor minding to enter in to the church of Milan, bringeth in S. Ambrose amongst other things speaking after this sort. Quomodo manus extolles quae caede Lib. 12. cap. 41. iniqua diffluunt? Quomodo in eyes divinum etiam corpus excipies? Quomodo sanguinem praetiosum ad os afferes per quod ira transuersim actus tantum effudisti sanguinis? that is: How wilt thou lift up thy hands which flow with wicked murdre? yea how wilt thou receive in them the divine body? How wilt thou bring to thy mouth the precious blood, by the which being carried away with anger, thou hast spilled so much blood? B. 15. S. Austen calleth the sacrament of Chr●stes body and blood the sacrament of the altar I made no lie, neither yet dissembled the truth or cloaked the matter, (as you charge me untruly) by calling this heavenly and lively bread, the blessed sacrament of the altar, with the which word if you be offended you may challenge S. Austen, for his word it is and not mine. It is you M. Nowell that have much dangered your honesty by falsifying this place of Nicephorus. For where he hath, Cum Lib. 10. the civit dei cap. 6. oblationes offerret qui mos sacerdotibus est, when he offered the oblations as the manner of priests is: you add to the text, this word, his: and say, when he made his oblations. Which The place of Nicephorus falsified word of yours so conveyed in, is such a spiteful word, as destroyeth the whole mind of the auctor. For whereas we defend the consecration of Christ's body and blood (of which name you are ashamed as appeareth by your, Consecration as they term it, although S. Austen so affirmed the same against Manicheus the heretic, that he saith plainly if Lib. 20. cap. 13. the bread and chalice be not consecrate, it is food for refection but not a sacrament of religion) whereas we I say, defend such consecration to be an oblation and sacrifice, when you saw the words of Nicephorus to mean the public oblations of the whole church, which are the body and blood of Christ, you thought that sense to be little for your advantage, and therefore it seemed good counsel, to shift in the word (his) to the intent it might be thought, that Novatus had offered somewhat of his own private devotion. Let the world now judge M. Nowell, whether this be true dealing or no. As for your bragging how you follow the usage of the primitive church, by giving the sacrament into their hands who receive it: I ask you this question, grounding the Ad januar epist. 118. same upon S. Austen, why you wrangle more about the giving the sacrament in to the receivers hands, because they so took it in the primitive church, than you do about the receiving it fasting, which Christ and his apostles did not? If that be altered which Christ and his apostles did, for the more honour of this great sacrament: why might not (for the same reason or for some other as great or greater) the other, manner of receiving it into the hands be abolished also and taken away, and you counted schismatics for breaking the peace of the church? Why cause you not young babes to communicate again as once they did in the primitive church, and then make your brags thereof to, that you keep the usage of the primitive church? Now that you have discoursed learnedly as you think Fo. 9 a. 3. upon the place of Nicephorus, with charging me off mingling impertinent things by the way etc. Whereas he that hath but half an eye may see, that without I would have out of half the sentence I could do no otherwise then I did. Which if I had, you would not belike neither have taken in very good part, seeing that even for that which as not pertaining to the matter I omitted, you reprehend me, cavilling that I have passed over in silence that which is against me: You return (you say) to the purpose again, and to discredit Nowell. a. 17. me for ever, you couch together a number of evident lies which you affirm, no less then in one half leaf siue on a cluster, to have been made by me. Well seeing then now we be come to that point, let us Dorman. two count together that by even reckoning we may continue long friends, and see who is in others debt. Now say on M. Nowell, which is the first of these five lies? The first lie is, that after his discourse out of S. Cyprian of the Nowell. bishop appointed by God to be the governor and head of the church, he saith the B. of Rome is that head, whereas by S. Cyprian the contrary is evident: and that himself, or B. Rogatian is that head whereof he speaketh. They are two things to say, that the B. of Rome is the head appointed by God to govern the church, and Dorman. that in the places alleged out of S. Cyprian for an other purpose, S. Cyprian meant so. I said I grant that the B. of Rome is the head appointed by god to govern the church: prove you the contrary than say I have lied. That S. Cyprian in the places by me alleged was of that mind, that said I never: as by the place whither I refer myself I offer to be tried. So that of this I am cleared, and the lie returneth to you for belying me, not alone but accompanied with an other in that you say, that by S. Cyprian A double lie. 8. 9 the contrary is evident, that is to say, that the B. of Rome is not head of the church, and so is this on your part a pregnant lie. The second is, that to make war against the B. of Rome, is the first entry in to heresy. Whereas S. Cyprian teacheth that the Nowell. a. 24. contempt of every godly Bishop in his own diocese by such as are their inferiors is the beginning of heresies. If you mean that directly I used as for a proof S. Cyprian, Dorman. to prove that to make war against the B. of Rome is the first entry to heresy, that I deny: and so you belie me therein. If you mean that because I concluded so much by the way of introduction that therefore I lied, than you have made yourself a lie that ways. For the argument holdeth and is very good: The beginning and entry into heresies is to rebel against the head. ergo a fortiori, to rebel against the chief head of all other, by S. Cyprian must needs be the beginning of schisms and heresies. And so this standeth for an other lie. A lie. 10. The. 3. lie that you lay to me is, because I say that Novatus made his first entry in to his heresies by making open war against the B. of Rome etc. Which you call a double lie, because first Novatus began his heresies by your opinion in Africa: next, because I say that Novatus made war against Cornelius as the governor and head of the church. For you say my words, Thus did Novatus, must needs be referred to that which went before▪ To the first part of this forked lie I answered before, in proving that wheresoever heretics begin, they assault the head of the church: and therefore to say the contrary because Novatus should begin his heresies first in Africa, is a lie on your behalf. As is also the second part, when you charge me to have said that Novatus strived against the pope as head of the church, thinking to prove the same by referring my words, Thus did Novatus, to those that went before: which if you do, you shall prove thereby nought else, but that he made war against the beautiful order of the church, and the bishop of Rome by god appointed to be the head thereof. * Not all one, to strive against the head of the church, and to strive against him as head of the church two Lies 11. 12. For those are the words that go before. And so have you made here two lies. The fourth lie that you burden we withal, is a very slanderous and most peevish lie, without all reason wrested and wrong by force out of my words to make up a number. As first that I say the receiving of the blessed sacrament of the altar in stead of the distribution of the bread, that you count one lie, because Nicephorus you say b. 25. 26. hath no such words. Nicephorus hath not I confess the same words, nor I ever said he had, nor promised to allege the very same, but was contented to use a word signifying asmuch and better known to all men than the other, and therefore as long as I kept the sense of the auctor as you can not deny but I did, I lied not: Ergo, you lied The other surmised lie is, because I say, they that minded to receive it etc. And why is this a lie M. Nowell? You answer: because they had received it already in to their hands. Yea but I tell you again M. Nowell that they came not thither as much as you triumph of receiving in to their hands, to receive it only in to their hands, but especially to receive it into their bodies: and therefore you should to prove me herein a liar have concluded, that they could not be said minded to receive, as they who had received already both into their hands and bodies. And of this principal M. Nowell a wrangler. receiving seeing you could not be ignorant that I meant, you have not only proved yourself a liar, but declared also to the world that you conform not yourself in writing to that spirit that becometh a divine, but to such wrangling and quarreling where no cause is, as very common skoldes would be ashamed to use. The 5. lie is, that I affirm, (you say) that you swear Nowell. fol. 10. a. 1. men in such sort as Novatus did. And here you repeat again, that the oath exacted by Novatus was unlawful, because he exacted an oath of the Romans to cleave to him against their own bishop: you require an oath of subjects English men, of obedience to their and our natural prince, and of renouncing all foreign and usurped power. Again, Novatus caused them to swear that his heresy was the truth, and that Cornelius true doctrine was heresy: you have no such matters in hand but are on Cornelius side against Novatus etc. Upon these two differences you conclude, that look how often I say, so did Luther, so did Calvin, So do those wicked men in our country: etc. as oft as I say. They exacted this oath etc. If he give not this oath etc. so many loud and lewd lies I have made. Until you be able to prove M. Nowell, that the B. of Rome is not our lawful bishop that be English men, Dorman. that his power is fortaine and usurped, even in this point shall you agree with Novatus, that you swear men against their lawful bishop as he did. You may not think yourself sufficiently discharged because you say his power is usurped, for that colour Novatus also I warrant you gave to his wicked doings. As for the heresy of Novatus although your oath tend not specially to the maintenance of that, yet maketh it directly for the maintenance of diverse other more abominable. But you contrary to all good learning, as though you wrote only to deceive the simple not passing for the judgement of the learned, think yourselves marvelously well discharged, if the comparison made between you and Novatus agree not justly in every small point. Thus you see for 5. lies which in these fewelines you slander me to have made, whereas I have now cleared myself of them all five, it followeth that as often as you say that I lie, so often times, that is to say five, you have lied yourself, and thrice more beside, as in the count between us it appeareth. So that now that I have answered you for such matter as from the beginning you could charge me withal, you must not think me to deal hardly with you, if I call you also to account of such manifest and inexcusable lies, as hitherto in these few leaves of yours you have made. Wherein I shall desire thee (gentle reader) to show thyself a good and upright auditor between us. First you say M. Nowell, that the sentence of S Austen In the beginning of his book. prefixed by me before my book, maketh directly against the papists, as you term us. That is an evident lie as hath been declared. Item, that you promised to leave no saying of any old doctor unanswered, alleged by me. Which seeing you have not performed in that which being brought out off S. Austen was of all other the first, but have passed over in silence these words. Thou dost not communicate with all nations, wherein the force of the place consisted, this is the second lie. Item that Cyprian declareth in deed in the 9 epistle of the fourth book, that the bishops of all places be of equal fol. 2. b. 28 authority, it is an other lie grounded falsely upon S. Cyprian. Item, that I falsefied S. Basile his words (of the which I fol. 5. b. 22. made no mention) it is a slanderous lie. Item, that Novatus began his heresy first in Africa, it is a lie falsely fathered upon S. Cyprian, who mentioneth fol. 7. a. 24 Li. 2. epi. 8. his schism, not his heresy, which all writers agree that he fell first into at Rome, upon displeasure conceived of the repulse that he suffered in standing for the bishopric off Rome. Item, that the professors of Novatus heresies travailed in Africa against S. Cyprian as Novatus himself did in Lib. 4. Epist. 9 Italy against Cornelius the B. of Rome, it is affirmed by you M. Nowell to be proved by S. Cyprian, but the place fol. 7. a. 7. having been examined hath no such thing. Item, whereas Nicephorus hath: Cum oblationes offerret fol. 8. a. 17. when he offered the oblations, you cast in this word his, and so bely Nicephorus. The gross and total some of all your lies hitherto made, beside those, which because having all ready declared that Novatus and you agree in swearing men against the bishop of Rome, I am cleared of, how often so ever I say: so did Luther: so did calvin: so do these wicked men in our country: fol. 10. a. 13. as oft as I say, They exacted this oath, etc. If they give not this oath, etc. must needs also return to you) riseth to 15. lies, and with that captain lie, of all other which hitherto you a. 22. At Paul's cross. have made, aswell for the place which was public, as the audience which was honourable (in saying that you had not found any one authority by me, so far as then you had read, truly alleged) the very greatest of all, to sixteen. Now keep you the count and let us proceed. You find fault with untrue coating of the places alleged, which although to all writers it be a thing that commonly happeneth, and to none so common * I refer me to your Apology. as to those of your occupation: yet in me so malicious a man I am, it must needs be of set purpose that such as would be desirous to see the originals might not to speedily find out the lewdness Nowell 26. of my allegations, serving nothing to the purpose, unless perhaps (you say) I did never use mine own eyes in viewing of those places. Well M. Nowell I pray you yet stand good master Dorman. unto me, or at the least favour yourself. For I think for any great faults that be yet committed, you are run as far into the lash as I, although in the space of one leaf b. 4. or little more, you say that of four only places alleged, three thereof be noted untruly. For touching the first, which yet you noted before with the other two in the margin, but here rhetorically for lack of store, you serve to the table again dressed after an other sort (a point of cookery much used by you in this book of yours) yet iwis two of them may so be excused, that your cankered suspicion shall take no place. For whereas I alleged the first sentence of S. Cyprian as out of the third book the 11. epistle, whereas it is the 9 epistle, the copy is extant to be seen printed first by Griphius at lions Anno Domini. 1537. then at Basile, anno 1540, wherein both the places by the printers error it is so printed as I alleged it. The second error in printing the 30. chapter of Nicephorus for the third, was committed by this means. I wrote in my copy, cap. 3o. as you see here. The composer of the letters unacquainted with this kind of writing, mistaking the o above for a figure that should stand beneath placed it so, and made of three, thirty. I would have been loath to have troubled thee (good reader) with so many words in the excuse of so sclendre faults, were it not that mine adversary chargeth me so heinously therewithal as he doth, and that I perceive them to be the greatest that he could find in my book. The third escape was also the printers fault, although I be not able to prove it so well, and yet as well to, as he shall be to prove the contrary. For the which he needed not to take the matter so hot, himself having alleged before an epistle of S. Cyprian, where is no such thing to be found Fol. 7. a. 11 lib. 4. epis. 9 as for the which he bringeth it in. Where you object to me I wot not what collectors, whom I should trust in these places: surely unless you had said perhaps, which helpeth the matter, you must Fol. 10. b. 2 A lie excused by perhaps needs have scored up an other lie there had been no remedy. But as good then as now, for it followeth even there, where you say that you most abhor Novatus and his A lie. 17. heresies. For I noted you an other point before beside the swearing against the B. of Rome, wherein you were plain In the. 4. chapter. Fol. 12. a. novatians, and therefore that is a bragging lie. You say that this oath which I talk of, was never required Nowell. B. 18. of such of the Clergy as be in prison. The oath that I talk of is of forsaking the B. of Dorman. A lie. 18. Rome. Will you stand to this lie, that this oath was never required of such of the clergy as be in prison? diverse of them, even of the best, have died therefore constant martyrs in prison you can not truly deny it: If some of them that remain, pine not (as you say) but far well and of other men's cost to: the greater cause have they to thank god and their friends therefore, amongst whom perhaps although you be at no great part of the cost, yet you may in this respect deserve also some thanks, that remembering them oftentimes in your charitable devotion at Paul's cross, you procure them by such hearty remembrance, the rather the almoise of good men. If all pine not away: if some be well fed and in good liking, and so fat (as you say) that they wallow to: as they have the more to render thanks to almighty god who giveth such ability so well to bear adversity: yet are there other some, and no small some to, whose hollow eyes, pale faces, and heavy looks, bear witness sufficient of an other manner of pasture then our smooth smicker ministers live in. You are able to name no great number hanged in stocks Fol. 10. b. 23. by legs, or fingers, as some of them (you say) that be in prison used others &c. and those that were so served (if any so were) if the matter were well known, it was their unruly and unbridled tongues, their unsemly language towards their superiors, (from which kind of behaviour let these six years passed over in durance bear witness for the Catholics how far they be) and not religion, for which they were so ordered. This mildness of the Catholics only defending the catholic faith and liberty of their consciences, without either bitter talk, seditious books, or other by practices against their prince and magistrates by her appointed, was the cause I nothing doubt, why her highness naturally inclined to mercy, extendid the rather her gracious favour to the enlarging of their prisons, which you by a scornful term to show how sore it was against your will, call progresses. Besides that, there is at all no comparison between men forsaking the common known faith as yourselves confess of these last nine hundred years through out all the world, and such as departing from the rest of Christendom, join themselves to a faith whereof there was not one man to be found in all the whole world fifty years ago. Which consideration (in a manner I assure myself) hath not been the least respect, why the queens grace hath always so mercifully regarded those poor prisoners, and withal so graciously withstanden your cruel motions tending to their dispatch out of the way: whom she thinketh to have punishment enough of prison, loss of livings, and liberty, though she take not from them their lives: who teaching and defending that faith which they were borne and baptized in, which they many years continued in, which all the world within these fifty years believed, can not so soon be brought from the same. I looked ever when you would answer to that where Fol. 11. a. 1. with I charged you, for offering the oath against the pope to gentle men, lay men, and scholars of the universities without all face or colour of law, but your own conscience told you that you had therein done such injury to her grace's laws, so extended and racked them to serve your furious spirit, that it should be best as you do, to pass that over in silence, and not so much as once to twang upon that string of your harp. If there were any punished for not swearing to the pope in times past, they were punished by order of law: why mention you that to excuse your vexing of men beside law? You take on like a mad man and ask of me: seeing Nowell. b. 1. Fol. 11. b. that so many aswell learned as unlearned: as well of the laity as of the clergy, women as men, young as old have lost livings and goods, and after long punishments and pining most painful and pitiful also, have finally lost their lives being most cruelly consumed by terrible flames of fire into ashes, if they might obtain so much mercy as to escape that usual long lingering in slack and smoke fire: why I should think it much, that they who have in this wise used others for refusing of most wicked oaths, and the authority of a false foreign usurper should themselves lack * What such persons M. Nowell retain any part of their livings? some part of their livings and liberty, for refusing to acknowledge the lawful authority of our natural sovereign. Here before I answer to your question I would Dorman. feign know what they were either learned or unlearned of the laity, what women, what young men, to whom this oath was offered, and how many died for the refusal thereof? Truly the greatest number that suffered in England died for the sacramentary heresy, not in such lingering flames as you speak of, but compassed about with bags of gone powder procured by their own means (a kind of practice amongst Christ's Martyrs never I trow hard of) the sooner This agreeth not with the martyrdom of Policarpus. Vide Euse. li. 4. cap. 15 to dispatch themselves, as with mine own eyes I saw Ridley and Latymer burned. But if it had been true that so many had died for refusal of this oath as you suppose, yet were they not, for answer to your demand I say, lay gentlemen, nor scholars that used them so. And therefore no reason is it why you should wreak yourselves upon them. And this you wot is the question that is demanded of you. Again how ever you name the oath wicked, yet is it lawful and nothing derogating the queens authority, which we covet asmuch to maintain as you, although we flatter not so much, but yours is wicked and most abominable, and therefore it is no good comparison that you make between us, Finally how ever it be, the oath was then tendered there as it was offered, according to the law, you offered it to those that I spoke of, injuriously without authority of special commission. As for your promise that you make, in place convenient fol. 11. b. to bring good proof that the B. of Rome hath wickedly exacted most unlawful oaths both of subjects and of princes, etc. when you do so you shall hear what I will answer: in the mean season I count it but an ordinary brag. Of the place of S. Basile epist. 70. that it was truly applied to the heretics of our time & cae. The. 5. Chapter. M. Nowell would induce the reader to think, that this place of S. Basile should be brought by me to persuade that he and his companions were Arrians. And therefore purging himself and his mates of this crime, he concludeth thus. Wherefore his sainges in that Epistle appertain nothing to Nowell. fol. 12. b. 18 us, who are nothing guilty of those crimes and heresies, but they are brought in by dreaming M. Dorman without any cause and beside all purpose. What need this affected ignorance M. Nowell? You Dorman. know well enough that I never charged you with the Arrian heresy. But thus it pleaseth you to handle me, as though you might by this means bring me in to an evil conceit with the reader, by persuading that I allege no place to the purpose. The Arrians you wot well (for it is a thing incident to heresies) had beside their errors in doctrine many foul deformities in manners. Now what a new kind of reason is this I pray you that you use: I am not like Daws or Syrus in one or two properties that they have: Ergo in no property at all. Do you agree with the Arrians in no point of their manners, because you believe (you say) well concerning the doctrine of the Trinity? If you believe well, God continue you therein, at the least some of your pew fellows pretending once as good affection thereto as you do now, have come so far, that they not only have blasphemed it in open sermons, but protested See Staphylus in English. fol. 113. a. also to be readier to return to their Cloisters, then to believe thereoff as the catholic church doth. But let that be their fault, I say not here that you be yet come so far, which notwithstanding, your conclusion that you infer (wherefore his sainges in that epistle appertain b. 18. nothing to us) is false. For you overthrow churches, you pull down altars, you contemn the traditions of the fathers (the diligent observation whereof S. Basile saith in this place was condemned by the Arrians as a great fault) beside other things, as may to them that read the histories more plainly appear. So that when you called me dreaming for bringing this as not to the purpose, you were belike yourself nodding. You ask: why these bishops of the east (whose epistle Nowell. b. 25. I alleged here) wrote not to the pope, as head of all the church, but indifferently to all the bishops of France and Italy, without any mention of the B. of Rome at all, whereof you gather a foolish fond conjecture, and of that, that S. Basile placed the bishops off France before the Italian bishops, which I, (you say) craftily dissembled, that the B. of Rome should not be head of the church. truly M. Nowell I never brought it to prove the bishop of Rome's supremacy: I brought it to prove, that the face of our time was not much unlike to that of the Arrians, and to that it is not impertinent. For your demand I ask you again, what if he wrote to the pope special letters for his aid in these difficulties? And if he did, how that should not make greatly for his supremacy, to whom he would not write as to a common bishop amongst other, but severally to himself alone, as being the head of his other brethren. truly there is an epistle of his not many before this, written by him to Athanasius, wherein conferring with him about the withstanding of the Arrians heresy, he telleth him, that his counsel is, that they send letters to the B. of Rome, that he may consider the matter and Epist. 52. give his sentence, that because it would be very hard to have first a common council called, and then so to send from thence, he himself choosing meet men for the purpose, such as should aswell be able to bear out the pains of the journey, as for their gentleness and sincerity off manners to warn and reprove such perverse men as troubled them, should give authority to the matter, etc. Why might not this epistle M. Nowell, be touching the same matter whereof he wrote to the bishops of France and Italy? why might it not be that knowing the honour of that see of Rome to be so great as it is, he would by no means wright unto the bishop thereof alone, but jointly together with bishop Athanasius: whose fame he knew to be in the church such, that he could ask no reasonable petition which should not be granted: or what can you say why the epistle written to Meletius, that they two should send to Rome for visitors to visit their country which was in the east, might not be concerning Epist. 57 this matter? How ever it be, these two places argue, that the omitting of the B. of Rome his name here, was not as you suppose, for contempt of his authority. And thus is this fond conjecture of yours showed to be vain and of no force. Now for dissembling (as you say) the order of the bishops named in the epistle, truly you show yourself to be made even of the parings of malice, who judge so maliciously where no cause is. For to what purpose should I conceal that, which no man could suspect, that any would ever have been so foolish as to have brought for an argument against the pope's supremacy? It followeth: S. Basile with the other bishops of the east, Nowell. fol. 13. a. 3. called the bishops altogether brethren and fellows in the ministery, which they would never have done, had they had this opinion of his supremacy, that M. Dorman and other papists do now defend and maintain. But in the said 70. epistle the said bishops of the East, which do not once speak of the pope, do pray the French and Italian bishops to make humble suit to the Emperor, that he by his authority would repress their enemies the Arrians, and relieve their miseries, which maketh rather for the emperors supremacy in the church then for the bishops of Rome. I told you a little before of S. Basile his counsel to Dorman. Athanasius, to send to the bishop of Rome for help against Epist. 52. the Arrians. Whereby as it appeareth to be more than probable, that these latter letters were written to the other bishops of Italy and france only, not to the pope: so is it evident also, that the mention of the emperor and silence of the pope, came not of lack of acknowledging his authority, (to the which before they fled) but of this, by joining both the sword together, the spiritual and the temporal, the rather to vanquish and discomfit the enemy. But now if it were so that amongst the rest the bishop of Rome had been comprehended in this epistle, yet the calling of him brother or fellow in the ministery, is no cause to conclude (as you do) against his authority. For neither do I now, nor ever hath any Catholic hitherto, so defended or maintained the pope's supremacy that it hath not been always acknowledged, that both he and other bishops be the ministers of one common master, although that master have made him the ruler of his fellows and overseer of his brethren. Yea the pope's themselves have ever used to call the other bishops their brethren and fellow bishops, not renouncing thereby the authority of their seat. What marvel is it therefore, if the bishops of the East had called the pope (amongst the other to whom they wrote) brother and fellow in the ministery, by the which name he calleth himself, it can not be denied. Now where M. Dorman speaketh of persecution, as he did Nowell. Fo. 13. a. 13 a little before of our most cruel practice, I refer it to the judgement of all the world, whether the papists or we be more cruel persecutors: and whether have suffered more persecution they or we. If they be more cruel persecutors that lacking power Dorman. show notwithstanding more cruelty in words then other do in deeds: if their cruelty be greater who punish beside and against law, then theirs who follow law: if it be no cruelty at all, to punish a few to save the number, by terror of lighter pains (to use the words of S. Austen to ●ib. de vinit. eccl. cap. 17. the Donatists complaining of the Catholics as you do now) to preserve from greater evils, then is the matter judged already in all upright judgement, then needeth there no further process. As for the lenity by the which you would commend yourselves to the world, your charitable sermons made aswell before the queens most excellent majesty at the court, as before the nobles and other honourable of the Realm at the Cross: in the which you have consumed all your eloquence, to provoke our most gracious sovereign to imbrue her chaste and unspotted hands with the innocent blood of true Catholics, hath long since made that well known to the world. So that I may now truly say to you, as did S. Austen to certain heretics in his time, bragging of their lenity towards the catholics, as you do of yours. Nulla bestia si Epist. 48. neminem vulneret propterea mansueta dicitur, quia dentes & ungues non habet. Sevire vos nolle dicitis: ego non posse arbitror. No beast if he wound no man, is therefore called tame, because he lacketh teeth and nails: you say you will use no cruelty: I think you can not. Is not this your very case M. Nowell? See you not a perfect pattern, of your pity, a copy of your dissembled and counterfeit kindness? O were your murdering mouths by our most gracious Sovereigns commandment unmoosseled, (which god for her sake forbid) your blood thirsty hands at liberty: how would these tame beasts bestir them? You say that I go about to burden you with envy of churches either pulled down or altered to other uses, and of altars Nowell. a. 12. destroyed, much like as the rebels did burden king Henry the eight etc. How the rebels burdened king Henry, or whether Dorman. they burdened him at all or no as you say they did, I will not intermeddle myself therein. Of this I am sure that you be burdened of me none otherwise, then S. Jerome burdened the Huns and wandalles being infected Epist. ad Heliodorum. with Arrius heresy, when he wrote of them after this sort: The churches be overthrown, at the altars be horses stabled, and a little after. How many monasteries be their taken? And again, none otherwise than Optatus the bishop of Lib. 6. con●●● Donatist. Milevite in Africa burdened the Donatists there doing the like: when he told them that there could be no greater sacrilege then to break, shave and remove clean away the altars off God, on the whicht both they themselves some times had offered, and the prayers off the people and members off Christ were carried. As for your excuse that you make, why abbeys were overthrown in our country, it is not truly much pertinent to our purpose in this place. For had it been all true whereof the greatest part was most certainly false, that you slanderously and falsely laid to the charges of religious men (amongst whom as there were many offenders, even those that have been since in England great pillars, and in your new church chief favourers of your new religion: so were there many innocent and good, who ceased not day and night to lament the disordered life of those other their brethren, to pray most earnestly to almighty god for their sins and the sins of the people) yet was this no cause sufficient, to turn up the churches, to overthrow the altars. Which you yourself also perceiving, and knowing that aswell in king Henry's time, those good fathers of the Chartrehouse, as in the late reign of Queen Marie, both they in Shene, the monks of westminstre, the franciscans of Greenwich, the preachers of S. Bartilmewes', the nuns of Zion and Dertford, lived every order so honestly in all virtue and godliness according to their rule, that many were edified by their good examples, none offended by their evil: you flee to an other shift, against the foundations off such religious houses forsooth. Which because (you say) were laid upon prayer for the redemption Nowell. fol. 13. 2. 23. of the souls of their founders and their progenitors souls. etc. Were so unsure and weak or rather wicked, that they could no long bear such huge superstructions and buildings as were laid upon them. Well, such foundations may be well counted weak Dorman. or rather wicked by wicked Aerius who was condemned for Aug. lib. de haeresib. haer. 53. lib. 3. haere. 75. the like heresy as witness both S. Austen and Ephiphanius above 12. hundred years since. But to all good Christian men they seem and ever have done profitable and meritorious, as to him that will take the pains to read the book of late learnedly written of purgatory, it shall I doubt not evidently appear. Beside that, by this means our colleages at home in the universities, yea your cathedral church and Deanery itself M. Nowell, might be in some danger to be overthrown, if you fall to such scanning of their first foundations. Here you compel me to enter with you into a disputation about altars. And for the justifying of your communion Fol. 14. b. Altars. Nowell. 1. Cor. 10. table, you allege first that our saviour instituted the sacrament at a table etc. And that S Paul calleth it mensam dominicam our lords table. To the fact of Christ may be answered two ways. Dorman. First, that we considre not in this word (altar) so much the matter whereof it is made, as we do the thing which is executed upon it. For it is not stone that maketh it to be called an altar: no more than wood, silver or gold, but it is the sacrifice done upon it which maketh it so to be called. So that when Christ our saviour instituted this sacrifice or oblation of the new testament (as namely the ancient father Irineus calleth it) although (as you say) Li. 4. c. 32 men had in those days in their houses no altars in stead of tables, yet was this table made an altar by Christ's offering himself thereapon. Again if you will yet reason that because it was a table of wood or a wooden altar, therefore we must change the order off Christ's church, and down with our stone altars and set up tables of wood: then must I answer you, that this was one of the things, which our saviour determined nothing of, but left to the discretion August. epist. 118. of his Apostles by whom he would dispose the business of the church, and that by the same very mean that you wolud have altars pulled down, you may also oversthrow churches. b. 13. A reason of M. nowels to overthrow churches. For except you think M. Nowell (to use your own reason made here against altars) that men used to dwell in those days in churches in stead of private housen, you will grant I dare say that Christ instituted this sacrament in a private house, and so by that reason of yours down with the churches, and let your communion be ministered in parlours of private houses. Neither I, nor all the papists with me (you say) can bring so much Nowell. b. 20. out of the new testament for altars as you have done for the lords table. Yes that I can myself alone M. Nowell without any Dorman. other help. Is the first epistle of S. Paul to the Corinth. any part of the new testament? I trust you will say yea, seeing that one of your places is taken out of that epistle. Yea but is the ninth chapter any part of that epistle? If it be, then have you there express mention of altars, where the text saith that they that serve the altar shall live by the altar. And again to the hebrews: we have an altar whereof they may not eat that serve the taberuacle. Where you 1. Cor. 9 can not say, that he meant of any altar other then of the Hebr. 12. new testament: for he compareth together the tabernacle of the old law and the altar of the new. How say you now M. Nowell have we scripture for altars out of the new testament or no? I think you will say that we have, and he that shall well way the places, that they are better applied than are yours toe. For whereas you would seem to wipe away all such places of the fathers and ancient writers (which be infinite, and the word altara hundred times no doubt mentioned in their writings for the word table once) by a figurative speech (by which reason and by better to as you have by figures rob us already of Christ's body and blood, the sacrifice of the church: so you might bring the temple itself to a figure, because the Apostle saith, templum Dei quod estis vos: the temple of God which are you) it is the word table that is figuratively used, aswell in the scriptures as the father's writings. As namely in this place here alleged by you of the Apostle, where it is said: You can not be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of the 1. Cor. 10. devils. Is not the word table which you here bring to prove M. Nowell avoiding the word (alter) by a figure, allegeth the word table that can not otherwise be understand. your communion table by, (whereas if you would needs use that word, you should have taken the table here mentioned in the second place which agreeth more aptly thereto) is it not I say a plain figurative word, signifying to us the feast or banquet exhibited thereupon? For when he sayeth, partakers of the table, it should go very hard with them that should eat, if that were propre speech you wot well. And thus you may see, that we have not only scripture for altars aswell as you, but more proper also, and that better prove the same than the places by you brought. You say, that if S. Basile and some other old writers call it Nowell. fol. 14. b. 27. an altar, that is no proper but a figurative name etc. O M. Nowell you know well enough how ever you Dorman. would here extenuate the matter, that it is not S. Basile alone with some few other that so call it, but all the ancient writers even from the Apostle Paul's time to ours, have so called it, and that the contrary is most true, that as they have used this word table seldom times: so they have used it at such times (as did S. Paul) to signify by a figure either the heavenly banquet delivered upon the same, or for that an altar hath the office and is in deed a spiritual table. The which thing yourself would not stick to grant, were it not that the granting of a true altar were like to enforce a true sacrifice. But to the intent the world may perceive how you abuse them both in the one and the other: I will here out of certain ancient writers say so much as I trust they shall all perceive, that this figurative altar and figurative sacrifice, is the false fable and vain dream that you speak of, only meet for such figure flingers as you are yourself. M. Nowell, Touching altars that they be not so called of the fathers by figure but truly, what better proof can you have then out of Martialis the B. of Burdeaulx, one of the 70. disciples of our Saviour: who speaking of such altars as were thrown down by the Apostles, and at the last of that dedicated to the unknown God, whereof is mention made in the acts of the Apostles, writeth thus. Dum altaria daemonum Act. ca 17. Epistol. ad Burdegalens. in pulverem redigerentur, aram ignoti Dei reseruari iussimus. Qua dedicata in nomine Dei Israel, & ipsius testis Stephani, qui pro eo a judeis passus est, non hominis cultum sed Dei in ea frequentatis. That is to say: while the altars of the devils were brought to powder, we commanded the altar of the unknown God to be reserved. The which being dedicated in the name of the God of Israel, and of his witness Stevin which suffered for him of the jews, you do not now practise thereupon the worshipping of man but of god. Can there be a plainer place than this M. Nowell to prove that which you deny, and which you would draw to so great an absurdity, as that because the jews had altars, b. 25. therefore it were unlawful for us to have them. Whereas you here may learn, that Christ's own disciples without pulling down, without any other changing or altering then by dedicating it in the name of god and S. Stevin, used a material altar to worship God upon. Can you call this a figurative altar? chrysostom in a certain homely or sermon that he Homil. 53. made to the people of Antioch asketh this question. Si quis hanc destrueret domum & hoc suffoderet altar nun qui●● 〈…〉 prophanum & impium? 〈…〉 would not every man cast stones at him as a profane or wicked man? How think you M. Nowell when to overthrow altars they must be digged up, meant chrysostom of figurative altars or real tables? There needeth you wot well neither matock nor pykeax to remove your tables. If there did they would not I trow walk their stations so often in the church from place to place as they do, especially if the clerk or ministre should be in danger to be stoned to death, to be taken for a profane and wicked man so often as he should do it. For altars this may suffice, especially the testimony of chrysostom, who living in the same age ought to persuade all reasonable men what manner of altars they were that S. Basile meant of, rather then M. Nowel's simple reason, because it is said that Fol. 15. a. ● Christ offered himself upon the altar of the cross, therefore no altars may be set up unless we will turn all crosses in to altars. Whereas although it were true, that he imagineth, that the cross whereon Christ suffered was called an altar by a figure (as in deed to him that considereth the greek word it is not true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but false, for a true altar was it) yet had it not followed, that because there was a figure in those words, where so ever in any place else there should be mention made of an altar, there it should be understand by a figure For the sacrifice offered upon our altars which we say to be the very body and blood of Christ: You fantasy to be a spiritual thanks giving only, and draw to the sacrifice of prayer, how much might here be said to the contrary if it were not impertinent to the matter? Omitting therefore Irinaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Austen, chrysostom, Cirillus, Athanasius with the rest: I shall here be contented to have alleged one only testimony out 〈…〉 council of Chalcedon so evident to the purpose, that both the distinction of the bloody and unbloody offering of Christ's body and blood, (which you M. Nowell thought you might here upon the credit of your bare honesty without farther proof affirm to be abused) is proved thereby to be good, and your only spiritual sacrifice utterly condemned. The place is taken out of the libel which one Is●hyrion a deacon of the church of Alexandria offered up to Leo the pope, and the whole council against Dioscorus the bishop there, and is this: Tanta autem contra omnes Act. 3. (non sicut decebat episcopum, & maximè tantae civitatis, & evangelicae illius sedis praesulem constitutum perpetrare ausus est, ut etiam & frumentum quod a pi●ssimis nostris imperatoribus, ecclesijs Libiae propter ariditatem illius provinciae, & quia ibi omnino triticum non nascitur, praestitum est, inprimis quidem ut ex ipso hostia offeratur: deinde ut & peregrini, nec non etiam & provinciales pauperes ali quod mereantur solatium, non permit●eret suscipere sanctissimos episcopos illius provinciae, sed aestimaret memoratum frumentum largissimis praetijs, ipsum verò in tempore famis amarissimis estimationibus venundaret. Et ex hoc, neque terribile & incruentum sacrificium celebratum est, neque sic (ut dixi) peregrini aut provinciales hoc solatio fruiti sunt. That is to say. He hath been so hardy to commit so great things against all men (not as it became a bishop, and especially of so great a city and of that evangelical seat) that even the very corn which was given by our godly emperors to the churches of Libya for the barrenness of that province and because there groweth no wheat there, chiefly * ex ipso ho●li● off●ratur. that the sacrifice might be offered of that, and next that strangers and such poor needy men also as be of the same province, might receive some relief thereby, he suffereth not the holy bishops of that province to receive, but prysing the said corn at excessive prices, in time of famine he selleth it most rigorously. And thereby neither is the dreadful and unbloody sacrifice celebrate, neither do either strangers or those of the province enjoy this comfort. Hitherto the words of this godly deacons supplication, whereby all men may see, that the belief of the church at that time was, that the unbloody sacrifice which was offered on the altar, stood not in the only offering up of prayers and praises unto god. Which kind of sacrifice might and may be offered at all times were there never so great lack of corn, and can be by no means called dreadful. For it is not dreadful M. Nowell to praise god inwardly: it is the only comfort to our consciences, so far is it from all terror. But terrible is it to come to god's table, where we shall receive either to our damnation or salvation the very body and blood of Christ. Go now and say that the wheat here mentioned was figurative, that this naughty bishop sold, and took money for it by a figure. For except you say thus you can never avoid this place. Now whereas you call it a false fantasy that the body Fo. 15. b. 13 and blood of Christ are offered for the quick and the dead etc. therein surely you note not so much me of dreaming, as if it were true that you say, you should note all the fathers of Christ's church of sleeping. For to begin with S. james the apostle of our saviour, prayeth he not in his mass extant in the greek tongue to be seen, that this oblation sanctified by the holy ghost may be acceptable to purchase rest for their souls which sleep before us? Do not chrysostom and S. Basile the like in their masses? Doth not Athanasius expressly affirm, that by the unbloody oblation the souls of sinners Lib. de Varijs quest. q. 34. In cap. 11. proverb. departed this world receive comfort? Doth not S. Jerome hold that venial sins may be purged after this life by the prayers or almoise deeds of their friends, or by the celebrating off masses? As for S. Austen who calleth it a tradition of the fathers, De verb. apost. serm. 52. an observation of the whole and universal church, to offer for the souls departed the sacrifice of Christ's most precious body and blood, the sacrifice of our mediator, who offered the Lib. confess 9 cap. 13. same for the soul of his mother Monica, and had it offered after his death for his own: these and many other places in his works, are to most men so well known, that to allege them here it may seem superfluous. What remaineth now M. Nowell, but that as S. Austen said to julian a scholar of Pelagius, after he had alleged against his heresies the learned writers of the church: Ego a Pelagianis Lib. 2. contra julian. cir●asin. ad istos: tu ab istis ad quos? I go from the Pelagians to these (learned fathers) if from these to whom wilt thou go: so I say to you (a scholar of Caluins) touching this matter: I go from the calvinists to S. james, to chrysostom, to Basile, to Athanasius, and you M. Nowell from these to whom will you go? If you say to the scriptures, whereby it appeareth that Christ offered himself once for all, etc. then hearken how you be yet pressed farther by S. Austen. Hebr. 10. Why (saith he) be all things so out of frame, is darkness so come to pass to be light and light darkness, that Pelagius, Celestius, Ibid. julianus, should see: and Hilary, Gregory and Ambrose should be blind? Why M. Nowell, is the order of things so inverted, that Nowell, jewel, grindal, Horn, yea Luther and Calvin if you will, should see this objection, and S. james, Basile, Athanasius, Jerome, Austen, and he which moveth the same objection out of the 10. chap. of S. Paul to the hebrews, Chrilostom himself, and answereth thereto, should be blind and not see it? Thus appeareth it, by how fo. 16. a. 10 good right you overthrow our altars, on which the greatest Idolatry that you feign to have been committed, was the oblation of Christ's body and blood, which you see to be by the judgement of the most ancient fathers of Christ's church justified, and therefore were the examples of Asa, josaphat, Ezechias, and josias, most wickedly abused by you for the overthrowing of our altars, and consequently that your doctrine is devilish whereby altars are taught to be overthrown, whereby the visible sacrifice of the church is abolished, and such like. As for the holy days how ever you keep those that be left, you can not deny but that many a one instituted by the church you have put down, and would count the keeping of them now superstitious. And as for hymns and singing in the night if you counted it not superstition: why have you taken that manner away, which Chrisostom Homil. ad popul. Antioch. 59 witnesseth that the monks in this time used for the most part of the night? Which singing of theirs in the dark and when other were a sleep, he preferred before the melodious harmony of any musical instrument what so ever it were, and therefore to this you have answered but sclendrely, saying that you have such godly and goodly songs in the day, as though we had sung only in the night and not in the day. Your ministers what manner of men they be I am content to leave to their judgement who living in the realm amongst them can better witness thereof. Of whose cunning in the English tongue as much as you brag and deface the latin, as did once a gentleman in king Edward his time, who minding to commend to Hoper for orders forsooth, one of these mere English brethren, said of him very sadly, that he was an honest man, in whom a man should find no other lack save that he had no knowledge in the popish tongue: yet could I name you some iwisse, even the pewterer of Oxford with one eye, that when he happened upon the words of the prophet. 〈…〉 upon him, was straight in a great rage against the papists, saying that they had corrupted the lively word of the lord by adding to the text the word (ostes: again that other great clerk that for Christ is the propitiation etc. read Christ is the provocation: these I say with other of like skill in the English tongue many more, I could name if I thought it needful. And all though these have not perhaps yet any great learned man's living: yet hath he, that was made not many years since believe by these words Missa fuit a Corintho (which are in some bibles after the end of the epistle to the Romans) that the name of the mass was expressly Cole. mentioned in the scripture. To cloak the better the ignorance of your ministers, Nowell. fo. 17. a. 11. you tell us, that S. Peter a fisher and S. Paul a tent maker used their arts after their calling to the Apostleship, that you much marvel of my judgement who do place Peter the fisher in the highest room above all bishops, and can not suffer other honest artificiers sufficiently exercised in the scriptures to have any place at all in the inferior ministery. Peter was a fisher, and placed above all bishops, Dorman. not by me (to take away your merueilinge) Home ill. in Math. 55. but by Christ himself, if you believe chrysostom, who saith of him, that Christ promised to make him by these words. And I say unto the that though wart Peter etc. being an obscure fisher, the shepherd and head of the church, Matt. 16. that God the Father saying to Hieremias: I have placed the as an Iron pillar, and a brazen wall, made him the governor but Herem. 1. of one nation, but that Christ placed Peter over all the world. Paul had his learning in the scriptures and so had Peter to Note. by inspiration. Will you now because after their calling to the Apostleship they used their occupations, make this special working of God, done of his high ●●●dom 〈…〉 the princes, and worldly wise of this world, a cloak for every malapert artificer to brag of the spirit, to climb into the pulpit, more meet as one no less truly then merely said, to climb a daws nest as though Christ used now to work by miracles, as he did them, and not by ordinary means and degrees. This is a reason, M. Nowell rejected of all learned men, but common I confess to your apren ministers. Read the epistle of S. Jerome to Paulinus, and you shall see, that although the Apostles were Theodidacti, yet men must look now adays to come to the knowledge of scripture by exercise and daily meditation. As for that that you say they are sufficiently exercised in the scriptures, because no man shall say that I charge you further than by them of your own side hath been acknowledged: call to your remembrance the oration made in the convocation by him that was then prolocutor not long since, wherein speaking of your ministers he uttered these words: hody plerisque locis reperias aut sutorem, aut bubulcum, januarij. 13. 1562. aut tonsorem, aut circulatorem & circumforaneum, aut aliquem huiusmodi ministerio adhibitum, qui bonas litter as ne à limi ne quidem unquam salutarit. At this day in many places a man shall find, either a shoemaker, or a cowhearde, or a barber, or a juggler, or a mountebank ronneagate, or some such other made ministre, who never strided so much as over the tresshold into the school where good learning is taught. Where you say that we have burned so many of your learned clerks that you are driven to supply small cures with fol. 17. a. some honest artificiers: surely look over your calendre again and you shall find, that the greatest number of them was of such craftsmen as we speak of, and that the learned that passed that ways, were very few to have furnished those cures that your honest crafts men, be as it is were into their shops crept into. How the saying of S. Cyprian that heresies and schisms rise of the contempt of the bishop which is one, is applied to the B. of Rome. The 6. chapter. I said that it had been declared by S. Cyprian before, Epistol. 9 Lib. 4. that the devil in his attempts against the church used always to begin with the banishment of the bishop which is one, etc. By this one bishop in this place you say I make Saint Cyprian understand the B. of Rome. I do so M. fo. 17. b. 18 Nowell, but not directly or immediately. You are deceived much and understand not my meaning if you so think. For as I confess that both in the one place and in the other of S. Cyprian, he may understand the bishops and governors of every particular church: so am I not also ignorant, that your conclusion. Ergo, there is not one word meant off the bishop off Rome. is most false. For when S. Cyprian said in these places that schisms which arise by the devils working, where so ever they springe up, come by the banishing of their authority who be appointed to govern the church (let it be I grant so much, of every bishop in his own diocese) might not I who presupposed in this introduction of mine (which in the process also I proved) that the B. of Rome was the chief head of all other, conclude, that then by a greater reason S. Cyprians mind was that schisms and heresies should come by the forsaking of the B. of Rome, although by name he spoke not of him. As if for example it were written in the laws of our realm. Treasons and rebellion rise by the contemning of the lieutenant which is one in the Shire: should he now say amiss that to exhort men to abide in the obedience of their prince, would reason from the authority of the law, that by contempt of the king, rebellion the trouble-feast of all good order taketh beginning: I think no man will so say. And yet speaketh not the law by name off the king. Although no man can deny, but that if the law would so say of an inferior member, it would not let to say as much of the chief member of all. You will grant yourself, that although S. Cyprian named not the B. of Rome, yet in that sense, as he is bishop of the diocese of Rome, he meant of him. Which seeing you do, why may not I, who take him to have aswell jurisdiction over the whole church, as over that of Rome, apply to him by the way of introduction this place as well as you do to every particular bishop, notwithstanding they be not by name mentioned, which is your reason here made to the contrary? And thus much for the applying of this place to the B. of Rome. And as for the quietness, peace, security, B. 25. plenty of things etc. that (you say) you have now more than of late under the pope: if you mean of yourself and your companions, comparing your present state with that of late of Geneva, surely I think you say truth. Although I meant generally and of the better part of the realm. For although you wallow in wealth, and yourselves be so provided for, either to abide or to fly, with your banks as it is supposed all ready made in the merchants hands: although the woods wasted, the lead plucked from the great palaces hauls and kitchens (to great for your little hospitality and small roast) the benevolences exacted of the poor priests, have filled your coffers: finally although your brats be provided of the best fermes and manors belonging to the churches, to the which by the old canons (I speak of the children of Con●i●. Tol●●an. 9 Can. 10. priests, for you I understand are but a single solled ministre) they ought to be bond slaves: yet are other men pinched and complain of the lack of that quietness, that peace, that security, and plenty of things that 30. years ago they had. For you abuse men to much to compare the time present, with the late time of Queen mary, in the which neither was the pope's authority fully restored with all men, neither would Daws suffer us to enjoy this quietness, peace etc., that you speak of: who by violent arms, by seditious books, by slanderous tongues, by infamous and lying libels, finally by all means sought to hinder the same, and to stir up the subject against the prince. And yet in good sooth the comparison being so made, the odds is not so clear as you take it to be. But how ever it be M. Nowell, I spoke here of no such worldly respects as you would seem to make me. I spoke and meant of overthrowing of churches and altars, of the contempt of learned men, of the teaching of evil doctrine, of the promoting to ecclesiastical ministries, weavers, tynckers, cobblers, bromemen etc. I meant of peace and quietness in conscience, of simplicity and upright dealing between man and man, with such like things. Which if yourself do not perceive since our first revolt from the pope to be much impaired, then are you a piece of dead flesh and desperately brain sick. For so saith Hypocrates of them who being sick feal not the grief of their disease. Your promise to prove that where the pope hath had the greatest authority, there he hath brought in with him all miseries, mischiefs etc. shall in the place where you perform it be answered. How Maximus, Vrbanus and Sidonius, went from the church by not acknowledging the authority of the B. of Rome, and how they returned to the same again by acknowledging it. The. 7. Chapter. M. Nowell, after that he hath declared that the state of the controversy between Novatus (whom Maximus, Vrbanus, and Sidonius followed) and Cornelius the pope, was, which of them two was a catholic bishop holding the truth, and truly, and lawfully chosen by God, and which was the intruder, and not of the catholic church, but an heretic, concludeth thus: Wherefore it is evident, that when M. Dorman saith, tha● Nowell. Fo. 19 a. 32 those men returned again to the church by this way, that is to say, by the acknowledging Cornelius to be the head of the universal church, he saith most untruly. If you considre well my words M. Nowell that went Dorman. last before, and upon which these depend, you shall find that I do here as sense the beginning I have done, keep myself close to the argument of my preface or introduction. Which is to show, that the going from the head is the cause of all schism, and the returning to the same the cause of unity and concord. This as it is evidently true whether the head be particular or general: so the more that such head is general and universal the more true is it. The schism hath been proved by the departing of Novatus the heretic from Cornelius his lawful head, the B. of Rome: The unity is here declared by the return of Maximus, Vrbanus, and Sydonius from the Lib. 2. epist. 12. faction of Novatus to pope Cornelius. What need you then here to lay to my charge, that I say untruly that these men returned to the church by acknowledging Cornelius to be the head of the universal church, which as I say not in this place, so was it not needful that I should. My words have relation to those other where I say, that we first revolt from the church by contemning and not acknowledging the head (without any express mention of the head of the universal church) and that so must our return thither again be by the contrary etc. And that so did those that after their fall with Novatus, S. Cyprian received into the church again. What (So) did they, construe english M. Nowell I pray you) did they not so return to their head as they had forsaken him? Do not you confess as much yourself in this very place? well then this place proveth well that unity acknowledged is the end of division, which is the only mark that I shoot at in this preface. That this unity is especially to be considered in the pope, that was not to be showed here, but would follow I knew of itself upon this foundation laid, here after, there where the pope's authority should of purpose be handled. It cometh in by the way as it were, that the example is found between the B. of Rome and Novatus going from his unity, and Maximus returning to it. Any other example would have served my turn in this behalf, but the case standing so, that I had to treat of the B. of Rome, those examples liked me best which being directly of him, might better declare the unity and more lively set forth the schism, by how much the one or the other was greater, as falling from or joining with him, who was not a common bishop but the head or chief of all other. Although I might well defend that this example is such (as is that which followeth of Vrsatius and Valens) as may serve both for my preface to commend unity, and for the matter itself to prove the pope's authority by acknowledging thereof. For you see here that they confessed that there must be one bishop in the catholic church. Which words not withstanding that you labour to draw to an other sense, and I deny not but that they have some ambiguity: yet if we considre of whom they were spoken, that is of Cornelius the B. of Rome, and successor of Peter, called by Arnobius an ancient writer, Episcopus episcoporum, the bishop of bishops, it will not be absurd to think, that by that one bishop they meant the B. In psal. 138. of Rome successor of Peter and so the bishop of bishops. Here because no small vantage as you judge, lieth in the translating of these words in ecclesia catholica, you think that Nowell. Fol. 20. a. 20. I should have said, in a catholic church. In deed if I were of your mind that the chair of S. Dorman. Peter were but one amongst many like or equal, and his church as one of the rest, the translation might well have been used that you speak of. But whereas I am resolved and prove it in place, that there is difference between S. Peter's Lib. 2. de baptis. contra Donat. Cap. 1. chair (as hath S. Austen) and the chairs of other bishops, that the church of Rome is not only a catholic church being taken for a peculiar place: but in a true sense also the catholic church, when it is taken for the mother church of all Christ's flock, because it is all one to say the church of Christ in earth, and the church of Rome, as by S. Ambrose it is to be proved: who when S. Paul had said the church of God to be the pillar of truth, S. Ambrose well knowing that he spoke not of any one church but 1. Timoth. 3 of the whole, doubted not yet to say cuiís hody rector est Damasus, whose ruler at this day Damasus is, who was than pope: you may not marvel if I translate not the words as you do. The same S. Ambrose in the funeral oration of his brother Satyrus telleth, that minding to receive theblessed sacrament whereby he had a little before been saved from drowning in the sea, he asked the bishop at whose hands he thought to take it, whether he agreed with other catholic bishops, that is (saith S. Ambrose) with the church of Rome. What was this else but to ask him whether he agreed with that church, which because it contained all catholic bishops in her lap, and none he took for a catholic but him that agreed with that church: he judged to be the catholic church. You see therefore M. Nowell that it is no such absurdity as you think, to translate these words in catholica ecolesia in the catholic church. For what privilege have you I pray you more than I, that you may translate the word catholicae ecclesiae: of the catholic church, and that I must english the same words of a catholic so. 19 b. 8 church? Or why should it be lawful for you so to translate them twice, when alleging those words of S. Cyprian Episcopo Cornelio in catholica ecclesia, You english them the second time, the B. C ornelius in the catholic church, which fo. 20. a. 8 Cipr. li. 3. epist 13. you will not suffer me to do so much as once? Ah M. Nowell is this even dealing? Or think you when you have done to colour the matter by a feigned rule of your own making, which saith that Episcopus catholicae ecclesiae, and Episcopus in ecclesia catholica are as much to say as a catholic bishop. I grant that in some places they are so M. Nowell. Will you therefore make a general rule that they must always be so taken, and in no place otherwise? Much like to this is the argument that you make Li. 3. Epist. 11. f. 20. a. 13 to prove that Maximus and his fellows called not Cornelius bishop of the catholic church in this place here brought by me, Cyprian (say you) called not Cornelius bishop Li. 3. ep. 13 of the Catholic church: but bishop Cornelius ordained in the catholic church. Ergo, Maximus and his two companions called not Cornelius bishop of the Catholic church Is not this a goodly kind of reasoning? Will you see the like? M. Nowell preached not at Paul's cross that there was no scripture, no councils, no doctors, no allowed examples of the primitive church to prove the supremacy of the B. of Rome, ergo, M. jewel did not. I think M. jewel would give you a good flice out of his benefice upon the condition that you could prove this consequent to be good. And that thus you reason can you not deny. For the Lib. 3. epistol. 11. words alleged by me here out of S. Cyprian be not Saint Cyprian his, but the very words by his own confession of the poor penitentes. And therefore to bring a phrase out of S. Cyprian to prove that because he did not so say, therefore an other did not, if this were all, were a great fault in reasoning. But now if the words had been in both the places S. Cyprians own, than had your reason been like to this: M. Nowell preaching before the queens highness at the court said not that it would do him good to raze his buckler upon a papists face: ergo, he said not so at Paul's cross. You object again against this place to be meant of one chief bishop over the whole church, that then as there is one Nowell fol. 20. b. 12. only God and none but he: so there should be but one only bishop and no more but he. That were true M. Nowell, if as God is the name off a Dorman. most simple nature and excellency, so the name of a bishop were such as would admit no degree of dignity. When it is said that there is one bishop in the catholic church, it is meant one chief bishop. For it is not necessary that in all points this similitude of one God, and one bishop should agree. It ought to suffice you, that the similitude standeth upright in that, wherein the comparison is made, which is here of government: that as one God governeth heaven and earth: so there should be one chief bishop to govern under him the church in earth. Thus forasmuch as there be degrees in bishops, though in God there be naturally none (for by abuse of idolaters, and by participation of name there be also many Gods and many lords as witnesseth S. Paul) it is sufficient, that as 1. Cor. 8. there is one God, so there aught to be one chief bishop, not excluding the rest, but referring them to their head, by means whereof and in which sense there is one bishopric and one bishop. And so consequently it followeth, that my marginal note of one God: one bishop (meaning as you say I did) was not in vain. The next objection of yours, why in this place these words one bishop in the catholic church, should not be understand of one especial bishop over all: you confirm by S. Cyprian in diverse places. First by that which he hath of one Nowell. fol. 21. a. 6 Lib. 4. Epist. 9, Bishop in the first book the 3. epistle, then by a sentence taken out of his epistle to Pupianus, afterwards by certain words of his to Antonius, and last of all by that which he hath in his book de simplicitate praelator. or de unitate Ecclesiae. not far from the beginning. To the first two places yourself seem not much Dorman. to trust (although following the precepts of your art you are content to use them to make a show of store) either because your conscience telleth you that the reason followeth not. He saith so in this place: therefore he must needs say so in the other, either else, because yourself perceived, that there is a great difference between these places by reason of the word catholic. For in the place here alleged, the schismatics returning to the church confessed that there must be one bishop in the catholic church: in these two places avouched by you S. Cyprian saith that heresies do spring or arise by contempt of the bishop which governeth the church and is one. Now as the latter words may according to the circumstances of the place and here are I doubt not, taken for the several head of every bishopric: so the first can not well otherwise be taken then to exclude all particular churches, by reason of the word catholic which signifieth universal, addid thereto: especially the words being translated the catholic church and not a catholic church, as by your own so turning of them and otherlike to them it appeareth they must. Off the third place out of the epistle to Antonius you conclude nothing neither, but turn the matter over to the last authority of S. Cyprian, in his book De simplicitate praelat. where most plainly (you say) he declareth his mind of this one bishopric wholly and equally possessed of all and overie bishop. Well then at the length M. Nowell from post to pillar, you be come thither where you will cast ancre. Wherewith I also for my part am well contented, and desire no better then to be in this controversy tried by S. Cyprian. Now show how S. Cyprian maketh for you, that is, nothing for the B. of Rome his supremacy, but directly against it. For those be the words that you conclude Nowell. fo. 21. b. 25. Lib. de Simplicitat. praelator. Dorman. withal upon this place. That do you after this manner. S. Cyprian saith that there is one bishopric which every bishop hath wholly for his part. Ergo, consequently all bishops be equal and no one can be above an other. I deny the consequent M. Nowell. Will you know why? This word (episcopatus) comprehendeth here by S. Cyprian his mind, the whole nature of that kind of government which bishops have, as if in like wise a man should say: unum est sacerdotium there is one priesthood in the church, which every priest hath wholly for his part, would you now think that upon this proposition it were well done to conclude of priests (as you do of bishops) that therefore because in nature off priesthood they be all equal, the meanest as truly and wholly participating the nature thereof as the chief, there should be no one priest in dignity of government above the other, and so overthrow the office of archipresbiteri, chief priests, whereof the council Can. 15. item Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 17. of Toures in France about the time off Pelagius the first above a thousand years past maketh mention. But what speak I of priesthood, will you condemn the whole church of Christ for making of archbishops? I think you will not. And what signifieth this word archbishop but a chief bishop? If there may be one chief bishop in every province, above the rest of his fellow bishops, and yet no hindrance to the rest or diminishing of their power, that they should not be bishops aswell as he, why may not the same proportion be kept between the pope and the rest of the bishops of Christendom, that is between the archbishop and the other bishops of the province? But these be but words you say. Call them what you will, they lack not reason, and therefore answer them as you can, for answer them you must, without you will give over in the plain field. But I will join to reason authority, not of any mean writer but even of S. Austen himself, who it is likely understood as well the meaning of S. Cyprian, as you M. Nowell. I trust you will not be angry with me for saying so. For as good I say it as other think it. The words of S. Austen writing to pope Boniface about the resisting of the Pelagians heresy, are these. Cum verò non desinant fremere ad dominici gregis caulas, atque ad diripiendas tanto praetio redemptas Lib. 1. contra duas epist. Pelag. Cap. 1. oves aditus undecunque rimari, communisque sit omnibus nobis qui fungimur Episcopatus officio, quamuis ipse in eo praemineas celsiore fastigio speculae pastoralis, facio quod possum pro mei particula muneris&c. Now whereas the heretics cease not to gnash and whet their teeth at the folds of our lords flock, and by all means possible to search out, where they may find any entrance to spoil those sheep, that have been so dearly ransomed, and the bishopric the office whereof we sustain is common to us all, although yourself have the pre-eminence therein, by reason of the higher top of the pastoral watch tower: I do what I can for that piece of charge which is committed to me, as much as our lord by the help of your prayers vouchesauffeth to give me, to withstand their pestilent and deceitful writings by other that shall be both wholesome and defensive, whereby either the rage wherewith they are stark mad, may be utterly cured, or at the One bishopric common to all, excludeth not one B. to be above all the rest. least kept from hurting of others. These be the words of S. Austen, who confesseth with S. Cyprian, that the office of a bishop is common to all bishops with the pope, and yet condemneth notwithstanding most plainly your consequent falsely brought in there upon, Therefore all bishops be equal and none above an other. For you have heard, that the pope Boniface, to whom he wrote, was above all the rest in express words. Thus is this conclusion of yours. Every bishop hath in solidum, that is to say, fo. 22. a. b. fully and wholly that one bishopric or bishoply function and office. ergo no one can have more than the whole, and therefore no one can be above all other, by granting the consequent to be true touching the nature and substance of a bishops authority and office, but denying it to follow in pre-eminence and dignity, showed to be a false conclusion. But yet you go forward and say, that this one bishopric Nowell. a. 25. is divided equally amongst all bishops, as faith and baptism are equally and wholly divided amongst the faithful baptized, and that therefore as no one man hath any superiority In solidum in baptism or faith above other truly faithful and baptized, so hath no one bishop superiority over other bishops, etc. S. Cyprian maketh not his comparison here between Dorman. faith, baptism and the whole bishopric of the church, otherwise then in this respect that each of them is one, and the point that he compareth them in, is this, that as baptism is one, as the faith of all faithful christians is one, and yet all faithful and baptized have not equal authority in government, so the bishopric is one, that as no man hath superiority in baptism or faith to be more a faithful man or more baptized than an other: so no bishop hath of the one bishopric common to all touching the true nature and substance of bishoply order, more superiority of being a bishop then an other, but all bishops a like, the one as truly a bishop as the other touching order, although as you heard before out of S. Austen, the pope altius praeeminet, hath the higher pre-eminence, that is to say, is in higher authority of jurisdiction than other bishops are. Thus much touching your surmised comparison, which if it should have been made, as you imagine, then must you either condemn S. Cyprian himself for bearing the name of an archbishop, or feign, that there is also an archebaptisme to set against the dignity of archebishoprike, off the which two as no good man will do the first, so no wiseman will think the last. But how so ever you take the matter M. Nowell, there is no comparison made in this place, till you come to the sentence, Episcopatus unus est, there is one bishopric. For the better knowledge whereof, it is to be understand, that the thing which in this place S. Cyprian laboureth to persuade, is (both in the bishopric and in the church) unity. To prove this he useth a comparison, in this wise. Episcopatus unus est, etc. Ecclesia una est, quomodo solis multi radij, sed lumen unum etc. The bishopric is one etc. The church is one, even as many son beams make one light etc. But now let us examine some one of these several comparisons, and you shall see, how little this word in solidum, wholly, maketh for your pretenced equality amongst all bishops, and whether S. Cyprian meant as you do, or no. Imagine you therefore with S. Cypr. this whole bishopric The bishopric of the church compared to a tree. of the church to be a tree, the branches whereof be the bishop pes severed, the body of the tree the same bishops joined together, the root, the chief bishop that holdeth them together. Except this be the meaning of S. Cyprian, you can not make this comparison agree. For the way to make the things compared agree, is (because of themselves both the bows of the tree, and bishops of the church are many) to reduce them to one beginning. And as the same thing that maketh the tree one is a member and part thereof: so must that which shall make the bishopric one, be a member of the same bishopric, that is to say, a bishop, although in that respect that he is a part of the same body, equal with the rest, as the root by being of one common substance with the body and branches, is above the other parts of the tree notwithstanding, because they are all made one thereby; and take their life thereof, as appeareth at the eye. For cut away the root and the body perisheth: Take away the root of this bishopric, that one chief bishop, which conjoineth all in one, you shall see so many schisms, as there be bishops, and so shall all come to nought. Thus may appear, how little the word, in solidum, wholly, whereby you would wrest S. Cyprian to a forced meaning of yours, to say, that be cause every bishop had a part of this bishopric wholly, therefore they were all equal in that bishopric, maketh for you, whereas in this tree compared to the whole bishopric of the church, all and every bow thereof hath of that common life which is in it, part thereof in solidum, wholly, as well as the root, which containeth them together, and the root hath but his part of that life in solidum no more than hath the least branch there, and yet is the chief part of the tree for all that. Thus you see, how even by S. Cyprians own authority, you be cast in your own turn. And look what hath been said of the tree, the same may be said of the light of the son, or of many rivers coming from one head spring. As for that, that you note me of falsehood for removing of the word Sanct●ssimae, from his place, and changing fo. 19 b. 4 it into Sanctissimum, for the removing of any word, that is a false lie. For it is you that place the word Sanctissimum A lie. 20. out of his order, putting it before Episcopum, whereas it should and doth follow in S. Cyprian after, and not I. As for the word Sanctissimae changed in to Sanctissimum, I confess, that the best books read otherwise. Which fault either I committed by following some copy, which had so, either else as it is a thing easily done in writing, by taking out the place amiss. For to do it of set purpose as your spider's nature, which is to turn all into poison, surmiseth, what vantage should I have gotten thereby? If such titles would help, I could have brought forth the Aug. epist. 90. et 92. epistles of the fathers of the counsels of Carthage, and Milevet, where in their several letters, they use oftentimes to the pope, the word Sanctitas tua, your holiness, with diverse other to that effect. To conclude the matter (you say) that Maximus and his Nowell. fo. 22. b. in fin. fellows had a controversy with Cornelius altogether diverse from ours, and therefore that their example appertaineth nothing thing to this case of the Pope's supremacy, which then was neither moved nor known. And again, that being priests of Rome, it was no marvel, though they reconciled themselves to their own bishop whom they had offended. For the first, what controversy so ever they had it maketh Dorman. no matter. For heretics they were, and went from the communion of the bishop of Rome, whether as head off the church, or their peculiar bishop and Diocesan, I care not. This is that which I entendid here to prove, that they forsook their head, and so fell into schisms, out of the which it is impossible for any to rise without they join themselves to their head again, as these did here. And if they were priests of Rome, as I think they were not, but such as at that time followed Novatus in Rome, yet maketh this still thus far for me, that every schism must be helped by returning to the head, what so ever he be. Which is the thing (to make you with often repeating to understand it) which I seek in this place. For I am here in my preface, where even as in my first proposition it is enough to prove that it is expedient to have one head in Christ's church to govern the same, although I prove it not of the B. of Rome: so is it here sufficient to prove that heresies begin by forsaking the head, and that they must end by returning to the same, though I name not any head by name. Although for any thing that hath been said to the contrary, I might defend, that even in this place the same is proved in the Bishop of Rome the general head of all. That the recantation of Vrsatius and Valens offered up to julius then pope maketh much for the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy. The 8. Chapitre. Doth not M. Nowell think you good readers play the M. Nowell answereth to that which no man objecteth. merry man, both with you and me and all the world beside in the handling of this place of Vrsatius or Vrsitus and Valens? First while he maketh me to reason of the titles that these two bishops used in their libel of recantation, and then solemnly confuteth my reasons by other out of Saint Augustin and S. Cyprian, with double epithetons for my single, whereas I have no such one word. Next in concluding the whole matter to recreate your foreweried spirits and to send every man to his home in love and charity, with a fit of mirth. For his music reward you him as you shall see cause, for, for your sakes it was and not mine. To his answers to my reasons of the titles of beatissimus Dominus Papa the most blessed lord pope, or what so ever else, I will reply when that or any other shall be proved to be mine. In the mean season to this reason off his: Vrsatius and Valens offered up their recantation to Athanasius the Nowell. fol. 23. b. 22. bishop of Alexandria: ergo, This maketh as much for the Supremacy of Athanasius as it doth of julius the Pope, because it hath some appearance, I will here make answer. First I say Dorman. M. Nowell that the antecedent, that is, that they offered in like manner their recantations to Athanasius is a manifest A lie. 19 lie: then, that if it were true, that yet the conclusion doth not follow, and so the reason is faulty. For the first, let Nicephorus be examined, whom you here allege in two places, the 9 book the 13. and the 27. chapters. I mean the 27. for in the other chapter there is no word of that matter, and so shall it appear whether you be a liar or no. Nicephorus hath, that to julius the B. of Rome they offered libellum poenitentiae, a libel of their repentance: of Athanasius he saith no more, but only that after their reconciliation to the pope they wrote letters to him, signifying that they were now quieted, and agreed in communion with him whom before they had so cruelly persecuted. Of their recantation, which is understand by the word Libellus poenitentiae, he mentioneth no word at all. But let us now compare together the words, first in the libel offered to the pope, and then in the letters sent to Athanasius. To the pope they say, Beatissimo domino papae julio Vrsitius & Valens. To the most blessed Lord, pope julius, Vrsitius and Valens. To Athanasius they writ: Domino fratri Athanasio episcopo, Vrsitius & Valens episcopi. To our Lord and brother Athanasius the bishop, Vrsitius and Valens bishops. I do not here urge these words as you bring me in at your pleasure M. Nowell (To the most blessed Lord etc.) to prove thereby the pope's supremacy, but I will here note to the reader in this comparison, the familiar kind of writing to the one, calling him brother, and the reverent manner of writing to the other, where of reverence they abstained from that word. To Athanasius they called them selves bishops: To julius they used their proper names without all titles. And will you know the cause why? Why Vrsitius and Valens called not julius the Pope brother. Forsooth when they wrote to julius, they knew themselves to stand at his mercy as men that were out of the church, therefore neither durst they call him brother being a catholic bishop and chief of all other, neither themselves bishops, having made themselves unworthy that name. But as soon as they were pardoned of the pope, in their letters sent to Athanasius, they used boldly the titles of brother and bishop. Whereby may easily be gathered that it was no recantation that they sent to Athanasius. In the recantation offered to julius, they profess to desire to be in communion with Athanasius. This request (say they to him) we trust you will not deny, praecipuè quum pietas tua pro insita sibi integritate gratiam nobis erroris facere est dignata. Nicephor. li. 9 ca 27. especially seeing that your godliness according to that natural uprightness which is in you, hath pardoned us already our fault. They add further, that if these of the east church would wickedly, yea if Athanasius himself Note. would call them into the law touching these matters, that without his consent they would not go. Finally they abjure Arrius the heretic with all his fautors: In the letters to Athanasius there is no renouncing of the Arrians heresy: there is no mention of pardon, neither of any thing else, but that he might understand that they were now reconciled. Whereas if they had contained a recantation, the matters should (no doubt) in as ample manner have been specified, as in that to julius they were. The Tripartite history saith, that these men offered to julius, libellum poenitentiae, their recantation in writing, and that to Lib. 4. cap. 34. Athanasius, miserunt literas, seqùe ei deinceps communicare professi sunt: they sent letters, and professed that they would communicate with him hereafter. Of all other Epiphanius writeth of this matter most plainly. His words are these. Vrsatius ac Valens unà cum libellis profecti ad B. julium Ro. Lib. 2. haeresi. 68 episcopum pro ratione reddenda de suo errore ac delicto, qúod calumnias struxissent papae Athanasio: At suscipe inquiunt nos ad communitatem ac ad poenitentiam. Sed & ad ipsum Athanasium ijsdem conscriptis confirmationibus usi sunt propter poenitentiam, that is to say: Vrsatius and Valens going together with their libels to julius the B. of Rome to give account of their error, and fault for that that they had gone about to entrap Athanasius: But receive us (say they) to the communion and to penance. Yea and to Athanasius himself they used the same confirmations for penance. Lo M. Nowell one of the places that I of set purpose B. 31. would not note, lest my fraud might be perceived in alleging that which made nothing to the matter. Maketh it not to the matter that these two being bishops of the East church, should upon the forsaking of their heresies take on them so long a journey, offer themselves to such dangers by sea and by land, to their no small costs and charges, to make their submission in writing, which they might have sent, and avoided all those difficulties by tarrying themselves, (as they did in writing to Athanasius) at home, if the B. of Rome had been but equal to Athanasius and had had no more to do in the matter than he? Is it impertinent that they confess of the pope, that he hath pardoned them their fault, whereas of Athanasius there is no such word? Or is it lightly to be esteemed that they promise to do nothing in those matters of their faith, not at the calling of the bishops of the east or Athanasius himself, without the pope's consent? Is it not to the purpose that they went to the pope to give an account of their error, and fault committed against Athanasius, that they desired of the pope to be received to penance, and wrote to Athanasius for their penance? Well by this I trust it appeareth, that as I had no cause to conceal these places, as though (as you say) I feared lest thereby it would fall out that the world should understand my guile in alleging that which made not to the purpose: so, that it is you, who in saying that Vrsatius and Valens offered up their recantation aswell to Athanasius as to julius, have to further your heresy made an impudent lie, and fathered Li. 9 ca 27. that upon Nicephorus which is not in him, and thought to dor us and out face us to with a card of ten. Beside this I say as I said before, that if it had been true, that they had made their recantation to Athanasius also, that yet the consequent followeth not, that then the B. of Alexandria should have been by this means aswell head of the church as julius. For what letteth why the pope might not enjoin them after their recantation made at Rome, to make the same again to the proper bishop of that place where their heresies were most notorious? Or how is this any diminishing of his authority? The force of this example consisteth Wherein the force of the example of Vrsitius and Valens doth consist. in this, that being bishops so far from Rome, they should skip Alexandria and come to Rome: why they were reconciled at Rome first, and then in Alexandria afterward. So that, what letteth now to conclude as I did: By this means returned they to the church etc. What letteth me to reply to your: I took my harp into my hand and twang quoth A twang of M. nowels harp. my string a: Your string is broken between your hands, and where is now your twang a? O M. Nowell, when you thought with such a silly twang of your harp as this is, to shift your hands of this grave and weighty testimony, you thought belike withal so to bring all the world a sleep with that sweet melody, or rather as Orpheus is reported by the poets to have by the music of his harp moved woods, mountains, and rocks, to appease the fury of wild beasts, so contrary wise by that sweet noise off yours, to make wise men such tame fools, by a strange metamorphosis so to turn them into blocks and stones, as that they should not be able to perceive your uneven dealing. Surely in my poor conceit you little regarded your calling, you much impaired your name, in answering thus lewdly. Was this deanlike? Was this preacherlike? Was this minister like? Nay truly it was minstrellike. That the places hitherto alleged, are not impertinent to the Pope's authority. The. 9 Chapter. Although I have heretofore in the several defence off every one of these places, said so much as may suffice for the justifying of them to be alleged to the purpose, yet doth your Rhetorical repeating of them here, enforce also me to trouble the reader therewith again. I say therefore as I did before, that if the going out of the church be by the rebelling of the deacon or priest against his bishop, as S. Cyprian said in the case of the deacon disobeieng his bishop Rogatianus: if Pupianus ought to reconcile himself to Cyprian his bishop and metropolitan, that then by this reason of S. Cyprian, much more ought the going out of the church to be by the Deacon, priest▪ or bishops rebelling against the Pope the chief bishop of all other: much more ought they to reconcile their selves to him, who is chief shepherd of their souls in earth. If S. Basile spoke of the bishops in the east church, it is but a sorry shift to say, that his words may not be extendid to all rulers where so ever they be. If Novatus swore men to stick to his heresy, to take him and not Cornelius for their bishop, he swore men against the Pope and so do you. If Maximus, Vrbanus and Sidonius reconcile themselves to their own Roman bishop whom they had unjustly forsaken, you must do the like to him being your bishop (although not so immediately) whom you have as unjustly forsaken. If Vrsatius and Valens offered only their recantations to julius and not to Athanasius as I showed before, then have you made a lie, and so both this authority and the other are not impertinent but to the purpose. An answer to such lies, scoffs, slanders, falsefied authorities, and other cankered matter as M. Nowell in the 25. 26. 27. and 28. leaves, hath powered out against the Popes. The. 10. Chapter. As I mind not to defend the evil manners of Popes, as neither of temporal princes if any have governed evil, and have abused perhaps the power given to them by God: so will I neither measure their authority by their lives as did the frantic Donatists, and Anabaptists do, neither reveal the turpitude of my father as did wicked Cham, Gen. 9 neither judge my head as is the manner of heretics and schismatics to do, as witnesseth S. Cyprian, as hath been said before, applied them to the same sense that it is now. For Li. 4. ep. 9 of this am I sure, that how evil so ever their lives be: how far so ever they abuse the authority given to them, yet shall that nothing prejudicate the church, nor hurt the innocent Chriflians. If these were my words I can guess what were like to be your answer, but being not mine but S. Augustine his, nor his so, but that they be grounded upon the words of Christ: truly if I were myself an heretic, I confess I know no way to avoid them. The words of S. Augustine after that he had rehearsed by name, all the pope's that were from S. Peter to Anastasius time, 39 in number, amongst whom▪ there was he said no one Donatist to be found, are these: In illum autem ordinem episcoporum qui Epist. 165. ducitur ab ipso Petro usque ad Anastasium qui nunc eandem cathedram sedet, etiamsi quisquàm traditor per illa tempor a subrepsisset, nihil praeiudicaret ecclesiae & innocentibus Christianis, quibus Dominus providens, ait de praepositis malis, quae dicunt facite, etc. certa sit spes fidelis, quae non in homine sed in domino collocata, numque tempestate sacrilegi schismatis dissipetur, that is to say. In to this range of bishops drawn from Peter himself to Anastasius which now sitteth in the same seat, although some betrayour had within that compass crept in: yet should this nothing have prejudicate the church and innocent Christians, for whom our Lord providing faith of evil heads. Do what they bid you do, etc. That Matth. 23. the hope of the Christian man may be sure, which being grounded Note. not upon man but upon God, can not by wicked schism be scattered. This place good Reader, as it may serve the for a lesson to beware how thou rashly judge of their doings whom God hath so especially privileged: so ought it to be no small comfort to all true Christians to think, that god hath provided for them such a head to direct them here, as whose judgement, what ever his life be, they are sure can not be false: and may withal serve for an answer to all such spots as M. Nowell here, and other else where (were they all true and much worse than they speak of) have noted in the pope's manners to overthrow their authority. Whereby also standeth that proposition of mine fol. 25. a. 15. saulfe, meant of things concerning his office: the pope commandeth it, ergo it must be obeyed: if S. Augustine have any credit with us: if Christ may be believed. Who beside the words alleged by S. Augustine, hath given us also an other most sure stay to ground ourselves upon, when Lucae. 22. he assureth us, that Petres faith shall not fail, which although it please you M. Nowell in your swinish eloquence, to say that it pertaineth as much to the pope as doth a saddle to a sow, yet was S. Bernard (to allege him rather than any other, for that yourself in this place bring him in against the pope, and M. Horn I am credibly informed gave to him not long since, in the university of Oxford such praise, as that he hath it is supposed not a little inflamed the hearts of diverse young men, to the study of that blessed author) of a far other judgement than you are. For he writing to Innocentius the pope, after salutations beginneth his epistle thus. Oportet ad vestrum referri Epist. 190 Ap●stolatum pericula quaeque & scandala emergentia in regno Dei, ea praesertim quae de fide contingunt. Dignum nanque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna fidei, (ubi non possit fides sentire defectum. Haec quip huius praerogativa sedis. Cui enim Lucae. 22. alteri aliquando dictum est: Ego pro te rogavi Petre ut non deficiat fides tua? Ergo quod sequitur à Petri successore exigitur, Et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos. That is to say. All dangers and offences rising in the kingdom of God must be referred to your apostleship, those especially which concern the faith. For there do I think it to Note. be most meet that the hurts of faith should be redressed, where faith is sure not to fail. For such is the prerogative of this seat. For to what other was it ever said: I have prayed for the Peter that thy faith may not fail? Therefore that which followeth is demanded of Peter's successor. And thou being once converted strengthen thy brethren. Hitherto S. Bernard, against whose learning and life as you can take no exception: so have yourself cleared him of all suspicion of flattery, by those words which so freely and frankly without all dissimulation he uttered to pope Eugenius. Which maketh not a little for his faith and uprightness in applying this text as he doth. This you well perceiving, either else to show yourself learned in the canon Laws, attribute rather to Bonifacius the 8. those words Ecc● duo gladij, then to S. Bernard whose they are in deed uttered fol. 25. b. 13. Lib. 4. ad Eugen. in this sort. Quid tu denuo usurpare gladium tents, quem semeliussus e● ponere in vaginam. Quem tamen qui tuum nega● non satis mihi videtur attendere verbum domini dicentissic. Convert gladium tuum in vaginam. Tuus ergo & ipse: tuo forsitan nutu etsi non tua manu evaginandus, etc. Why then does thou assay to usurp the sword which thou wast once bidden to put up into thy sheate? Which yet he that denieth to be thine, seemeth not to me well to consider the word of our Lord saying: put up thy sword into thy scabbard. The sword is therefore thine, to be drawn out at thy beck percase, although not by thine own hand. Otherwise if it should have pertained to the no way, our Lord would not have answered to his Apostles saying. Behold here two sword: it is enough, but he would have answered, it is to much. Both the sword therefore belong to the church, the spiritual and the material: but this is to be occupied for the church, that of the church. Thus much S. Bernard, which words notwithstanding I confess, and those other also of the prophet Hieremias: Behold this day do I Cap. 1. set the over people and kingdoms, Bonifacius modestly applieth B. 18. to the church and ecclesiastical power, and to the pope no otherwise but as to the chief ministre of this power, Cap. vinc. de maiorit. & obed. extrauag. come. as appeareth by this conclusion, Ergo si deviat terrena potestas iudicabitur a spirituali. If the earthly power therefore be out of the way it shallbe judged of the spiritual. By this it appeareth, that what so ever S. bernard hath written or spoken against the pomp and abuse of the B. of Rome's authority, that yet by his example we are taught this lesson, not to cut of our head because it acheth. And therefore himself when he had said all that you are wont to bring against the abuses of the court of Rome in his time, yet he confessed, that as in heaven angels and archangels, De considerate ad Eugen. li. 3 Seraphins and Cherubins are disposed under one head which is God: that so here also under one high bishop, be primates, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, priests, abbots, with the rest in like manner, which head in how many places of his works doth he call the B. of Rome? You say that the pope's brag that they have in the box off Nowell. fo. 25. a. 8. their bosoms all scriptures, all interpretation of doctors, etc. The pope's that you name are Boniface the 8. and Dorman. Paul the 2. The place of Boniface is you say sext. Decreta. lib. 10. tit. 2. cap. licet. You should have said primo. No great fault I confess if there were either so many books and not only five, or if you used not so rigorously to note such 'scapes in other men yourself, laying to their charge that they mean to entangle the readers that their fraud (you say) may not be espied. Whereas surely in you there might be great cause to think no less. For what? Doth Bonifacius say in this place that he hath all the laws in his breast? No truly doth he not. But he saith A lie. 21. that pontifex Romanus censetur habere. The B. of Rome is judged or presumed to have, although sometimes it may otherwise happen. I marvel that you remembered not the chapter beginning praeterea in the decrees, where the B. of Rome hath, speaking of laws, that he never read any such thing, except by forgetfulness he be deceived, whereby Dist. 22. you might have understood, that some time by the pope's own confession it may happen otherwise. But if he had said as you say he did, had he done any otherwise then borrowed a phrase of the emperors Honorius and L. omnium C. de testan. How▪ rulers are understanden to have the laws in their breasts. Theodosius, who used first the same? Whereby is signified, that such states by reason of their learned council, which they have always about them ready to instruct them, are presupposed to have the laws ripe in their remembrance. As for Paulus the second, I marvel how it happeneth that Platina may be allowed to be a witness against him, A 19 professing in his life so little good will towards him, for the putting him out of his office, seeing you are in the examining of other witnesses so hard. But let it be true that Platina saith hardly, it maketh to our purpose neither of nor on. It is a worthy thing to be read in Platine you say, how Gregory Nowell. b. 26. Matth. 16. the 7. upon these words what so ever thou dost bind or lose upon the earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven, gathereth this reason, that much more the bishops of Rome in earth may take away and give empires, kingdoms, principates, and what so ever mortal men have else. It is a worthy thing to be noted, how you continue Dorman. always like yourself, in feeding the reader with vain matter nothing to the purpose, and alleging such places as you bring otherwise then they are in the Originals from whence you take them. For look in Platine once again, and you shall find, that the words be not so odious as you would have them seem to be. For whereas you affirm them to be spoken of the Pope, Platine hath, that the B. of Rome spoke them of Peter and Paul. How ever it be, it is no point to be reasoned here as being, impertinent to our principal question of one head, beside that (as I protested in the beginning of this chapter) if these words or any other like were untruly or arrogantly spoken, yet they could derogate nothing from the authority otherwise lawful. You care not what you say, nor how shameful or slanderous your lies be, so that you may satisfy your cankered hatred against the Pope, as appeareth here by this, that you would make men believe, that julius the third f. 25. b. 2● caused to be stamped on his coin, these words: the nation and people that shall not serve me shall perish: as though meant Hierem. 1. of himself, whereas you might have aswell said that they were to be referred to the money itself, as though all the world should be slaves to money, and yet neither of these the true meaning of it. But if his coin had any such inscription, as it may be doubted for any proof that you here avouch M. Nowell to prove it, the meaning was rather this, that that coin appertaining to the church should bear upon it that prophecy, which was spoken of the church, as a posy most meetest for that place, specially the manner of that See being, to stamp on the one side of their coin the image of Petre and Paul. The pope may be blamed of no man do he never so much hurt Nowell. fo. 26. a. 5. Dist, 50. can. si. papa Dorman. you say. Although the word from whence you gather this, be redarguere, blame or reprove: yet the words which follow, containing the reason of the canon, are, a nemine est iudicandus, that is, he is to be judged of none, and so they do us to understand, that lawful and reverent admonishing the pope of his faults is not forbidden to his brethren, but as lawful for them to do now, as it was for S. Paul ever, but only the judging of him. And except this were the true meaning of the word redarguere in this place, surely a homely sense were it to say. The pope must be blamed of no man because he can be judged of no man. Your other place alleged out of the gloze you understood as evil as you did the text. The text and the gloze both Extranag. juan. 22. cap. fin. de Conces. praeb. speak in that place of the dividing of certain churches united together: in which things saith the gloze no man may be so hardy to ask the pope why he doth so. Because in those things that belong to the positive law he may dispense as shall reasonably please him. Thus be the words of the gloze to be understanden and restrained, which it becometh you as handsomely to talk of, as doth a gold ring the groin of a sow. But it is a token that divinity goeth low with you, and is at a very ebb when you fall to the alleging of law. Remember the proverb M. Nowell. Ne Suitor ultra crepidam. Your text, Principes gentium etc. Princes of nations bear rule over them: but you shall not so, but he that will be chief let a. 14. Math. 20. Lucae. 22. him be your servant etc. with the rest that follow, taketh not away authority to rule from the clergy, but ambitious and tiranouse ruling, as appeareth by S. Bernard, who alleging this very text to Eugenius the Pope, saith notwithstanding in the same book: Habent illi sibi assignatos greges, singuli singulos: tibi universi crediti uni unus Nec modo ovium sed & pastorum tu unus omnium pastor. They have their proper flock assigned unto them, every one one: to the being one all are committed in one, neither only art thou the only shepherd of the sheep, but of the shepherds to. The apostles themselves ruled they not because they were servants? What manner of servile slavish service you would have the pope brought to I wot not: but S. Paul served I wot well his masters so, the corinthians, that he asked them whether he should come to them with the rod. He gave some of them to the 1. Co. 4. 1. Cor. 5. 1. Ti. 1. Act. 5. devil. S. Peter was such a servant that Ananias and Saphyra his wife he punished by death. If you say you deny not this power but speak against the abuse, of that you hard my mind before, and I think all good men be of the same, who pray most earnestly (the only remedy that Christ hath left us in this case) that such as abuse the same may acknowledge the fault and speedily redress it. So shall their mouths be stopped, who when they can say nothing against the power itself, are driven to pick quarrels and find faults in the ministers thereof, If you should make a voyage to Rome to the pope, to tell him beside the texts of scriptures that you have alleged, which are, Principes gentium, etc. Nolite vocari Rabbi, etc. Vos omnes fratres estis. Ne sitisseu dominium exercentes in cleros: that by the doctors also and councils he is forbidden to Nowell fol. 27. a. b. 7. use such tyrannical power, you should you say profit no more by such allegations, then by the allegation of the scripture itself. Why you should do well to prove it M. Nowell. It is not Dorman. unlikely, but that so eloquent a man as you are, and thereto so well practised in the Pope's own gloss, were like surely to be admitted to his speech, and to persuade very much. Well you will not put the matter in trial you say, fearing lest by that means you might be canonised in M. Foxes calendre, and shrined in his dounghill, and therefore you are contented to bring forth your doctors and councils against me, whom you take I doubt not to be the pope's proctor. your councils are the council off Carthage, a. 22. Cipr. in council. Carth. and an other whole council also you say, although you name no other neither broken nor whole. Your doctors S. Cyprian and S. Augustine. Which councils and doctors Aug. lib. 2. contra Donat. cap. 2. say thus much: Nemo nostrum episcopum se episcoporum constituit etc. None of us maketh himself bishop of bishops, or doth by tyrannnicall fear force his fellows to the necessity off obeying, seeing every bishop hath according to the licence of his liberty, and power, his own judgement, as he that can not be judged of an other, seeing that himself can not judge an other. These be the words of the council: these be the words of Saint Cyprian and S. Augustine, which serve as much for your purpose, as doth a rams horn to make a flight. For the better declaration whereof it is to be understand, that as these words were spoken by Saint Cyprian in a provincial council that fell into an error, so was the meaning of them to advance the opinion of S. Cyprian touching the rebaptising of those that had been baptized by heretics, which doctrine is now condemned by the church for an heresy. To bring this the better to pass, he telleth them first, that he had received letters from jubaianus a bishop, who although he were before of a contrary opinion, was now come to his part. It remaineth (saith he) that every one of us show his mind what he thinketh of this matter, no man judging an other, or removing any man from the communion if he think otherwise then he doth. For none of us maketh himself the bishop of bishops, and so forth with gentle words the rather to win them to his opinion, and to assure them that they may be bold to say their minds, seeing that every one of them had (he said) licence to use the judgement of his liberty and power. Which word (pro licentia) M. Nowell mangleth S. Cyprian. you guilefully left out of your translation, showing yourself thereby to be no simple translator, but a crafty falsifier. Now if they had licence in that council of theirs every man to say freely his mind, if S. Cyprian said that notwithstanding he was their archbishop, and bishop off them all, yet for the present time he did renounce that authority (as in this sense his words are to be taken) what maketh that against the authority of the B. of Rome? Doth not the B. of Rome say as much to all his fellow bishops in all general councils? Had not you the same offer made unto you in the last council of Trent, to have been quietly hard, and no man by tyranny to have been compelled In saluo conductu concilij Trident. to the necessity of obeying? If this answer satisfy you not, let S. Augustine teach you the true understanding of this place. Who expounding August. li. 3. ca 3. contra Donat. these words of S. Cyprian, every bishop hath according to the licence etc. against the Donatists, writeth thus: Opinor utique in his quaestionibus quae nondum eliquatissima perspectione S. Cyprian expounded by S. Austen. discussae sunt. Noverat enim quantam sacramenti profunditatem tunc omnis ecclesia varia disputatione versabat, liberum que faciebat quaerendi arbitrium, ut examinata veritas panderetur. I think verily (that is to say) that S. Cyprian meaneth in those questions, which be not yet by manifest examination discussed. For he knew what a deep mystery it was that was then tossed in the whole church, with ambiguous disputations, and made it free for every one to search and inquire, that the truth being examined might be revealed. Thus you see M. Nowell, that your falsehood in leaving out in your translation the word (pro licentia) will not help you, S. Augustine by this word (liberum faciebat) Wherein one bishop cannot be judged of another. he gave them licence, expounding the meaning of S. Cyprian, and telling us beside, that this place of bishops liberty whereby every one may think what he will and can be judged of no other, is while things be not decided but remain in doubt. And therefore if you have no other doctors or councils to present to the pope but these, you did like a wise man to tarry at home. That you say, that neither the text of the scriptures, nor the fol. 27. b. 7. interpretation of doctors, nor judgements of councils can have any credit against the pope, and bring Pighius to prove it, that is a manifest lie. For when Pighius saith that for the A lie. 22. most part there is nothing done in general councils, but that the bishops coming together give their consent to that which the Apostolic See decreed before, he saith not that it is so always, that it can be no otherwise? As though the time of deliberation during, the Apostolic See upon the reasons of the council might not be moved to decree that which otherwise it hath not determined: he saith not that against the pope neither the text of the scriptures, nor the interpretation of doctors, nor judgements of councils b. 24. can have any credit. And therefore most impudently (again I tell you) you have belied Pighius. The council is no council if it lack the authority of the head No general council without a head the B. of Rome. And therefore you have Pighius at no such advantage, because he saith that the only judgement of the See of Rome is more sure than the judgement of an universal council of the whole world. which if it be true Why councils be called. then were it (you say) for bishops to come to councils a vain thing. Not so M. Nowell: For although before God and with good men, the judgement arrested upon by the see of Rome be certainly true and can not deceive, yet because men ignorant in the scriptures and laws of the church: some of them sometimes, because heretics for the repressing of whom councils be most commonly called, for the most part be not thus persuaded, the pope useth to communicate with the general council concerning decrees to be made. The which being with general consent approved and confirmed by the pope, both the weak or unlearned catholic may be fully persuaded, and the stubborn heretic with his own weights quite over weighed: while both to the one and the other such uniform consent, can not but argue the marvelous grace and assistance off the holy ghost. another cause may be, for that the pope by this means will be certified by the bishops off every country, what circumstances, what manners of people in each place, may require the decrees according to the nature of diverse diseases, to be loosed slacker or strained harder. For although he be so privileged that in making laws for the church he can not err, yet hath he not the spirit of prophecy to know being absent all the offences and imperfections in the church. Beside this where as otherwise it might ever be doubted whether the pope made any such decrees or no in places far distant from Rome, hereby all such occasion is taken away, the bishops off every country being present, who be able to make faith hereof to their subjects. Last of all this calling together of councils is not in vain, while Christian princes being present and hearing all things debated, promise the rather their assistance for the execution of such things as shallbe concluded. And thus is this pelting objection of yours answered. Now to the next. Pighius (you say) teacheth that to the see of Rome the ordering, Nowell. fo. 28. a. 7. defining, and determining of all questions and controversies is given by Christ etc. And the same doth M. Dorman to teach in the 62. leaf b. out off pope Innocentius epistle That which I have there affirmed, I have by the authority Dorman. not of Innocentius alone (which yet to any reasonable Apud August. epist. 90. 91. 92 93. man might seem enough, considering that they were no babes to whom he wrote) but even by the authority also of those fathers of the two councils of Carthage and Milevite, especially of S. Austen, expressly affirming that he answered them to all their questions even as was right and for the bishop of the apostolical See meet, sufficiently proved. Answer you to it when you shall be able. In the mean season it is true that I said, that the authority of the B. of Rome is the foundation of all true religion, the comfort and stay of the catholics etc. Against the which few words couched in less room than five lines, you have not in four leaves and more, brought truly so much as one word, but in the whole process playing the ape in mocking, mowing, and tossing of such grave authorities as may serve for the confirmation thereof, you have not impugned my proposition but scoffingly confirmed it. Which manner of answering how it is to be liked, I pray (the discrete reader) to judge. Of the necessity of one head in Christ's church. The 11. chapter. When I minded to handle in writing the pre-eminence and superiority of the B. of Rome over Christ's universal and catholic church, and considered first that the scripture itself, than the fathers and councils: finally the examples of the primitive church allowed the same: I laid for a foundation to build upon, that there must needs be one head in Christ's church to govern it. Not as though if to the wisdom of him who doth in his wisdom all things it had so seemed, the government of aristocraty, that is to say, off the best and wisest men might not have been preferred by him which is Lord over nature before the rule of Monarchy, that is of one alone, which is most agreeable to nature. And for this cause I said that of necessity it must so be. Which necessity if I had not been able to prove (as the contrary shall hereafter appear, by that, that you keeping yourself to the title of your book have only reproved and not disproved any one reason off mine) yet must all men off necessity needs confess, that seeing Christ committed in the scriptures the whole charge of his church to only Peter, giving him authority to feed all, Lambs, and sheep: seeing that the fathers with joan. 21. such conformity confess the same of Peter and his successors, as namely to omit other, because I have handled this matter else where, and this is not the place propre therefore, chrysostom, who saith that Christ committed the whole charge of all to Peter, and his successors: needs I say must Homil. in Maeth. 55 & li. 2. de Sacerdot. all men acknowledge, the necessity of that one head which by such good proofs they see confirmed, although I nor any man else were able to prove the same by reason. To make the matter more clear by example: the church of Christ holdeth that our blessed lady was a perpetual virgin, aswell after the birth of Christ as before: Eluidius the heretic holdeth the contrary. If I now to overthrow Eluidius, should first place this proposition for my foundation to build upon against him: That of necessity that woman what so ever she were, of whom the Saviour of the world should take flesh, aught aswell to be preserved pure (that that place might not be defiled through which Christ himself had passed) after her bringing forth, as before it was preserved from being contaminat because he should pass through: if this proposition were not proved or could not by reason or scriptures be proved, would you then that Eluidius should go from the received faith of the church, and say there needed no further battery or undermining to be made, to overthrow that which is manifestly proved in the person off our lady by the faith of the church (as the matter is here in the person of the pope) What if disputing against a jew or infidel that would deny that Christ suffered death for the sins of the world, I should lay for the foundation, this saying of the gospel, Oportebat Christum pati etc. Luca. 24. If Iwer not able to prove this necessity because gods omnipotent power might by other means have wrought our salvation, doth it by and by follow, that the infidel hath proved his purpose, that Christ did not suffer death for us? I wright not this as though I mistrusted the proving off this proposition of mine, that there must be one head etc. but to encounter with you who being comen but thus far, began to repent you of the long journey that you had to make, and therefore to abridge the same, thought here to make, and therefore to abridge the same, thought here to make the reader believe that it should be needless to go so far as to Rome to the Popes own sight, that so your shunning of the matter might seem to come of politic foresight, not of dastardly cowardness. I said that the state of god's people in the old law, and experience of civil government did prove the Nowell Fol. 29. 2. 23. necessity of one head. You answer: that as god's people in the old law were one several people and had one high priest, so that no further can be gathered thereof, but that likewise in every diocese or country it were good to have one chief bishop to rule in the clergy. Oh M. Nowell, think you thus to overbear your poor Dorman. neighbours? You must remember, you must remember, that you fight against truth, that will not so be outfaced. You must remember, that when we talk of the jews as of the people of God, we do not in that point reckon them as one several people. They were in deed several, in respect of other nations which had forsaken God, but never in such sort several, as though the whole church of god were not under the governemnet of their law and chief priest. They were therefore a figure, not only of one diocese or one country, but of the whole church that now is, and made the church that then was. And so the example holdeth still. You make my reason taken from the examples of kingdoms, fol. 30. a. 21. societies, families, etc. and applied by force of greater reason to the church, to come from S. Cyprian to Pighius, to D. Harding and so to me. The more that have it the gladder I am. But I pray you what is this to the purpose whose it be, except you do this to show yourself to be a man of great reading, and ignorant neither in the old writers nor in those of latter time. What so ever you make of me, or how so ever it please you to take me: I am not iwisse so very a dolt but I could have made this reason even by the experience of those things which run daily into mine eyes, and never have looked either in S. Cyprian or Pighius, or borrowed it off D. Harding, and had not your memory failed you, you could have said yourself, that I told you that experience was the thing that moved me to say it. Whose argument or reason so ever it be blind you say it is. That let indifferent eyes try M. Nowell. I reason thus: Every kingdom hath his several king: every people, city, town village, house and so forth, have their sever all head or governor. ergo: the whole church which is but one, divided into many members (as saith S. Cyprian) must have one head as well as hath one kingdom, one people, one city, etc. Now what fault find you Li. 4 ep. 2. with this reason, I pray you that see so clearly, and have even your eyes as a man would say in your hands? For so the I should have concluded with S. Cyprian (you say) ergo, b. 11. in likewise every diocese, and every church ought to have their several head prelate or bishop. I took not my reason out off S. Cyprian, and therefore I follow not his conclusion. What so ever it be my reason is, that the whole church dispersed through the whole world, is as truly one kingdom of heaven, one society, one body, as any other company through out the world is one, be it great or little. Therefore if I had concluded as S. Cyprian doth, upon your granting the same to be true (as here you say you would have done) that every diocese and particular church needeth a head, it would well have followed spite of your beard, ergo, in the whole church being also one, is more need of one head. These conclusions of S. Cyprian'S and mine be not contrary but stand well together. Even as if one should infer in our country upon such a proposition as is this of S. Cyprians: ergo, every city, every shire hath need of a head to govern it, and then upon that again: ergo the whole realm itself containing all these cities and shires hath much more need of one head to govern that. And yet you (so shameless you are) say, that S. Cyprian hath the clean b. 21. contrary to this conclusion, saying thus: Singulis pastoribus, etc. that is. To every pastor is a portion of our lords flock appointed, the which every one ought to rule and govern, who shall give account of his doing to our Lord. This place (you say) Lib. 1. epistol. 3. maketh plainly against the supremacy off one. These words convince you plainly of a lie. This place if you know A lie 22. not how to understand it, be not ashamed to learn of S. S. Cyprian expounded by S. Bernard. bernard, of whom you disdain not to learn matter to reprove the manners of the bishops of Rome, when you think he may serve you to that effect. He telleth us speaking to pope Eugenius: Habent illi sibi assignatos greges: singuli Lib. 2. ad Eugen. singulos: tibi universi crediti, uni unus, that is to say: They have also (he meaneth the other bishops of the church) every one their several flocks assigned unto them: to the being one all are committed in one. Lo M. Nowell S. Bernard telleth you, whom yourself both allege for your purpose, and to whom you give the title of a blessed saint, that this reason of yours is not good: Every pastor hath a portion off Christ's flock allotted out to him to govern: Ergo, there is no one head over all. For by this means if such collections might be allowed, aswell might every parson and vicar because he hath also a portion of the flock committed to his charge by himself, be discharged from the obedience of his bishop, as may the bishops from the government of one chief head. The mayor, bailif or other officier of any the queens good towns in England, hath a portion of the realm committed to his charge to govern: will your wisdom serve you M. Nowell to conclude upon this, that therefore there is no one in our said country, who hath the supremacy over all? This is S. Cyprian his reason, this is (you say) his conclusion. You belie S. Cyprian M. Nowell: he neither reasoneth nor fol. 30. b. 30. concludeth against the supremacy of one, as I trust I have made evident. You might rather think that he who was for every portion so hofull, would be no less careful to provide for the whole, where was more danger and cause of fear. For that you reason after your manner negatively, that neither S. Cyprian nor any other learned man doth use these examples or similitudes any where, to prove that there ought to be one head or governor over the universal church: that reason showeth itself from whence it cometh. Will you now as you have taught us a new kind of divinity, so teach us also a new way of reasoning? Yea will you teach the learned Lawyers and grave judges off the realm never to decide case but such as they shall find recorded in their year books in the same terms? Shall it not be lawful for them by your deep divinity, whereas it is impossible so to conceive laws that all cases may be expressly comprehended, when such a case shall happen, to proceed therein by the judgement given in other cases, where although the case be diverse the reason is one? Iff your discretion will serve you to allow this kind of reasoning in the law, which is nothing else but altogether reason: why take you then such hold of this, that S. Cyprian did not in terms, that is to say in the self same case of one head over the universal church, apply these examples, seeing that as I proved before, S. Cyprians reason is one in both the cases, yea greater and of more force in the fol. 30. b. 31. case of one head over the whole church, then of one over every particular church. Because M. Nowell thinketh as the truth is, that this conclusion, that there ought to be one general head over all churches liketh me well, and yet that I have handled it but ill: it pleaseth him here of an extraordinary liberality for the pity that he taketh upon me, to play once again the schoolmaster in his old days, and now because I am passed my Grammar to teach me logic. I should have reasoned thus my master saith: There is one general king over all the Nowell. fo. 31. a. 2. world, one general head over all people etc. Therefore there must be one general head over all the church. My master playeth here with me, as S. Thomas More Dorman. writeth that a poet of Cambridge did once with his boy whom (playing with him being a young Sophister on a time for his pleasure) he offered to prove an ass: which when the boy denied, well quoth the poet thou wilt grant me this first, that every thing that hath two ears is an ass. Nay marry master will I not quoth the boy. No wilt thou quoth the poet? Ah wily boy there thou wentest beyond me. For and thou wouldst have granted me that, I would have proved the an ass anon. Marry master quoth the boy ye might well, and so might every fool toe. Well quoth the poet I will go now an other way to work with the. Thou wilt grant me that every ass hath two ears. Nay marry will I not master quoth the boy. Why so boy quoth he. Marry master quoth he, some ass may hap to have never a one, for they may be cut of both. Nay then quoth the poet I give the over, thou art to froward a boy for me. Would not you now M. Nowell make me here to reason as pleaseth you, as the poet would have made his boy to answer? But how little need I have of your help (God I thank therefore) to frame this reason to my purpose, the argument made before will speak though I hold my peace. In the mean season this of yours might have some probability, if as Christ hath appointed one church: so God had assigned one kingdom in the whole world. But seeing that from the time the tongues were dispersed in Babylon, many several companies of men, and not long after many several Gen. 11. nations: and consequently many several heads were so appointed by God, that whether it were for the pain of sin, or else to have the parts of the earth more quickly inhabited, once they were not one of them bound to be under the other, nor all to be under one head in earth (whereas on the other side Christ came to gather together Psal. 146. the dispersed of Israel in to one body, one kingdom, one fold, and all the churches in the world be reduced accordingly to one church, which can not be said of all the kingdoms) for you now to require no more one head in the church, than there is one king in the world, it is such a kind of argument, as I think beside yourself it would have been hard to have found one other so foolish that would have made it. What D. Harding saith out of Homer or Aristotle it fol. 31. a. 15 maketh no matter to me, albeit it proveth very well that those Gentiles saw, that the government of one body belongeth to one head. And therefore if they had been as verily persuaded then, that the whole world is but one kingdom, as you are that the church is but one body, as they would of all likelihod have concluded that it had not been good to have many rulers: so living now and being persuaded the like of the church, it is not to be doubted but that they would have been touching the same off the same opinion. As for that that you add scoffingly to deface it, that it is M. D. harding his poetical argument for the pope's supremacy. I pray you be good M. Nowell to poetoes, of whom you savour so much in your sermons and writings, and who the time hath been, were the fairest flower in your garland. Otherwise you will give men occasion both to think and to say, that the old proverb is true in you, that the parish priest remembreth not that once he was parish clerk. But I pray you may it be lawful for you to follow poets in lying as you do, and may not other men allege for their purpose, one grave sentence of a poet: yea all were it so that it were directly to prove the pope's supremacy as this is not so brought in? If it be so, then scoff also hardly at S. Paul, who to prove the omnipotent power of God, alleged the sentence of the Act. 17. poet Aratus, not so famous iwisse as Homer is. Aristotle misliketh not the government of the best and wisest, yet preferreth he Monarchy, the government that is to say, of one alone, before aristocraty. Even so do both D. Harding and I, And therefore to say that I am in fol. 31. b. 1. this point against both my master (for so you call D. Harding and I will be always ready to confess no less, so long as it shall please him not to be ashamed of such a scholar) and Aristo●le so noble a philosopher, I can call it no better but A lie. 23. a very lie. You say that the government of the universal church Nowell b. 5. consisting of so many or rather innumerable thousands of men and women, of all countries, nations, and languages, can not possibly be ruled by one, neither was by God appointed to be so governed. What God hath appointed I showed in the article of the Dorman. pope's supremacy, whereunto you durst not approach, and this will be bold to say thereof in this place, that Monarchy Not impossible to govern the church by one. being as yourself can not deny of all other the noblest kind of government, it is likely that Christ would provide the same for his spouse the church: in the which willing especially unity and concord, and commanding nothing more, it followeth, that he would bind it in one with that band wirhout the which it could not either at all be had, or not so commodiously had. As for the possibility, I pray the gentle reader considre with thyself what preachers and masters thou hast, who are now so malapert with God, that beside that which their peevish heads shall like to fantasy, they will allow him to be able to do nothing. Thus in our present question doth M. Nowell, having so much at the length prouffited by teaching in the school, that he dareth now take upon him to set God himself to school, and to tell him plainly that this order of his appointing in the church one head, is such, as by no means possible can stand. Thinkest thou not good Reader that he mistrusted all other proofs when he fleeth to this sorry shift? Yes verily doth he. For as in the matter of the sacrament very need driveth them to this miserable refuge: so persuade thyself that it standeth with them here. But now to you M. Nowell: is the arm of God shroncken Esaiae. 50. & 59 or shorter than it was wont to be think you? Can not he that appointeth one son to give light to the whole world, he that by diverse rivers, streams and brooks, dispersed through the parts of all the earth, maketh one body of the elements of water, both to come from one head the sea, and to return to the same again: he that of so many contrary and disagreeing qualities, as heat, cold, moisture, drought, maketh one well agreeing world: is not he M. Nowell possibly able to rule and govern his church dispersed through all the earth by one chief and supreme head? Especially sith one prince or Monarch, as namely Assuerus being himself an infidel, was able to govern Hester. c. 1. from India to Aethiopia, a hundred twenty and seven provinces. The which as he governed by captains and under officers, after the example of Moses, who being Exod. 18. not able to bear the burden of ruling the whole people alone, did it notwithstanding with much facility by the help of such rulers as he called to part of his charge: which were captains or heads, some over thousands, some over hundreds, other some of fifty, yea of ten: so the pope governing the whole church, by patriarchs, primates, archebisshopps, bishops, Archedeacons', Archepriestes and priests, every one in their degree, with grace in him for that purpose by the working of God sufficiently multiplied, is right well able to rule and govern the church were it greater than it is. And this all wise men, and such as yield to the omnipotency of God, see to be so far from all impossibility, that some one perhaps moved with just indignation against your blasphemous reasoning, is likely enough to tell you, that I may justlier say to you, that such talk proceedeth not so much from the absurdity of the matter, as b. 12. Nowell. Fo. 32. a. 6. it doth from the disposition of your noddy's noll M. Nowell, and sight not dim but altogether blind, than you do to me affirming the contrary, that it may seem to some that such kind of speech springeth not so much out of the absurdity of the matter, as out of the disposition off my drowsy head. * Note that M. Nowell alloweth to bishops the order of religion, to kings and other governors the procuring of civil order and peace. Dorman. It followeth, that schisms and troubles rising in the church may by the several bishops of every diocese, and several chief prelate's of every province aswell be avoided and appeased, as the several kings of every kingdom, the several governors of every country and city etc. are able to oversee their several charges and to keep their people in civil order and peace: Not so M. Nowell, the reason of difference betwe these two states of ecclesiastical and temporal government is great. For in the one, that is in that which pertaineth to the The difference between the two states off the world and the church. world, every kingdom, every nation, every people have their proper and several laws: yea often times not diverse only but contrary the one to the other. This breedeth no disordre because they be diverse bodies. But to come to the church which as it is one, so hath it by Christ one faith, the same laws, the same sacraments delivered to be common to all that willbe members thereof, without variety in matters of substance: here what need is thereof one head, that this one faith may be of all men and every where inviolably holden? Seeing that even in kingdoms and common wealths daily experience telleth us, that how well and quietly so ever such kings and rulers govern their subjects, themselves they be not yet able so to govern (while I proud and thou proud each one thinketh himself as good as the other) that they can abstain from mortal and cruel battle, whereby their innocent people perish full often on both sides most miserably. If this be so amongst worldly kings, where the dissenting of their laws and ordonaunces the one from the other, is no breach of amity: how much more is it to be feared amongst bishops, where one faith must be common in all, where unity may be so lightly broken? Which if it happen, how should it be suppressed? The debates and quarrels of princes are tried for most part by battle. Will you that in this case each bishop make his friends and try the matter by most voices. The chief prelate's (you say) of every province are able to take order in the matter. What M. Nowell is the wind in that door? Have you so suddenly found a superiority in bishops, that so lately before pronounced, that as no man hath any Superiority in baptism or in faith above other truly faithful and baptized: so no one bishop hath any Superiority over other bishops? Is it now at the length found out, that you mistook S. Cyprian, M. Nowell contrary to him self in one leaf. when in the 22. leaf of your book, a. you grounded upon him, that there was no difference of dignity amongst bishops? May you not be ashamed in this very leaf, first to say that there be chief prelate's in every province, and yet after in the second side of the same leaf, to affirm by the authority of S. Cyprian wrongly construed, that none but naughty and desperate men do think the authority off some bishops to be inferior to other? Will you needs be of the number of those naughty and desperate men? Well M. Nowell, as very necessity forced you to go from that principle of yours, that all bishops be of equal authority, because otherwise you saw that schisms could not possibly be kept out of particular churches: so shall I trust the same, before you and I have ended, force you to acknowledge a chief prelate over the whole and universal church for the appeasing of schisms therein. In this point because the very necessity of one head to govern Christ's church doth specially consist: I shall desire the learned reader to use good circumspection, and with advised deliberation to way with himself the reasons brought on both sides. I object therefore to M. Nowell, that for the appeasing of schisms, and restoring the church being troubled to quietness, it is necessary that there be one chief head. He maketh me answer as you heard before, that the several chief prelate's of every province are aswell able An absurd doctrine that schisms may as well be appeased by many heads as by one. to take order therefore, as the several governors of every country for their several charges. The absurdity of this answer shall appear by a demonstration. There is now a controversy in their new church of England about no small matter, but concerning the real presence of Christ's blessed body in the sacrament: M. Gest preaching at Rochester for the real presence, M. grindal at London for the contrary. Shall these two prelate's be tried by M. D. Parkar of Cauntorbury suspected to be a Lutheran? Although that I think M. Nowell would be loath to grant being him self a Caluinist, yet if he did, and the matter were thoroughly decided on the one side: might not the like schism arise in the province of York, and bachelor Young there calling his brethren together determine the controversy on the other side? If this should happen (as it easily might) in this equality of power between these two in these several provinces, how should the schism be appeased? They would perhaps procure a parliament to be called, that by authority thereof the matter might be determined. Were the bishops that could not agree before, like the sooner to forsake their contentious minds by this means? Or should the matter be put only to the debating of the laity? Or how ever it were, the matter being brought thither, and then the order of the house being such, that it must pass as well through the lower house as the higher, might not the house be equally divided, or the thing brought to so narrow a point, that the conclusion of this weighty controversy might depend upon the mouth of some simple burgoise and mean artificer, who might easily by lack of judgement choose the worse part? Or if they all agreed upon the truth, might not the like controversy, arise in France, Germany, Spain, or in some other country, and every one determine either in this article, or any like, contrary to the other? If they did, as by the confession of Augspurg, and their communion book allowed by the parliament of England, the one so much disagreeing with the other it appeareth they do, should not the church in this case be miserably shaken notwithstanding the labour of the chief prelate's of every province? Now to come to princes, and temporal governors, if they have as many several or contrary laws as their be several countries or nations, concerning the keeping of their people in civil order and peace, what breach off unity? What hurt? What disordre in the world will follow hereof I pray you? So that to have made this reason of yours probable, you should thus have reasoned. As in the whole world there is no disordre, because several princes have several and contrary laws: so in the church will there be also none, if diverse bishops teach diverse and contrary faiths. But as no man is so blind but he seeth the falsehood of this comparison: so is no man I trust so void of wit but that he seeth this to be as true, as that which you made before. Thus by reason we find, that schisms can not be appeased without one head in the church, to whom the greater causes ought to be referred, whom the rest ought to credit and obey. To the which head because he is by Christ's own mouth so privileged in Peter's faith, that as he never yet delivered to the church any erroneous doctrine to be believed, but hath always continued the faith received from the Apostles, so are we sure that he never shall: we ought and may in matters of faith give full and assured credit. As by S. Austen we be counciled, who to this purpose bringeth this saying of the gospel: Quae dicunt Epist. 165 Matth. 23. facite etc. Do what they bid you do, and addeth for the reason, that in so doing, our faith being most certain, as being grounded not upon man but upon god's promise, can never be scattered by the tempest of any schism. This being most true, we may boldly conclude, that this state of Monarchy, that is of governing the church by one head, as it is most necessary, so because we are sure that this one head can not give wrong judgement in matters of faith, it is of all other for the church the most convenient, as being the very best. For in this point do all men agree, even the most adversaries to this state, that if one Monarch were sure always to govern well, that then that state off government were to be preferred before all other. To all this that hath been said may be added, that though you will needs have the several dioceses and churches off every bishopric to be like several kingdoms, then as there is no only kingdom in earth: so by you it should follow that there is no one only church in earth. Or if it may be enough for the church in earth to be one body because Christ in heaven is the one head thereof: why may not then the kingdoms of the earth be in earth one, because Christ in heaven is the king of them also? This being not I think unknown unto you, how uneven this comparison of yours was made, you will now leaving your reason, try the matter by authority. S. Cyprian (you say) doth most plainly teach that Nowell. fo. 32. a. 30 it is right and reason, that several bishops have the government of several dioceses, even for the same cause for the which I (you say) do untruly allege the necessity of one head. To the place of S. Cyprian beginning: Cum statutum sit Dorman. Lib. 1. Epist. 3. omnibus nobis etc. I answer: that it is right and reason that several bishops have the government of several dioceses, and that to appease schisms and correct vices, as often as these things may be in such several dioceses commodiously done. But that this may be always performed in particular bishoprics, and that if it can not, recourse may not be had to higher power, that you should have proved, and that S. Cyprian hath not. Therefore this place maketh not against the authority of one head. But you force it further and say. S. Cyprian affirmeth all such appellations from a bishop off Nowell. one country to a bishop of an other country to be unlawful, for that, that all bishops of all countries be of like authority, and that none but naughty and desperate men do think the authority of some bishops to be inferior to the authority of other. S Cyprian affirmeth not here that all appellations from Dorman. one bishop to an other be unlawful. He saith that it is reason and hath been ordained amongst them, that the subjects of every bishop have their causes heard, there where the fault was committed. And may not the B. of Rome do this by sending his legates in all such cases of appeal to the places where the offences were committed, there to examine the process, to receive witness, to determine the matter? Beside this, if S. Cyprian had in this place utterly forbidden all manner of appeals to Rome: yet by the phrase of his words it appeareth, that it was decreed amongst them by a local statute of their own, for the better maintenance of brothrely concord. Which as it extended no fardre than to that place: so if any of them that once agreed to that order, refuse at any time to obey it, although it ought to be a bar to him that once gave his consent to the contrary, yet is it none to the pope, why he may not proceed in the cause (who never renounced his right) if it be appealed to him. The like to this is to be seen in the colleages of our universities, where the founders in most places have ordained by their statutes, that the members of such colleages for the better retaining and upholding of quiet and brotherly agreement amongst them, shall propose such quarrels and contentions as happen amongst them to the several heads of such colleages. This order thus taken right and reason would have kept, but if some froward body not contented with this, will complain further to the chancellor of the university or chief patron of his colleague, he may at their hands have justice. That this was the case that S. Cyprian speaketh of, many things may persuade. First that he saith: Cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis whereas an order is taken amongst us all, he giveth us two things to understand, that whereas they took such an order amongst S. Cyprians place expounded. them, it was not ordinarily so before, but accustomed rather to be otherwise, or else what needed a statute to be made to for bid a thing never any otherwise practised? next, that it was but for them only, for he saith, omnibus nobis, amongst all us. So that in other places he denieth not, yea by these words he confesseth rather, that it was otherwise. And therefore you have done lewdly and made aloud lie M. Nowell, to gather of this place, this general proposition, that all appellations from the bishop of one country to the bishop of an other be unlawful. Whereas this order being taken only in Africa by common Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 4. consent of the Africans, was not in Spain, as appeareth by the appealing from thence of Basilides to Rome. Which if it had been unlawful, never would S. Cyprian we may be sure, have made other exception why the sentence given by Stephanus the pope for his restitution should not be good, than this, because it was given by him that was no judge at all, of all other the best and most peremptory: never would he have objected that it was obtained by false suggestion and wrong information, which argueth the goodness and validity of the appellation of itself. But what speak I of Spain, when S. Cyprian his own labouring Li. 1. ep. 3. at Rome with the pope by letters, by legates, by all means possible, that this unjust appeal might not be received, when his counting to sail after them, to convince their lying tongues by undoubted and assured proof of the truth, ought sufficiently to make faith, that seeing the pope had never confirmed this local statute of theirs, and thereby not renounced his right: seeing his subjects against the order taken had appealed to Rome, he must also needs answer the appeal, for the unlaufulnes whereof on their parts that followed it, he allegeth here their own consent, in these words omnibus nobis, agreed by all us, to move thereby the rather the B. of Rome not to receive their appeal, but to remit the cause home again. Whereas you say that S. Cyprian hath, that none but naughty and desperate men do think the authority of some bishops to be inferior to the authority of other, surely you go about both to prove yourself, S. Cyprian, S. Austen, and all the learned fathers of Christ's church naughty and desperate men. You condemn in like manner the ancient general councils and continual practice of the catholic church. For who is so ignorant that he knoweth not, that the books of the learned fathers, the canons of the ancient councils, the usage of Christ's church, have so religiously always observed this difference of bishops, that the very names of patriarchs, primates, archbishops, retained always and used in the churches, are able to convince him to be an impudent liar that shall sustain the contrary. Yourself confess, that there be chief prelate's in every province. If chief, Ergo inferiors. You call him a naughty and desperate man that thinketh the authority of some bishops to be inferior to the authority of other. You say the same yourself by granting that there be chief prelate's. Having sought all the means that my poor wit can invent to exempt you from this company of naughty and desperate men, I find no other than this, that perhaps you only say it for a shift, and think it not in deed. But if you were to be accounted nought and desperate for this, yet had you in this respect cause to rejoice, that you were like to have the company of S. Austen: who telleth Bonifacius the pope, that in the Lib. 2. de baptism. contra Donat. cap. 1. government of the church he was not only above him, but above all other bishops (although the office be common to all) in sitting in the highest top of the pastor all watch tower: who saith, comparing together S. Petre and S. Cyprian. Sed & si distet cathedrarum gratia, una est tamen martyrum gloria. But although between the grace of their seats there be difference, yet the glory of martyrdom is all one. And again comparing Innocentius the pope with Irinaeus, Cyprian, Hilary, he hath: Come his Innocentius Romanus Pontifex consedit, etsi posterior tempore, prior loco. With these sat Innocentius the bishop of Rome, although behind them Lib. 1. contra julian. c. 2. in time, yet before them in place. Yea to comfort you the more, I dare promise you the company of S. Cyprian himself. For if he had not been of the mind that some bishops are inferior to other in jurisdiction, although not in the substance or nature of bishoply order, would he have exhorted, yea and required the B. of Rome to write letters in to France, to direct them to the province and people of Arles, whereby they should depose Martianus the B. there? Lib. 3. epi. stol. 3. With what face could he have done this had he thought that the authority of one bishop were no greater than that of an other? But here you will urge me that it is not enough to show by probable conjectures that in these words Saint Cyprian had no such meaning, unless I show withal what was his meaning. Yes verily M. Nowell it were enough for me to prove that the sense which you give to these words of his could not be true, but for their sakes who desire to know not only what is false, but what is all so true, I will open that point to. This is therefore by this epistle of S. Cyprian most evident, that these naughty men who complained upon S. Cyprian at Rome, went first before they took their journey to Rome in to Numidia, and there joined themselves to certain heretical bishops of whom Fortunatus was made a bishop, and so by reason that none were made bishops that stood excommunicate it must needs be that he was by them first absolved. These heretical bishops of Numidia, these wicked subjects of his own, who demanded help and complained where they ought not, he calleth by the name of a few lost and desperate men, who had attempted and done so many things to the derogation of the authority of their own primate, and submitted themselves to the unlawful authority of heretical and schismatical bishops, quasi minor videatur esse authoritas episcoporum in Africa constitutorum. As though the authority seem to be less of the African bishops, then of those of Numidia (we must supply) who took upon them to defend and maintain Fortunatus and his fellows condemned in Africa before. By which is meant Africa the lesser wherein Carthage stood, from which Numidia was a distinct province, whereas you M. Nowell take Africa for the whole, as it is counted the third part of the world, pretending as though no one bishop of the other two parts of the world had more authority than the bishops of Africa. Except this be the meaning of the place, you can not excuse S. Cyprian of being contrary to himself, as by the authority acknowledged by him in the pope, in France, in Spain in Carthage, as you have heard, as by the calling in this very epistle the church of Rome the mother church and root of the catholic church, it doth manifestly appear. Which of so grave an auctor is not to be thought. To conclude therefore, S. Cyprian doth not here forbidden all appellations from a bishop of one country to the B. of an other: He saith not that all bishops be of like authority, that none but naughty and desperate men do think the authority of some bishops to be inferior to other. last off all there is no word tending to this sense, that schisms may be always (which you must prove to deface the necessity off one head over all) appeased by the several bishops of several dioceses: therefore you have made four lies upon S. Cyprian. A cluster of lies. 27 You repeat again, (as that is a great figure with you) Nowell. fol. 33. a. 6. that which you said before, that it is impossible that there should be one general head in earth over the universal church, or that such a head can oversee his charge, and keep all churches from schisms and troubles, and pacify them when they are risen. This as a thing tried by the state of the world at this day and ever sith the first beginning thereof, you will leave to the reasonable reader to determine betwixt us. As for the impossibility I answered before, and say again, Dorman. fol. 50. b. that how ever it seem impossible (the weak nature off man considered), yet sure we are that he that appointed that order, God himself, is so able to multiply grace in his ministre, and to provide him of such help by the means of other inferior ministers governing their several charges under him, that it shall not only not be impossible but easy enough. Whether this one head be able to keep the church from schisms and pacify them when they are risen better than many heads, let the indifferent reader on God's name, take the late table of Staphilus, and after he hath upon the view thereof joined the fruitful increase of heresies in our days, to the quiet agreement in faith wherein we lived under the obedience of one head, let him judge whether he think more necessary for either the avoiding of schisms, or suppressing of them when they be raised. Which offer of yours to betried by the state off the world at this day, argueth to the world that you have neither wit in your noll, nor shame in your forehead. That the place taken out of S. Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 3. proveth that for the which it was brought, that is, that there ought to be one general chief head over Christ's universal Church. The 12. chapter. I promised to bring the judgement of certain notable Nowell. fo. 33. a. 29 men to prove the necessity of one head, lest any man should think me to be the auctor of that assertion. You say it was the invention of ambitious pope's. I think other men have been ambitious aswell as the Dorman. pope's of Rome. Yeat never was there hitherto any king or emperor, much less bishop or spiritual man, able so many hundred years to maintain a superiority by ambition only without all good title. Neither was the devil able to plant a succession of so many and so notable martyrs, confessors, learned and virtuous men as have been in the See of Rome, to deceive the world by the instruments of Christ. It is Christ M. Nowell who hath so by his authority disposed the order of his church, that if you Lib. de unit. eccl. will believe S. Cyprian, to make the same one, he hath appointed one head thereof in earth, as many rivers have one spring, many branches one root etc. Which needed not by your high divinity, seeing that it hath Christ the head thereof in heaven, in which respect it might be one. But now to the place of S. Cyprian here by me alleged, seeing thus much may serve to prove you to have made a saunderous●e lie. You say, that this place of S. Cyprian here alleged by me Nowell. fol. 33. b. is not spoken of the pope. Neither doth it skill whether it be spoken of the pope Dorman. or no. And yet in this point you spend a great many of idle and superfluous words. For I am not as yet come to prove the pope to be supreme head of Christ's church, but am only in the proving hereof, that it is necessary that there be one such head. If you would needs comptrolle the alleging of this place, you should show that S. Cyprian speaketh not at all, of any necessity to have any one head or judge in the stead of Christ obeyed in earth, neither in particular churches, neither yet over the universal church. For so long as you conclude not thus, it will ever Note. follow, that if one priest must be obeyed in his own diocese for the avoiding and appeasing of heresies and schisms, that by much more greater reason must one priest above all priests be obeyed in the stead of Christ, to appease heresies and schisms in the universal church of God. I had thought M. Nowell that you had known the proportion that is between the part and the whole, the less and the greater in the same kind. If one villaige can not consist without a head, much less can one city, and yet less can one shire, and lest of all can a province or whole kingdom. Now when we speak of the church, one diocese is in respect of the whole church, as one villaige, town, or shire is in respect of a whole province or kingdom. As therefore it is not sufficient for the quiet governing of a province or kingdom, that every village and city within the same have a several head to oversee the inhabitants of such villaiges, or cities, without there be beside one general head to oversee all those inferior heads: Even so the several governors in particular dioceses, exclude not, but infer by a stronger reason, the necessity of one head over all other heads in Christ's being head of the Church, excludeth not the ministery of man. the whole church. Which reason you can not shift away by saying that Christ is that only head: for so (it may be truly replied to you) he is of all the particular churches in the world toe. And yet (this not withstanding) as there would heresies and schisms rise in particular churches if (to use S. Cyprian'S words) there were not one priest and judge obeyed in the same, in the steed of Christ, and for this cause one such in every diocese supplieth the room of Christ not visibly present in earth: so is not Christ's being head over the universal church, any more let why there should be a visible head in his steed of the whole church, which is but one. Especially seeing the bishops may as easily, and are much more likely to stir up schisms in the whole church, as are the particular members of every particular diocese, as the examples of your first 600. years in which there was never yet any notable heresy that was not by bishops either begun or maintained, sufficiently bear witness. Which chance happening, seeing that means must be sought to appease it, aswell as the schisms of particular churches, and yet Christ no more visibly present to be consulted in this case, than he is in the other: what remaineth to think, but that he hath supplied the lack of his visible presence by appointing as in well one in his steed to the behooffe of the whole church, as of particular churches? For this one head (lest any man might cavil that he might err and draw all after Lucae. 22. him) Christ himself prayed, saying in the gospel to Peter whom he left in his place to be that head. I have prayed for the that thy faith may not fail. We may not doubt therefore but that he obtained his petition. We have no cause to doubt, considering that hitherto all other apostolical seats and most famous churches of the world, as Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, having perniciously erred in the faith and being quite overthrown, this only seat of the chief head of Christ's church, the church of Rome I mean: against so many wicked Emperors openly assaulting it, so many De utilit. credendi ad Hoaorat. Cap. 17. subtle heretics craftily undermining it, and barking round about it as S. Austen saith, so many means invented to bring it to defend evil and pernicious doctrine, hath in all these difficulties continued always, and by god's grace ever shall continue, pure and unspotted. Beside this, (to stop all your starting holes at once now for hereafter) you can not say, that by this reason of mine, whereby I go about upon the necessity of one head in every diocese, to prove the like over the whole church, it should follow aswell that there ought to be over all the kingdoms of the world, one chief king or emperor, because as I said once before, all the kingdoms in the world meet not together by god's ordinance in one kingdom, as all the churches do in one church: Which if they did, off necessity they should being one body have one head. And therefore in this case I Lib. de unitate eccles. Cap. 12 may say with S. Austen: Nèque enim quia & in orbem terarrum plerunque regna dividuntur ideo & Christiana unitas dividitur. Neither because kingdoms for the most part be divided through the world therefore is Christian unity divided also. And yet this is the thing that M. Nowell laboureth to bring to pass, that because there be many kingdoms and consequently many kings, there should be many churches, and so many rulers of the church: or god's appointment of governing the world by many kings made frustrate, and so no more kingdoms than there be churches. Thus I have showed you M. Nowell how this place of S. Cyprian maketh for my purpose, referring those words: Neque unus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos & ad tempus judex etc. Neither that there is one priest and one judge acknowledged in the church in the steed of Christ for the time, to the proof of the necessity of one head over the whole church, by an inevitable consequent taken from S. Cyprians words, not as directly meant of the pope, as you labour to make men believe, spending many words here in vain to prove that these words should be spoken of S. Cyprian him self. To all the which long process of yours I will then make answer, when I shall use the place to such purpose as you imagine I do. Although this I will advertise you of by the way, that the case is not altogether so clear as you take it to be, that this place of S. Cyprian is only to be taken as spoken of himself and not of Cornelius, as to him that shall considre that no particular bishop is able to stay schisms so conveniently (whereas the bishops of diverse provinces be of equal authority) as that one bishop that hath authority over the whole number of bishops, it can not but be manifest. And yet may every man see in this place, that the one bishop of whom S. Cyprian speaketh, should be such, as being obeyed there should be no schisms in Christ's church. Which can be understand of no one particular bishop, but of some such one, as because his authority is universal, it will follow that the obeying of him shall procure to the whole church, to the colleague of priests, quietness and unity. Again, when S. Cyprian handling of purpose this argument of the unity off the church, telleth us, how the the devil haileth men to heresies and schisms, because they go not to the beginning of the truth, seek not out the head, observe not the heavenly masters teaching, and addeth immediately that our lord said to Peter: Thou art Peter, etc. (as though he would teach * Not as M. jewel iuglgeth with this place in. 3. his printed sermon. us thereby Matth. 18. to come to the beginning of the truth, to find out the head, to keep the teaching of Christ,) that he disposed by his authority that unity should begin of one: Last, of all that he holdeth not the faith that holdeth not the unity of this church that began of Petre: ought not these words uttered to teach us to avoid schisms, be a rule to direct us to S. Cyprians meaning in this place, where he saith that heresies and schisms rise, because one judge in the church in the stead of Christ is not obeyed? But leaving the defence of this interpretation, to those that have so alleged and understood the place (who are able it is not to be doubted to give good reason of their doings) I will proceed to that which followeth. Concerning the Apology wherewith I found fault for saying, that Christ in the government of his church ●ol. 38. b. 7 useth not the ministry off any one general head, etc., which you labour here to defend, I say: that it hath not only committed this fault in denying this manner off government in Christ's church, (the contrary whereof S. Cyprians words by a necessary consequent import) but is blasphemous also against Christ (whose ordonance it is to have one head to govern in his stead the church) by affirming so peremptorily, that it is not possible for any man alone to be able to sustain that office. To the which two if I should add this beside, that it was most foolishly uttered, first of the Apology, and now most impudently defended by you, it might perhaps move Not impossible for one man alone to govern the church under Christ. your choler a little, but yet M. Nowell it is true. For what man that had but a crumb of wit in his head, would call that a thing impossible to be done, which himself for the space of 900. years can not deny to have been done? Deny if you can, that thus many years the whole world hath not in spiritual matters obeyed one head the B. of Rome? I press you not now with the first six hundred years before, in the which the ecclesiastical histories and writings of the fathers make most evident mention, that this authority of one general head, was through out the whole world acknowledged of all men. To this one head appellations were made from all parts of the world. This one head executed the censures of the church upon See M. Doctor hardings book the second edition fol. 111. b. malefactors and transgressors of the ecclesiastical canons, confirmed the ordinations and elections off bishops, approved or disallowed councils, restored bishops wrongfully condemned and deprived, received into the church such as had erred and gone a stray, and all this thorough out the whole world. But with all this I say I will not press you, because your Apology and you be it never so easy to be proved, will yet for your honour sake perhaps deny it. Only this I ask of you, how you be not ashamed to say, that it is impossible for one man to govern the whole church, seeing by your own confession for 900. years it hath been so? If you will say that the church hath been evil governed these latter 900. years, although that you could right well prove, as you shall never be able: what maketh that for this assertion off yours that one man can not possibly govern the whole church, containing (to use your own words) so many nations, so diverse Languages and natures of men, How proveth it, that one general head can not so oversee his charge that he shall be able to keep all churches from schisms and troubles, and pacify them when they are risen? If one man alone could for the space of 900. years so rule all churches dispersed through out all the world, that he Note. was able to plant amongst so many nations, so diverse languages and natures of men, one naughty and corrupt faith, (as you say) might not the same, or may not an other with as much facility have planted or plant (if it were to be planted) a truth through out the whole world? If the church have been so governed during this term of 900. years, that all the affairs of the church have by one head been so ordered, that no member hath had just cause to complain, that all members have agreed in perfect quietness one with an other and all with their head, as yourself hereafter confess, although you labour to qualify the matter in this wise: In deed we must needs confess a truth, M. Nowel's confession concerning the quiet agreement under the government off the Pope. fol. 56. b. 25. that whilst we all remained under the quiet obedience off your romish head, in doctrine of his traditions, there was a coloured hind of quietness, concord, and love, amongst all the members of that head, the subjects of that one governor and ruler, and specially amongst the clergy of that one church: if I say, (by your confession) there was such a quiet agreeing through out all the world in false doctrine, will you still abide by it, that the same one head that governed in this peaceable manner all the world whom he fed with evil doctrine, might not have governed them as quietly if he had delivered to them sound and wholesome doctrine? Or will you say that God can do less in procuring good things, than the devil in promoting evil? that God can make one man able alone to govern all the world without schisms, or to appease them being moved as great as it is, in evil government, but not in good? If you will not say thus, you must needs say, that it is nothing impossible for one man assisted by god's grace, to govern the church of the whole world were it greater than it is, and so to confess with all, that the Apology in saying the contrary, and you in defending the Apology, have both off you, falsely, blasphemously and foolishly erred. As for the reason whereunto the Apology and you lean, that as God hath given to no one king to be above all, so to no one bishop to rule the whole church, that is as I told you before, to appoint God, because he hath made many kingdoms to make many heads of the church which is but one, and so consequently to multiply religions, and make many faiths. But because you repeat very often this comparison, and think it so absurd that there should be any more one head over the whole church, them one chief king above all the kingdoms in the world: I will here prove, that within the first six hundred years it was taken for no absurdity. There is no man I think that hath bestowed any time in the ecclesiastical histories ignorant, what a do Theodora the Empress, wife to justinian the Emperor, made, to have Silverius the pope deprive Menna the good archbishop of Constantinople, and to restore Anthimius the heretic lawfully before by Agapetus the pope deprived. To the which wicked attempt when by no means the good pope could be brought to consent, false accusations were brought in against him, and so he was by tyranny removed, and constrained to flee to a town called Patara of the province of Lycia. Wither the emperor Liberatus in Breviario cap. 22. on a time coming, the bishop there (as Liberatus the archdeacon of Carthage writeth) complaining to him, and calling to witness the just and terrible judgement of God, for the unjust expulsion of the bishop of so great a seat, addeth at the last these words: Multos esse in hoc Many Kings to govern the world, one pope to govern the church. mundo reges, & non esse unum, sicut ille papa est super ecclesiam mundi totius a sua sede expulsus: that there are many kings in this world, and that there is no one only king, as that pope is over all the whole church of the world, expelled from his seat. Do you not here see M. Nowell that within the first 600. years the whole world was governed by one head in spiritual matters, without any necessity to have it so governed in temporal? Would this good bishop (is it credible) being a suitor to the Emperor, if the church had not been governed by one head at that time, or if it had been an absurdity that there should be one chief bishop and many equal kings, have dashed the Emperor in the mouth with such an absurd and flat lie? Or would the Emperor upon this talk, immediately have caused Silverius to be called back again into Italy, and not rather have checked the bishop for abusing him with a lie, if he had not acknowledged his words to be true? Thus much I trust may serve to make the indifferent reader understand, that I reprehended not the Apology without just cause. your railing against me because it is (as yourself confess) fol. 39 a. beside the matter, I pass over. But so can I this by no means, that you take it for no reproach (you say) to have Nowell. b. 1. your congregation secret, scattered, and unknown to all the world, because this is common to you with the primitive church of our Saviour Christ, and his holy Apostles. consider I beseech the good Reader, whether these new Dorman. upstart heretics of our age be not brought to a very Exigent, and to extreme desperation, when to excuse the secretness of their congregation, their hidden and unknown church, they wrap themselves like crafty wolves for fear of being betrayed, in the fine fleeses and soft wool of the name of Christ and his Apostles. As though after so many hundred years that Christ's faith hath flourished through out all the world, it were now new to begin again. consider whether they ought not to be ashamed (if shame there were any in them) to say, that the church was in Christ's time and his apostles secret and unknown, seeing that to them that shall read the Acts Act. 2. 4 & alibi. of the Apostles it can not be unknown, how mightily the church increased even in their time: that the Apostle S. Paul witnesseth the contrary in saying, that the Rom. 1. faith off the Romans (Christ's true faith) was preached even then in the universal world. It is therefore a A slanderous and blasphemous lie. 28. most slanderous and blasphemous lie to say, that Christ's church was at any time after the coming down of the holy ghost secret or unknown. It is a lie to say that it was so hidden, that who so ever would at any time have joined himself thereto might not have known it. But this is an old shift off the Donatists, who when they could find none off their religion but only in Africa, were driven to say that there the church was only, as you must say it was 50. years ago in Germany, or else no where. Of whom as S. Austen said then, so will I say of you now: O impudentem vocem etc. O impudent voice, is there no church because thou art not in it? See to thyself lest thou be not (in it) In psalm. 101. therefore. For the church shall be although thou be not. This abominable, this detestable voice of presumption and falsehood, bolstered with no truth, lightened with no wisdom, seasoned with no discretion, vain, rash, headlong, pernicious, did the spirit of God foresee, and spoke even as it were against them, when he preached unity: In gathering the people and kingdoms together to ser us Psalmus 101. our lord. Where is now I pray you your church spread through all nations? Where was there any sign thereof in all the world the year before that Martin Luther begun to preach his gospel? When I call your congregation scattered and unknown, I have relation to that time in which you first showed yourselves to the world. For that you now brag that the pope and his, have both more knowledge and feeling also of your congration them liking, that is common to you, seeing you will needs hold in common, with the Arrians. Whose heresies were as famous in the world as yours are, and yet could never by time so grow in credit God be praised therefore, that their first beginning bewrayed them not to the world, as yours doth you. Might you not be ashamed M. Nowell, if there were any shame in you, to go about to persuade men, that Christ's church after fifteen hundred years, should be now in her enfancy, yea within these fifty years not borne at all? John Calvin your late master, in a little treatise that he made against Michael servetus whom for his heresies he put to death in Geneva, disputeth thus against him. Ecclesiam fingit ab annis mill ducentis & sexaginta fugatam Caluins' opinion of the church. a mundo fuisse, ut coelum illi exilium fuerit. Nos certé é splendidis aedibus eiectam fuisse fatemur, sed it a ut electas a se reliquias admirablili gratia seruaverit dominus. Alioqui mentitus foret, qui semper aliquem sibi populum in terra fore promisit, quamdiu Sol & Luna in coelo fulgebunt. Scimus quid passim de aeterno Christi regno testentur prophetae. An eius sedem in coelis locant? Imò fore praedicunt, ut sceptrum eius é Zion procul dominus ostendat quo dominetur ab ortu usque ad o●casum, & eius haereditas sit terrarum orbis. Nunc ergo populo eum privare qui nomen eius celebret, est ac si abscissa eius part, ipsum in coelo multilum includere tentemus. servetus (saith Calvin) feigneth the church these 12. hundred and three score years to have been chased out of the world, so that it must be in banishment in heaven. We truly confess, that she hath been cast out of glittering and shining palaces, but yet so that the lord hath preserved his chosen remenantes by his marvelous grace. Otherwise he should have lied, who ever promised to himself some people in the earth, so long as the son and moan should shine in the firmament. We know what the prophets do in every place witness of the eternal kingdom of Christ. Do they place his throne in heaven? Yea truly they prophesy that it should come to pass, that the lord should show a far of his sceptre out of Zion, with the which he shall rule from the east unto the west, and his inheritance shall be the whole world. Now therefore to deprive him of his people which should glorify his name, it is even as though cutting of a part of him, we would assay to include him mangled in heaven. Thus far Calvin touching the church. And therefore you may not blame me M. Nowell, if I reason as your master doth, nor may not think yourself well excused, if after fifty years you show a few remenantes of your church, which at the beginning thereof, 51. years ago, could not show in all the world one man that might be as a stone thereof, so secret, so scattered, so hidden and unknown was it. You are not headless you say, you have Christ in heaven and your prince under him etc. you have the rules and grounds Nowell. fol. 39 b. 3 of god's word. You are not headless, if so many bishops as you have, so many heads you be under. But you join in no one head Dorman. in earth, for which cause only I call you headless. Your prince in earth (for now your mind is changed, and being past the places of S. Cyprian, which made so much for the authority of priests and bishops, you cry that the prince is your head) can not make you have a head in earth, in so much as your whole congregation whereof I trow you will confess yourselves in England to be members, is not under any one prince▪ You have not the rules and grounds of god's word to stay upon, uless as you reject the certain means and ways to understand god's word by. And therefore you know not whither to go nor whereupon to rest. That S. Hierom was of the mind that there ought to be one chief bishop in Christ's church. Dialog. adversus Lucifer. The 13. Chapter. You grant M. Nowell, that saint Cyprian and saint Jerome fol. 30. b. 23. fol. 40. a. 1. were both of one mind. Therefore say I, they both prove the necessity of one head. Neither care I whether S. Jerome speak in this dialogue of the B. of Rome by name or no. It sufficeth to prove my intent, that as by your own confession S. Cypriah is of the mind that in every diocese there must be one priest and judge in the stead of Christ whom all the rest must obey: so S. Jerome also is of the same. The which being once granted, it followeth very well, that seeing for one little diocese, a head over so mean men as parish priests be, is precisely necessary, much more is a head in earth over all the bishops which have every one of them so great power over their own flock (lest they abuse the same) of greater and more forcible necessity. And therefore you take great pains to no purpose, to prove that S. Jerome speaketh not of the B. of Rome, but of every other bishop, the which thing I would hire you to prove for me. For whereas if he had spoken of the B. of Rome by name, it had been a reason grounded upon the authority of S. Jerome alone, now being spoken of every bishop, it confirmeth by reckoning the necessity of one head particularly in every diocese, the great necessity of the same one head in the whole body of the church by natural reason also, which proveth my purpose better than any private man's authority can do. If cankered malice, and desire to be revenged had not carried you so far and fast away, that it gave you no leisor to look back to the title of the argument that is here handled, yourself would soon have perceived how little it were necessary, to have in this place any special mention made of the B. of Rome. Which if you had once marked, then would you never have gathered so foolilishely and unlearnedly, out of the argument of the dialogue fol. 40. a. 6 written by Erasmus: Liber est, etc. The book is very worthy to be read, as the which doth conceine many▪ wholesome precepts M. Nowell a weak reasoner. concerning the life of bishops, that there was nothing in the same dialogue, not asmuch as one word that is special to the B. of Rome only. For all though there be no one word there special to the B. of Rome, as it is not necessary that there be: how should yet this authority press him that would maintain the contrary, and say to you: what M. Nowell I think your wits fail you: May there not be some one word special to the B. of Rome in that dialogue, because it containeth many wholesome precepts concerning the life of bishops? Is not the B, of Rome a bishop? Much like or more foolish than this, are your other notes gathered here and there out of this dialogue to prove that which you say of every bishops authority, and to reprove my wresting as you term it of this place to the authority of one bishop over the whole church. For who sense reason was first poured in to man's head, hard ever of one that occupieth the place of a wise man, a more foolish or brainsick kind of reasoning then is this: S. Jerome speaketh in diverse places of this dialogue of many bishops, because the question was whether bishops returning from their heresies should be unbishopped or no, before they were reconciled. Ergo, He meant not in the place alleged that there shoulder be one chief bishop in the church. This seemed to yourself to be far from the mark I doubt not, when you promise to come nearer to the place by fol. 40. b. 22. fol. 41. b. me alleged. And therefore you bring in certain sentences going next before, to prove that which I deny not, that S. Jerome speaketh of every bishop in his own diocese. And thereupon you conclude. And therefore this whole matter is altogether impertinent to Nowell. fol. 42. b. 9 D. Harding and M. Dormans' purpose of one only head over the whole church. Unless M. Dorman would frame us thereof this lewd argument. S. Jerome saith that every bishop ought to have authority above all other priests of his own diocese: Ergo, the B. of Rome ought to have a pre-eminence peerless above all bishops of all dioceses, and over the whole church through out the whole world. No M. Nowell I will not reason so in this place, because Dorman. the argument which I handle forceth me not so to do. But if I had so reasoned or would so reason, as you think no man being awake will: yet am I he, that even in my sleep M. Nowell were able to defend that argument against you, staring with both your eyes wide open upon me. And that yourself perceived well enough, and therefore like a tender hearted man, as loath to break my sweet sleep, you stolle from it as softly as you might. For this being, I pray you first granted, that every bishop ought to have authority above all other priests of his own diocese, and the reason being (as S. Jerome hath here, and you in making the argument guilefully left out) for the avoiding of schisms: I would infer for the minor or second proposition: but the same reason (for the avoiding of schisms) doth no less, yea more enforce that one have peerless authority over the bishops and priests of the whole world. Ergo, there must be one such head, and that by a consequent the B. of Rome, who hath ever so been reputed and taken, except you by your deanely authority have power to appoint some other. But I brought not S. Hieromes' authority Why S. Jerome was first alleged. M. Nowell to conclude so particularly, or to force it to the B. of Rome's supremacy, but only to prove the necessity of one general head over Christ's universal church, the which no reasonable man can deny but that most effectually it doth. So that now your great musing at any man that shall to this sense allege this place of S. Jerome, may appear rather to proceed off some dampish melancholic vapours occupying your fond and idle head, or lack of other matter to think upon, then upon any just cause or good ground, and that also you have untruly said of me that I have wrested this place. In answering the place of S. Hierom to Euagrius you say, Nowell. fo. 4●. b. 18 first that he showeth that praesbiter and episcopus, a priest and a bishop, be all one by the first institution and by the law of God. If it had pleased you so to have taken S. Jerome, he Dorman. might have meant that the name of a priest, and the name of a bishop was all one in the use of speech, in the holy scriptures, and in the sacrament of orders, but not in dignity, pre-eminence and authority. For a bishop is preferred before a priest in jurisdiction, although their names were once confounded. Neither are all those things by and by to be confounded as one in truth and nature, the names whereof be confounded. Otherwise because the Apostles are in the gospel called disciples, an Apostle and a disciple are all one, which is well known not to be so. Likewise though the terms of priest and bishop were common, yet the things were never one: in so much that S. Austen making mention of the heresy of Aerius saith, Dicebat etiam praesbiterum ab episcopo nulla differentia secerni debere. He said Ad quod vult Deum haeres. 57 also that a priest ought to be distinguished from a bishop by no difference. But what mean you here M. Nowell to talk so much of the equality of bishops and priests, being a matter in this place nothing to our purpose? Or if it were, seeing it might be said, that even as the old canons (as I declared before) in that equality which is in priesthood, used yet In the 6. chapter. fol. 33. b. the word Archipraesbiter, chief priest, and ordained such a dignity in the church: so there is nothing that letteth, why in the equality of bishops and priests, while no one is more bishop or priest then an other, there may How one bishop is equal to an other. not be degrees notwithstanding of superiority, although not in the sacrament of orders, which is common to them all, yet in the execution of that power that is conferred thereby. But perhaps you be of the opinion yourself that there ought to be no difference between a bishop and a priest, and therefore are the gladder to snatch occasion by all means, direct or indirect, to utter your mind therein. Now followeth upon this ground laid, that bishops and priests be by the first institution and the law of God one, your conclusion: whereby you will make it appear, that you have not without cause made mention of this equality of bishops, and priests. So that all bishops, which be the successors of the Apostles, Nowell. b. 24. be also praesbiteri, that is to say elders or priests. Whereof it followeth also, that there is an equality amongst all bishops by god's law, as the equal successors of the Apostles. And that this is S. Hieromes' mind in that place, all learned men who have read the said epistle do well know. This was not the mind of S. Jerome, but is an idle Dorman. fantasy of your own. The learned know and to their judgement I appeal, that his mind was here to compare together the state of a priest and a bishop in the sacrament of holy ordres, common aswell to the one as to the other: that so he might refel the better the error of those, who held that deacons ought to be equal to priests, as appeareth by these words of his in the beginning of the epistle: In this epistle ad Euagri● Nam quum Apostolus etc. For whereas the Apostle teacheth manifestly that priests and bishops be one, what aileth the servant * He meaneth deacons. of widows and tables, arrogantly to extol himself above them, at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is made. Doth not this example, put in the consecrating of the body and blood off Christ (the which the poorest priest that is, hath as good authority to do, given him in the sacrament of holy ordres as the pope himself) declare that S. Hieromes' mind was no otherwise to make priests equal to bishops, but in the only order of priesthood common to both? Yea but you will say that the Apostles were equal in all respects. (for if you say not so you can not conclude absolutely as you do, that all bishops their successors be so equal). If you say so, that is but your bare Lib. 1. contra iovinianum. saying only, not by the authority of S. Jerome confirmed, but most plainly by the same impugned. Who in one place saith, that amongst the twelve there was a head chosen, Peter by name, and in an other place, that Christ made Peter In cap. Marci 14. Note the cause of appointing one head. the master of his house, THAT UNDER ONE SHEPHERD THERE MAY BE ONE FAITH. Which is directly against the equality that you build upon. But let it be granted unto you that the apostles were equal, yet shall not your conclusion follow for all that. For it is to be considered that in the Apostles there is a double respect which is to be weighed now of us. Either we considre them as they were all Apostles, or as they were bishops. As they were Apostles they How the Apostles were all equal. were all equal, they had all like power to preach and teach through out the whole world. As they were bishops and rulers of particular churches, they were all subject to Petre the chief bishop of all. As they were Apostles, that is to say general legates, to plant Christ's faith through out all the world, to found churches, to preach the word of God, finally to govern universally in all places where their should come, they transmitted this right none of them to their successors, but only Peter: who was the general shepherd of all. Which is the cause that some of the fathers (namely S. Austen, say, that the power given to Peter was given to him In psalm. 208. in the person of the church, because it was not given to him alone, but to all his successors to continued for ever. As the Apostles were bishops of particular places their authority ended not with them, but went further to the whole church to continued for ever. Now to apply this to our purpose, how do the bishops that now are succeed the Apostles? They succeed them as bishops, not as Apostles. For if they succeeded them so, who seeth not that as the Apostles made laws, absolved, excommunicated and ruled through out all How bishops be the successors of the Apostles. the world where so ever they came, so might the bishops that now succeed them do the like. The which thing seeing we find by no records sith the apostles time that ever it was practised in the church, and if it should, it were the next way to disquiet all the world, and to fill the church full of schisms and heresies, reason itself doth convince, that the order taken amongst the Apostles was but by special privilege, not appointed to continue for ever, or to derogate any thing from the general order begun in Peter, and appointed to be perpetual as long as the church should endure. To conclude therefore, I grant to you M. Nowell that the Apostles were equal as they were all the general legates of Christ, but not as they had their special bishoprics and charges limited unto them. In which latter sense because the bishops that are now, succeed the Apostles, in which point they were not equal, it followeth against you that all bishops be not equal. if you will say that the Apostles were also equal, even in that, that they were bishoppees of private places: you have against you S. Jerome himself. Who can not be otherwise taken them to mean thus, by calling Petre (as you hard before) the head of the other Apostles, the master of Christ's house, the one shepherd under whom there might be one faith. You shall speak against chrysostom, who speaking of S. james the B. of Jerusalem, hath: Quôd si quis percontaretur, quomodo Homil. ●●lt. in cap. joan. vlt. igitur jacobus sedem Hierosolomis acceperit: responderem hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse. That if any man would ask, how then james came by the bishopric of Jerusalem: I would answer that the master of all the world (Peter) made him bishop. And a little after in the same place. Nam quum magna Christus Petro communicasset etc. For when Christ had communicated great things to Peter, and committed to his charge the care of the whole world etc. Last of all, if you will needs contentiously maintain that Petre was no more above the Apostles as they were bishops, Arnobius. then as they were Apostles: them (to omit diverse other that might be alleged to this effect) you shall say against that ancient, eloquent, and learned father, who lived in the In psalm. 138. time of persecution before the reign of Constantine the great, Arnobius, the scholemaistre of that eloquent and learned Lactantius: who by name calleth Peter EPISCOPUS EPISCOPORUM the B. of bishops. Seeing now that Peter is confessed by the fathers to be the head of the apostles, the one pastor, the master of the whole world, and bishop of bishops, which can not be in that respect that the Apostles were all the general legates of Christ through out the whole world: what remaineth but to acknowledge that superiority to have place (as Arnobius words import) over them, as bishops. And so is your argument taken from the equality of the Apostles showed to be insufficient to prove your fantasied equality of all bishops. Hitherto you have talked generally of this epistle of S. Jerome to Euagrius. Now will you come to the place (you say) alleged by me out of this epistle: Quòd autem postea unus electus est, etc. That one was afterward chosen to rule the rest that was done for a remedy against schisms, etc. To this place you add an other sentence of S. Jerome, where for example of that which he had said, he bringeth the church of Alexandria, Where from Mark the Evangelist unto Heracla and Dionysius being bishops, the priests did ever place one chosen off their company in the higher room, and named him bishop. etc. Upon this place you conclude as followeth. Whereby it appeareth plainly, that the words of Saint Hierrome, Nowell. ●▪ a. one chosen afterward amongst them to rule the rest, for a remedy of schisms, do appertain to every bishop as head ruler of the clergy off his owns diocese. For saith Saint Jerome such an head ruler was chosen at Alexandria in Egypt etc. The example of Alexandria maketh nothing against Dorman. my understanding of these words to be meant of the Apostles. For why might not S. Mark the B. of Alexandria, be made bishop there after this form of government used amongst the Apostles, that as amongst the Apostles one was above the rest: so in Alexandria should be one chief ruler above the rest of the clergy there? But in this point I will contend with no man. For how ever they be to be understand, of the Apostles, or of every bishop as head ruler off the clergy in his own diocese, once this is clear, that by them is proved, that of one company there must for the better avoiding of schisms be one head. Again on the other side, you seem to be as indifferent, and therefore you add: And withal what so ever was done afterward, was not done Nowell. fol. 43. a. 23 de iure divino upon the ground of God's law, but of an ecclesiastical order and policy. I pray you what if this were but an ecclesiastical order Dorman. M. Nowell? Think you it nothing to break the canons and constitutions of the universal church? Because with men of your vocation that is counted a small fault, I will prove to the reader even by S. Jerome himself, that this order to have one general head over Christ's church, is neither the invention of ambitious pope's (as before slanderously you said), neither grounded only upon any ecclesiastical order and policy, (as here upon better advise more modestly you report) but upon the infallible ground of Christ's own express ordinance. S. Jerome therefore writing against one of your ancestors jovinian the heretic, who maintained that votaries and professed persons might lawfully marry, for the defence Aug. lib. 2. Retractat. cap. 22. Haeresi. 82. of this heresy of his (for so hath S. Augustine termed it) brought the example of Peter, who was he said a married man. By this occasion offered, S. Jerome uttreth of S. Peter these words. At dicis, super Petrum fundatur ecclesia, Lib. 1. contr● jovin. licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur: tamen propterea inter duodeeim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasi●▪ Sed cur non Ioannet electus est virgo? AEtati delatum erat, quia Petrus senior erat, ne adhuc adolescens ac pené puer, progressae aetatis hominibus praeferretur, & magister bonus, qui occasionem iurgij debuerat auferre discipulis, etc. causam praebere videtur invidiae. That is to say: But thou sayest the church is builded upon Petre, although the same in an other place be done upon all the Apostles, and all of them receive the keys of heaven, and indifferently upon them is the strength of the church grounded: yet therefore is there one chosen amongst the 12, THAT BY APPOINTING A HEAD, OCCASION OF SCHISMS BE TAKEN AWAY. But why was not john chosen being a virgin? Age was preferred because Peter was elder. Lest a stripling and yet almost a child, should be preferred before ancient and elderly men, and the good master which Christ appointed Peter to be head. should take from his scholars occasion of strife, etc. might some to ministre cause of envy. Hitherto the words off S. Jerome. Of the which may be concluded: first, that this order to have one head in Christ's church is no ecclesiastical order and policy, but an order appointed by Christ's own mouth to begin in his blessed Apostles: in whom if this government were necessary for the avoiding of schisms, how much more necessary it is amongst us, I leave to the learned and wise to judge. The second conclusion that I gather upon this place, is, that here S. Jerome teacheth us, that this common objection of the heretics, that Christ gave power of losing and binding to all indifferently, and that therefore Peter had no more preminence than the rest, is a naughty and untrue reason, as appeareth by these words of S. Jerome, tamen etcae. yet one is chosen etc. Thirdly I gather, that seeing the apostles were bishops, this Maxim of yours is clean overthrown, that all bishops be equal, and that no one hath any other over him: seeing the Apostles being bishops had Peter to be their head. Fourthly I note, that this confession was wrong as it were by violence from S. Jerome, by the force of his adversary his reason. Which being that priests might marry, seeing Peter the head of the Apostles was married: it had been for S. Jerome his vantage to have denied that he was head of them, to have said as you do, that they were all equal, and no one above the other. And so would he we may be sure, being so vehement and learned an adversary as he was, if it had not been so manifest a truth, that it could be no more denied, then that Peter was married. His qualifying of the place here, that the church was in an other place builded upon all, may give us to understand what he would quickly have done, if Christ had not for all that, specially made Peter the head. By this appeareth the corrupt judgement of Erasmus, who in his notes upon the epistle Ad Marcellam where S. Jerome hath again, that the church was builded Tom. 2. ad Marcellam adue●sus Montanum. upon Peter, giveth this judgement: Hoc detorquet in commendationem Petri. This he wresteth to the commendation of Peter. Last of all it is to be noted, that in S. Hieromes' time it was acknowledged even by heretics, that Christ appointed this order of one head, as appeareth by this, that jovinian grounded himself thereupon in reasoning against S. Jerome for the maintenance of his heresy. Upon the which last note some other may happily note, that you and your companions are more shameless heretics, than were jovinian and his. To this place of S. Jerome I will add one other, to show that you abuse his authority to much in labouring to found upon him this untrue proposition of yours, that not by god's law but by man's, this order of one head in Christ's Church should be established. The words off S. Jerome alluding to the house mentioned in the gospel, where Christ eat his passover are these: Dominus domus Petrus apostolus est, cui dominus domum suam In cap. 14. Marci. credidit, VTSUBUNO PASTORE SIT una FIDES. The master of the house is Peter the Apostle, to whom One head shepherd that the faith may be one. our Lord committed his house, that under one shepherd the faith may be one. Do you not see M. Nowell the necessity of one head, that under one shepherd the faith may be one. Hear you not that it is not man's devise that it be so, but Christ's own ordinance? Have you not with all S. Jerome expounding (as it were) the words of S. Cyprian: tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem Lib. de unitat. ecclesiae. ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit, yet to make unity manifest, he (Christ) disposed by his authority the beginning of this unity to proceed from one) by these words of his: That under one shepherd there may be one faith? By this it appeareth, that S. Jerome is not of that mind that you would have him to be, that is, that this order of having one head in the church should be off man's ordinance, not of Christ's institution. But here you will ask me how I can then reconcile him and make him agree with himself: who in this place hath, that one Quòd unus postea electus est. S. Hierom expounded by himself. was afterward chosen to rule the rest. If after (say you) than not upon god's law. Yes I reconcile him after this sort M. Nowell. If you understand this place to be of the Apostles, than he expoundeth himself in the place that you hard before: where although he confess, that in one place Christ builded the church equally upon all his Apostles, (which was done straight after his resurrection) joan. 20. yet in an other he granteth, that the good master (for so he calleth Christ there) builded it upon Peter, a little before his ascension into heaven whom he appointed joan. vlt. to be the head of the rest. So that the word here Postea, afterwards, hath relation to that ordinary prerogative of S. Peter given to him at Christ's ascension, at which time he performing the promise made before to Peter in the future tense, to build his church upon him, Matth. 16. appointed him as chrysostom saith upon that place, to have orbis terrarum curam, the charge of the whole world. Homil. vlt. in joan. vlt. If you understand not these words (one chosen afterward to rule the rest) of the Apostles, but of the government in particular churches (as because of the example brought by S. Jerome of the church of Alexandria you think they should) then Postea, afterward, must have this sense, that whereas under one general head of Christ's church, the particular churches were at the beginning governed by many heads and common consent (which was as Epiphanius saith because the apostles could not forthwith take order for all things: his words are, non enim omnia statim potuerunt Apostoli constituere, for the apostles could not forthwith take order for all things) afterwards the state of the church being better Lib. 3. hae●es. 75. settled, and being come (to use the words of Epiphanius) ad propriam mensuram, to her own measure, that order appearing to be such as was not convenient for the government of the church, was alltered, and one chosen to rule alone for the avoiding of schisms in every particular church: not as though S. Hieron should mean that the universal church lacked at any time one head, or had been governed by diverse (the contrary whereof he affirmed before) but that afterward particular churches began to see the necessity of one head over every church, according to the pattern wherein Christ appointed Peter to be the chief head of all. As S. Hierom himself in an other place doth well declare: where he saith: An tequàm diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent etc. Before by the instigation of the devil, factions were made in religion, and In cap. 1. epi. ad Tit. 1. Cor. 1. one said: I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the common council of priests. But after that every one thought those that he baptised to be his and not Christ's: it was through out all the world decreed, that one being chosen out of the priests, should be set over the rest, to whom all the care of the church should belong, and the occasion of schisms be taken away. Thus far S. Hierom. By which words as it appeareth, that the schisms were in particular churches, so the heads of whom he speaketh, were afterward by his mind chosen in particular churches. Thus is S. Jerome expounded by himself, which I trust the learned will like much better, than such crooked gloss of yours, as tend to no other end, but to the defacing of the grave and learned fathers: as this could not choose but here discredit S. Jerome, if in a matter of such weight as this is, he should be found contrary to himself. It followeth: This which was thus done afterward saith S. Jerome, was done rather for the honour of priesthood then for the necessity of Nowell. fol. 43. b. 4 the law. For by the law of God which is first, the priest (as S. Jerome saith (may do asmuch excepting ordering only, as may the bishop: but afterward for order, one was placed in the highest place for the avoiding of schisms. And if a priest by S. Hieromes' mind may do as much as a bishop, I think also one bishop may by god's law do as much as an other bishop. Behold here (good reader) in M. Nowell a singular Dorman. point of false and untrue dealing, which although it be with him in this book of his, and other his companions in their other doings, a thing very common, and therefore the less to be marveled at: yet surely is it in the wresting of this place of S. Jerome of all other most evident to be perceived. For whereas S. Jerome in his Dialogues against the Luciferians, hath, that this order in the church, (that the bishop confirmeth those that are Christened not the priest), was taken rather for the honour of priesthood then for the necessity of the law. M. Nowell to make the matter S. Hierom beelied by M. Nowell. 29. probable, that this order of having one head in the church should not be grounded upon god's word, and that there is no necessity in it, but done rather to honour priesthood: applieth it to these words of S. Jerome to Euagrius, where in express words he hath, that the appointing one to rule and govern the rest, was to be a remedy against schisms. For the better understanding of this false dealing of his, I shall wish those that either have not the works of S. Jerome at hand, or if they have understand not them in Latin, or if they do, can not so easily turn to the place, to consider them as they follow here in this place: Quôd si hoc loco quaeris quare in ecclesia baptizatus nisi per manus episcopi, non accipiat spiritum sanctum, quem nos asserimus in vero baptismate tribui: disce hanc obseruationem ex ea authoritate descendere, quod post ascensum domini spiritus Hieron. in dialog. adver. Lucifer, sanctus ad apostolos descendit. Et multis in locis idem factitatum reperimus, ad honorem potius sacer dotij quam ad legis necessitatem. Alioqui si ad episcopi tantum imprecationem spiritus sanctus defluit, lugendi sunt qui in viculis aut castellis, aut in remotioribus locis per praesbiteros, & diaconos baptizati, ante dormierunt quàm ab episcopis inviserentur. That is to say. But if in this place thou ask of me wherefore he that is baptized in the church doth not receive the holy ghost but bit he hands of the bishop, the which holy ghost we do all affirm to be given in true baptism? Learn this observation to come of that authority, that after the ascension of our lord the holy ghost came down to the Apostles. And we find that the same is done in many places, rather for the honour of priesthood, then of necessity of the law. Else if the holy ghost come down only at the prayer of the bishop, they are to be lamented who being baptized by priests and deacons in little towns or villages, or places further of, do die before they be visited by the bishops. Hitherto the words of S. Jerome. next after the which because it followeth, that the high priest must have authority peerless above all other, otherwise that there will be as many schisms in the church as there be priests, M. Nowell thinketh that he might understand, both the peerless authority above all other that is mentioned in the dialogue against the Luciferians, and the pre-eminence that one had given to rule the rest as for a remedy against schisms, spoken off in this epistle to Euagrius, to be meant of only power to confirm children or other lately baptized, which because bishops had, and priests had not, he thinketh S. Jerome should call by the name of a peerless power, able to be a remedy against all schisms. For so understandeth he this place here and before. fol. 41. b. 20. But now I pray you let me ask of you M. Nowell, when S. Jerome had said, that this observation that the bishop should confirm and not the priest, came of this that the holy ghost after Christ's ascension came down to the Apostles, when he added. Et multis in locis idem factitatum reperimus, etc. And in many places we find the same to be done rather for the honour of priesthood, than necessity of the law: What idem, what same thing (constrew M. Nowell) was it, that was so done to honour priesthood, rather than for necessity? Was not it the ministering of the Sacrament of Confirmation? Do not the words that follow next after: Alioqui si ad episcopi, etc. Otherwise if the holy ghost come down only at the prayer of the bishop etc. spoken to prove, that there was no such necessity of the Sacrament of Confirmation, as though to them that dwelling far from the bishop, and dying before they were confirmed, the holy ghost should not be given in baptism) evidently convince, that S. Jerome meant off that point of pre-eminence that the bishop hath above a priest in ministering of this sacrament, that that was not of the necessity of the law etc., not of that power of government that we dispute of? But what labour I to convince this wresting of yours to belieng and untrue, which who so ever shall read the place, can not but presently perceive, if he have his common senses? Who is so very a dolt, that when he heareth you bringing in S. Jerome providing for the peace of the church, that is the avoiding off schisms, this sovereign remedy that the bishop of every diocese may confirm children or other lately baptized, which the priests can not do: and that there in consists his peerless power, will not be able to tell you that this reason proceedeth from some frantic brain M. Nowell, not from the stayed and grave head of S. Jerome? For what stay for schisms, what remedy against heresies were it like to be (tell us I conjure you by your wisdom that first found out this special remedy) if the bishop had only this power more than a priest, that you speak of? Might not the meanest priest in his diocese for all this, imagine and sow amongst the people what lewd opinions he list, and tell the bishop to his face, if he should reprove him therefore, that he passeth the bounds of his office, who hath nothing else to do but to confirm such as were lately baptized? If this be true M. Nowell, where is now, unus ad tempus index vice Christi, one judge for the time Lib. 1. epistol. 3. in the steed of Christ, mentioned before by S. Cyprian, and acknowledged by yourself, to be the bishop in his diocese? If he be the judge in Christ's stead over all the rest, than his power extendeth further I trow then to confirmation. For what judicial act is there done in the ministering thereof? Thus it appeareth how shamefully you have beelied S. Hierom, how lewdly you have abused his words, to such a foolish sense as no learned or wise ears can abide. Now to your thinking, that if a priest by S. Hieromes' mind may do as much as a bishop, that then one bishop may do as much by God's law as an other, isaiah: S. Hierom beelyed again. 30. that I think not but I know and believe, that you lie upon S. Jerome, who saith not nor is of that mind that a priest may do asmuch as a bishop. For in this epistle to Euagrius, he excepteth the power of making priests: in the dialogue against the Luciferians, the authority of ordinary confirming, and in both the places, he granteth to one (which must needs be the bishop) a peerless power above all the rest, for the avoiding of schisms. So that this being true, you should rather have thought that one bishop might do as much as an other certain things excepted, or else you should have been better occupied to have thought upon some other matter. I marvel M. Nowell that you harp so much upon this string of making bishops and priests equal, whereunto if your archbishops and bishops look not in time: I think those goodfelowe ministers, shoemakers, weavers, tinkers, broom-men, coweherdes, fiddlers etc, whom your bishops have made equal to you that be▪ inferior ministers, you of your goodness will shortly make equal to your bishops and archbishops. You proceed and say: Further seeing this one afterward chosen to rule the rest was Nowell. fo. 43. b. ●● chosen as well at Alexandria as at Rome orolles where &c: It must needs fall out, that these words one chosen to rule the rest, either make for no supremacy of any one bishop over all the church, as appertaining to every bishop in his own diocese, or if M. Dorman will needs enforce a supremacy by the said words, he shallbe enforced to confess the said supremacy to be common to the B. of Alexandria (where S. Jerome saith this one was chosen to rule the rest) with the B. of Rome, as by the other place last alleged by M. Dorman out of S. Cyprian, the said Supremacy should appertain to the B. of Carthage etc. I have showed so often before how I enforce upon these Dorman. words a supremacy over the whole church, to wit, not directly but by an inevitable consequent, that it is needless to repeat my words again. And therefore in thus applying this place to my purpose, there is no fear of bringing the general government over the whole church to Charthage or Alexandria. If you have no other thing to trouble you then that, you may be quiet and take your rest. As for that, that you say, that Christ is as much A slanderous lie 31. blasphemed at Rome, as he is either at Alexandria or Carthage, that is one of your slanderous lies, as they can well tell, who travailing thither heretics, and finding there more fervent devotion then else where, with all things contrary to your slanderous reports made at home in your sermons and writings, have returned (God be praised therefore) good and perfect catholics. Of the true religion used in the which place, as if it were not impertinent here, I could say much: so one thing written by S. Jerome in the praise of Rome (which I doubt not but you count amongst those blasphemies that are there you say used against God) I can in no wise omit. Vbi (saith he) alibi tanto study, & frequen●ia ad ecclesias & ad martyrum s●pulcra Hieron. in proaemio. 2. epist. ad Galatas. concurritur. Where in any other place is there such concourse, with such affection and number, to the churches and sepulchres of martyrs? Seeing that this, a praise and token of devotion (for so saith S. Jerome in this place) is more in the Romans where this frequeting of churches, visiting of martyrs is so much used, then in other places where it is less, yea nothing at all, as at Carthage and Alexandria: if there were nothing else this alone would prove you a liar. For even at this day the same devotion is as much used at Rome as in S. Hieromes' time it was and in Carthage and Alexandria where Machometans now dwell, as much frequented as it is with you and your fellows in England. S. Jerome saith expressly that all bishops be equal, and Nowell. fo. 44. a. 3 none superior and inferior to another by god's law. S. Jerome saith that all bishops be of one priesthood Dorman. and merit, that is to say, no one more a bishop then an other. That no one is in jurisdiction above or beneath the other, that he hath in no place. And yet is this the thing that you should prove. It hurteth not our cause in case that we grant, that this place Nowell. do the appertain to the Apostles, and that one was chosen amongst the Apostles themselves to have the chief place: that is to speak first, to moderate other, to stay contention, and to remedy schisms Nay it maketh with us directly, who do grant that as amongst those 12. one was so chosen to be ruler, so it is good that in every competent number of priests and clergy, 〈◊〉 be chosen likewise to be ruler. If you will be liberal M. Nowell, be liberal as you Dorman. should be, and mar not all with a little pelting. If you will at the length yield to the truth that Petre was head Lib. 1. contra jovinian. of the other apostles, confess also with S. Jerome that it was not the Apostles doing to choose him amongst them▪ selves, Note. but that it was magister bonus, their good master who chose Peter to be the head, for the avoiding of schisms. Confess that this maketh not with you but directly against you, who maintain that all bishops be equal in jurisdiction, and no one above the other. For you deceive yourself and other toe, when you say, that as amongst the 12. apostles there was one above the rest: so in every competent number of priests there ought to be one chief ruler chosen: as though only Petre had been a bishop, and the other apostles poor priests and no more. Where is now the equality that you are wont to object to us of the Apostles with Petre? Who maketh the Apostles more inferior to Peter you or we? We say the Apostles all of them were bishops in one place or other: you make your count that they were only inferior priests. Now being all of them bishops and Peter by your confession their head: Who seeth not that the order planted by Christ in his church is, that there be one bishop for the pacifying of schisms over the rest? Again, if 12. persons so well instructed by the spirit of God as the Apostles were, had a head appointed over them for remedy against schisms: what reason leadeth you to think, that amongst so many ●ades as be in the universal church governors of particular churches, not so privileged with grace, there may not be the like, yea greater cause to fear schisms, and so consequently that there ought not to be the same remedy, that is to say one head? So that if you count yourself hurt when it is proved that there ought to be one chief head of Christ's church, you are by granting of this prerogative to S. Peter above the rest of the Apostles, very dangerously hurt. Yea but you were provided for all such after claps before I doubt not. Other wise so circumspect a man as you are, would never have yielded so far. And therefore you add. And if M. Dorman upon this grant would infer such a Nowell. supremacy of one over the rest of the Apostles, as the pope claimeth over the church, S. Paul reproving Peter more sharply Galat. 2. to his face, then is lawful now for any bishop to deal with the pope, doth prove that Peter had no such supremacy. One thing I must here tell you by the way M. Nowell, Dorman. that in debating this matter of the authority of S. Peter above the rest of the Apostles, except you forsake S. Jerome, you must forego this example of S. Paul his reproving of S. Peter, which S. Jerome holdeth against S. Austen (how truly I dispute not in this place) to have been but a made matter between them, that Paul should reprehend, and Peter suffer himself to be reprehended for using the legal ceremonies, as appeareth in the epistles written to and fro between them. And therefore if you willbe tried by S. Jerome, he should rather hold with this supremacy, as the man who if he erred in striving with S. Austen about this reprehending of Peter, erred only because he thought it a thing unseemly and unlikely, that S. Paul would so reprehend the prince of the Apostles. Which was he saith the cause, why Origen and other to stop the mouth of Porphirius the heretic, who laid to S. Paul's charge that he was overbold to reprehend Peter the chief of the Apostles, expounded this place as he did. But leaving S. Jerome, and granting that Peter was truly and in deed reprehended by S. Paul, let us examine whether such a supremacy as is here spoken of, may not by the judgement of the learned fathers of Christ's church, stand well enough for all this reproving of S. Peter used by S. Paul I will amongst other allege to this purpose two only S. Cyprian and S. Austen. Epist. ad Quintum. The words S. Cyprian are these: Na● nec Petrus quem primum dominus elegit, & super quem aedificavit ecclesiam suam etc. For neither Pure whom our lord chose to be the chief, and upon whom he builded his church when he contended after with Paul about circumcision revenged himself, or challenged any thing insolently or arrogantly in saying that he had the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed of those that were novices and came after. Thus far S. Cyprian. With whom agreeth S. Austen as he that allegeth this very place, to prove that S. Cyprian (to whose authority the Donatists leaned, Lib. 2. de baptis. contra Donatist. ea. for the baptizing again of such as were Christened by heretics) would easily suffer himself (for his humility), being but one bishop, or the doings of his own province either, to be corrected by the statutes of the whole church, seeing that he praised S. Peter in whom was the primacy of the Apostles, for the same virtue of humility, in suffering himself to be reproved of S. Paul. Thus it appeareth that S. Paul's resisting of S. Peter was no derogation to S. Peter's authority, as the which by the confession of both these learned fathers remained safe and whole, notwithstanding the reprehension of S. Paul, and withal that you and your fellows M. Nowell, who use so often to the derogation of S. Peter's authority to cite this place of the epistle Galat. 2. to the Galathians, do shamefully abuse the same, with no small injury to the blessed apostles both. But yet you far that I have said nothing all this while to this, that Peter's supremacy was no such as is the pope's, whom no man may blame what so ever he do. Yes sir the pope may be blamed: Neither do the text nor the gloze by you here alleged say the contrary. And so have diverse good men freely reprehended diverse pope's. S. Bernard a monk reprehended Eugenius the third, more sharply iwisse (as yourselves can full well tell and therefore make much of him in that respect) then ever did S. Paul reprove S. Petre. Paulus 4. was admonished by letters written by one in Rome, of the unhonest behaviour of his nephews the two Caraffas He took the advertisement in good part; and banished them the court immediately. What should I remember the letters written by Petrus a So to a friar also, to Pius the pope that now is, wherein he admonished him freely, to take order that bishops and other inferior pastors might be compelled Dat. Tridenti. 17. Aprilis Anno Do. 1563. Nowell. fol. 44. b. 24. to keep residence with their charges, and threatened to him utter damnation in the judgement of God, unless he did. It followeth not you say, that one being chosen to beruler amongst twelve, that therefore one may be also chosen to be ruler over all the clergy of the world. No more do the it that because there was one chosen of every one church or diocese to rule the rest, that therefore there should be one chosen to rule all bishops of all dioceses: namely at Rome, and the said ruler to be called pope or head of the universal church. The first answer touching that one head amongst Dorman. Institut. li. 4. cap. 6. Sect. 8. fol. 53. a. b the Apostles, you learned of your Master Calvin, against whom I have proved that the consequent holdeth very well in my first book. The argument I have showed oftentimes how it holdeth, and last of all in the beginning of this chapiter. That, that one head should be the bishop of Rome, that was not to be proved here, it is proved hereafter there as it should be. No more do we care for the name, whether he be to be called pope, head of the universal church, or by what so ever name else, so that you acknowledge his anctoritie over the whole church indeed. Where as you say that this kind of collection used by me fol. 44. b. 3. you have proved by my former reasons and similitudes, by my own witnesses S. Cyprian and S. Jerome, to be vain and lewd, the reader hath now my reply in those places to your answer. Iff to the learned it seem so, than you may brag. As I trust I have satisfied the sounder judgements there in: so will I when you perform your great promise that you here make, assay good willing to do the like. That the testimony of LEO is authentic, and proveth directly that, for the which it was first alleged. The 14. Chapitre. To begin with that which you note in the margin, fol. 45. ●. that I have otherwise alleged this place than it is in all the printed books that you have seen: I infer, that then you have not seen all. For you have not seen that copy which being printed at Colon by john Birckman the younger, beareth the date of the year off our Lord 1561. and readeth as I alleged. But of that you give me more occasion to speak hereafter. Now to the place of LEO itself. You grant, that the council of Chalcedon called Leo of Nowell. whom we now dispute, sanctissimum & beatissimum, most holy and most blessed, but with all (you ask) what that maketh for a. 21. his supremacy. If it make not for his supremacy, it is no great matter Dorman. M. Nowell. For who brought it for the proof of his supremacy I pray you let me ask you that question? You play with me here as you did before, when you brought me in solemnly reasoning upon certain titles used by Vrsatius and Valens to julius the B. of Rome to prove his supremacy, of the which notwithstanding to be applied to that purpose as I never made any mention: so never entered there any such imagination into my mind. yet both there then and here now, you fight with your own shadow like a tall man, under S. Cyprians banner, and count the field half won, where there is no man to match with you. if I should use you so M. Nowell, you would say and so you might justly, that I dreamt. What such dealing aught to be called in you let the wise Reader judge. To the purpose why I alleged this honourable mention made by 630 fathers assembled out of all the world of Leo the Pope, I did it to encounter with the slanderous report of that venimouse viper hissing out of his done of Geneva, who when he could not deny that he Calvin. Lib. Instit. 4. cap. 8. Sect. 11. was both learned an eloquent, would yet (he thought) take from him that, which is and aught in all men to be chiefly valued, the name of virtue and holiness: and therefore he saith, that he was a man above measure desirous of glory and dominion. This I judged also, not amiss, would be a chief exception against this blessed bishop by his scholars and followers in England, and therefore I provided so to arm his innocency by the judgement off so many virtuous and learned fathers, as who so ever would hereafter deprave his name, well might he show himself a malicious fool, but the fame of Leo with wise men he should never be able to impair. And surely if Leo to advance his own See had taught a false doctrine, the council would never we may be sure have called him most holy. But that matter the fathers themselves in that certificate of theirs which they sent to him, both by words and deed have put out of all doubt. By word, Act. 3. when they called him the man to whom our Lord had committed the custody of his vin yard: By deed, when they desired him to ratify and confirm their doings. But now you will propose your exceptions against this testimony of Leo, in order and form of law, and fight with me here upon mine own ground. First you lay for the foundation of your first exception, that Nowell. fo. 45. b. 6 Borrowed of Calvin li. 4. Inst. cap. 8. A lie. 32. it is most evident that the epistles carried about in the names off the first ancient pope's, are either forged or at the least corrupted by their ambitious successors of latter time. You prove it to be most evident, because it is you say, easy to be perceived. As you will hereafter by many circumstances declare. If you never declare it, it will never be perceived. It Dorman. will be taken in the mean season to be but as it is, a slanderous lie. Which yourself as it should seem half suspecting, grant unto us that it may be taken for Leo his own epistle. And surly if you would not have granted it, you had been much to blame. For Calvin your Master durst not deny it to be Leo his, yea confessing that there remained true epistles of the old bishops off Rome, wherein the authority of that See was set forth (of which sort saith he, are some epistles of Leo) he noteth amongst other for one of them this epistle to the B. off Vbi supra. Thessalonica. To the which your master had nothing to say, but that whether the churches than believed his testimony Caluins' vain reproving of this epistle of Leo. when he so advanced himself, that is it (quoth he) in deed that is in controversy. From the which without any further proof why it should be in controversy, he passing, addeth: But it appeareth that many offended with his ambition did also withstand his greedy desire. The which he also affirmeth without any proof, as though his words ought to have with us the authority of epistle or gospel. Except the next sentence that follow prove it, where he mentioneth that in this epistle, Leo appointed in his stead the B. of Thessalonica through out Gracia and other countries adjoining, the B. of Orleans or some other through out France, Hormisdas B. of Hispalis to be his vicar in Spain. Against all the which he hath nothing else to say, but that he ever granted his commissions upon this condition, (which we grant and never pope denied) that the Metropolitans should have their ancient privileges safe and whole: so much was your master either more shamefast than you or less impudent, who when he acknowledged this to be the true epistle off Leo, and had as many subtle shifts to avoid it as you, durst yet never bring into the light such foolish exceptions as you do. But now let us here you propose the first, for the which you have laid as a foundation to lean unto, so notable a lie. The first exception against this testimony of Leo is this: Nowell. b. 13. No man may be witness in his own cause nor judge. Therefore Leo his testimony brought forth for the pre-eminence of his own See is not to be admitted etc. This exception of yours you prove by reason, by scripture, by law. First to answer your reason if reason their may be in Dorman. any so uncharitable a judgement: I say it is false that the holiest and best men be lightly partial in their own matters. He is neither holy nor good, much less to be accounted amongst the holiest and best, that for the bettering off his own cause will serve from the truth. Your testimony alleged out of the gospel is not to the purpose. joan. 5. For that place proveth not, that always the testimony that a man giveth of himself is false, but that when a man hath to do with adversaries that will not otherwise believe him, as the Phariseis would not Christ, than he must use the testimony of other than himself. Which as Leo in such case you may be sure did: so when the matter was so far from being by any adversary gainsaid, that he made his commission B. 25. to the bishop of Thessalonica to be in his stead through out Grecia and other countries adioning as he did here, what need had he there to bring any proofs, where there was at all no doubt? If you will say, that I defending the authority of the pope bring Leo against you which are the adversaries, and that therefore now because you are against Christ's vicar, as the Phariseis were against Christ himself (for so do you confess that you M. Nowell confesseth himself to reason against Leo as the Pharisees did against Christ. reason as they did, although perhaps you would have been angry with an other that should have said so much) so I must bring other witness then him except I will take the foil: To that I answer, that you come now to late with that exception if it had no other fault. For to answer you who dispute so deeply out of the law like one that is not altogether ignorant therein, conclusum est in causa M. Nowell, & sententia transijt in rem iudicatan. I need not to expound these terms unto you who have the marrow of the gloze even at your fingers ends. For other men who have not attained to such knowledge, I say: that seeing in Leo his time when he appointed in this epistle the bishop of Thessalonica in his stead through out Grecia, and other countries adjoining, in an other place the B. of Orleans or some other through out France, Hormisdas bishop of Hispalis to be his vicar in Spain, the churches that then were and in to whose power the churches of this time succeed, excepted nothing against these doings of his in his own cause as you surmise, but suffered them to pass till our time, the space of 1100. years and odd: I answer I say for reply to your exception, that had this testimony been (being urged by the rigour of the law) insufficient, that yet uless as the church from that time hitherto accepted it for sufficient, you come now to late to propose matter against it. To make the matter by example more plain: if my ancestor a hundred years passed in a contention between him and some other about a piece of lands, would upon trust of the upright conscience of some near kinsman of his adversaries, admit him to be a witness or judge in the matter whom he might lawfully repel: might I if sentence were given against my ancestor by the means of this judge or witness, come after the 100 years and except against the witness or judge? Leo speaketh not now M. Nowell, he gave this testimony that the giveth 1100. years ago. The whole church justified his person then, to be both holy and blessed. It is to late and to much shame also for you to start up now and say the contrary. Thus much might be said if it were true that Leo had been witness or judge in his own cause. But the truth is, it is not his cause, it is the cause of Christ's church and of the whole order of priesthood. For he pronounceth for that seat unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, from whence priestly unity Cipr. li. 4. Epis. 9 & ●libi. came: Neither is Leo in this place more to be rejected for maintaining the supremacy of Peter's seat wherein he then sat, then are the testimonies of S. Cyprian, maintaining the jurisdiction of his own bishopric against stubborn rebels. Shall S. Hieromes' authority against deacons who would be equal with priests, be of no authority because himself was a priest? This is not the meaning M. Nowell of the gloze, as great a glosser as you be. The gloze meaneth that in private matters that concern the pope, as he is likewise How the gloze brought by M. Nowell is to be understand. a private man, he shall not himself be judge, but in those things which concern the whole body of the church and belong to the order thereof, and have no other judge in earth, it taketh not away the power of being witness or judge. Pighius you say alleged beside the decree of the pope, the council Nowell. fol. 46. a. 1 of Vienna, lest any man might estemethe authority the less as proceeding from the pope in his own case. And by this you say it may seem that he thinketh the pope's only testimony in his own cause not to be sufficient. Pighius was never of that mind that you would have him seem to be. When he spoke these words he touched Dorman. the humour and noted the fashion of heretics, and therefore ex abundanti he cast in the mention of the council of Vienna, which I could do also if that would help the matter, and for Vienna give you Chalcedon: for 300. bring you 630. bishops, that called Leo the kepar of Christ's vineyard, universal bishop, with other terms to that effect. I forbore to allege (I confess so much) in one place off a, 28. my book, the notable testimonies of Clemens, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Xistus, Telesphorus, Pius, Victor, Fabianus, and such other, only because the gainesaiers might happily have excepted against them, that because they were bishops of Rome they were not in that cause which was there own, indifferent witnesses. How say you M. Nowell what gather you hereof? That you might lawfully take exception to them as not indifferent? If you gather so you wrangle with me. My words that went before, in which to justify their persons and to show how unlawfully you should do it, I called them martyrs and in the whole course of their lives very apostles, do witness with me the contrary. yet said I that you might do it, de facto not de iure, as you may kill a man in deed but not by law. As fast as you say I laid on load of not only popish witnesses, but pope's themselves: for pope's I think it will be hard for you to name but one beside Leo, Innocentius and Gregory the first, whose sainges I alleged. And why I brought those rather than other I showed good cause. I deny not yet for all that, but that even this only Leo I think is a heavier load than you would be glad to bear. That I yielded so much at that time as to omit the testimonies of those notable pope's. I repent me thereof. By popish witnesses you can mean no other but the fathers off Christ's church, and those to within the first six hundred years, for other I alleged none. If as you would discredit A shift of M. nowels not heard of before to discredit all the fathers that make for. the pope's authority. the pope's because they be pope's: so you will discredit these ancient writers because they be popish and write for the pope, than you have found a more near way I confess then M. jewel could. Who alloweth all within the first 600. years. As before for the foundation of this your first exception you laid a false slanderous lie to build upon: so now to underprop the same, under the colour off a more reasonable cause of exception, you bring in a feigned story of Sozimus bishop of Rome, who (you say,) did falsify the decrees of the Nicene council, whereupon you will conclude, that neither Leo b. 3. nor any other pope neither, is to be believed in this matter. Not unlike to the foolish gentle woman that swore she would never love our Lady more, because she was a jew borne and the jews had put Christ to death. I know I shall seem to many men to digress to far from my purpose in following your roving from the matter, yet something will I say thereto, because I know it to be one of the principal baits which such fishers as you be M. Nowell, use to lay to bring men from the obedience of the Sea of Rome, and hitherto in our English tongue nothing hath been answered thereto. But because it is here impertinently intermeddled with the answer to Leo, I will first to avoid confusion end that matter, and then handle the other by itself. You say that Pighius affirmeth and I deny, that the title Nowell. fol. 48. a. 9 off ecumenical or universal Patriarch appertaineth to the bishop of Rome of right, and that therefore there must needs be some error. You report untruely of me M. Nowell. Look better upon Dorman. the place. I rehearse there the words of S. Gregory who reprehended john the B. of Constantinople for taking on him the name of universal bishop. Which title although it pertained to that john in no sense, and was as he affected it a profane title and altogether meet for Antichrist: yet in that sense and meaning that it belonged to S. Gregory (in which sense only it is to be taken when it is applied to the bishop of Rome) I denied it not to pertain to the pope. Thus do Pighius and I agree. Thus is there no error: thus go you forward to increase the numbered Lye. 33. of your lies. You marvel greatly that Leo would so ambitiously challenge Nowell. a. 14. in this epistle the same title in effect which he refused so freely offered unto him by the whole council etc. LEO, Gregory after him, Pius which is now, nor Dorman. any pope that ever was before did strive about titles you may be sure. The best title that they have each off them, hath been and is, to be called servus servorum Dei, the servant of the Servants of God. But of this may be marveled more in what school you have learned this manner, with him that of humility refuseth such titles as seem to glorious, to deal so hardly, that because he refuseth the name, he must needs be deprived of the thing. The histories make mention that Vitellius the emperor would neither be called Augustus nor Cesar, Cesar refused the name of king: Augustus and Antonius of Lords. Would your wisdom have served you now M. Nowell if you had lived in their time, to deny them their Imperial, kingly, and lordly authority, because they would not be called by such names? The council is no council where the head is absent or ●. ●0. consenteth not being present, and therefore if here this company gathered together in giving this title to the pope had judged amiss, yet had not the council erred. I deny not as you say I do, that the council did well: both the council did well in offering a name meet to express the authority which the pope had, and so erred not, and the bishop also well to refuse the same. Except you will say, that S. Paul when he refused the almoise and charity off good 1. Cor. 9 men, either did evil in refusing it, or they evil in offering it. The pope claimeth not this title, no more than Leo did accept it being offered. call him by what sober honest name you list: Grant him the authority due to him, let all titles go. This is that which the pope claimeth and you ought not to deny. This is that which Leo most modestly, not as you falsely term it (ambitiously) challenged to Peter's seat. Now let all reasonable men judge hardly of the goodness of this exception, which is a. 24. your first. The second exception that you use against this testimony of Leo (for now you say you will go an other way Nowell. a. 28. to work with me) is, that Leo saith here untruely (if these be Leo his words, for that you say is yet in controversy). But before you prove it, you will first ask me a question, whether I have truly translated the place, and if I have, how I can make these words in this epistle, there is one dignity common to all bishops, to agree with these following, there is difference of power amongst them, and, it is given to one to be above all the rest whose judgement is of most authority, b. 1. and how this man is not in dignity differing from the rest? You do like a wise man to go an other away to work, Dorman. for some men think, you did but play before. But I marvel why you should put any doubts whether these be Leo his words or no, seeing that Calvin confesseth this epistle to be true and to be his. To your first question I answer, that I have translated this place truly according to the copy printed at Colein anno 1561. To the next moved upon this, how then I can make these words agree, one dignity common to all, and difference of power, that they agree thus, that although they have all one dignity of priesthood or bishopric, that yet there is difference of power in jurisdiction. If spiritual examples like you not: if you can not perceive this agreement at home in your own chapter, where being all equal in the dignity of canons or prebendaries, yet one dean, himself also a canon and in that respect equal to the rest, is above the other in power, nor in your province of Cauntorburie where all the bishops equal in that dignity, are yet inferior to the archbishop in power, as yourself some times grant, namely before fol. 32. a. where you use the word chief prelate's of every province: yet take the pains to make a step to westminstre hall, where when you behold the honourable judges sitting in their places, although they beequall in this dignity that they be all the queens judges, yet is there you can not deny difference of power amongst them. And so have they all one dignity common to them, although some of them be in superiority above the other. I showed you before, but it pleaseth you that it be repeated here again, where with I am also not offended, that so the reader may the better understand your vanity, how S. Austen Contra duas epist. 〈…〉 ea. 1. Tom. ● writing to Bonifacius then pope, confesseth that he and other bishops have all one bishopric common with him (behold the dignity common) but that yet altius praesidet he sitteth higher, preaeminet celsiore fastigio speculae pastoralis he is above the rest in the higher top of the pastoral watch tower. And what is this but in one dignity, difference of power, whilst other bishops sit beneath and look only every one to his own flock, and he that sitteth above hath power to overlook all? This jar as you call it, is framed M. Nowell. You may now when it shall please you do this great act that you speak of, that is prove Leo untrue by two witnesses against one. Although this M. Nowell calleth Leo thief by craft. I can not pass over in silence, that where you call Leo such a witness as if a man should ask your fellow whether you be a thief or no, you liken and resemble him in those words to a thief, whom the whole council of Chalcedon B. 24. as yourself confess, called most holy and most blessed: you slander him whom they rejoiced that God had Allocutione Chalcedon Concil. ad Martianum Imp. provided for his church an impregnable defender against all errors, whom they called their head, and the kepar of our lords vinyeard. Your venimouse and virulent tongue hath not spared him being dead, whom Attila that cruel In Relatio. Synod. ad Leon. barbarous tyrant, he whom the world called flagellum dei the scourge of God, durst not touch being alive. Paulus Diaconus an approved historiographer maketh mention, Lib. 5. de Gestis Rom. that when having now spoiled Thracia, Illiricum, Macedonio, Moesia, Achaia, Graecia, Hungary, Germany, he was entered with like fury into Italy, and had taken even the high way to Rome to sack and destroy that, this holy bishop and virtuous old man Leo, accompanied (as some say) with one Consul, and part of the Senate, met him in the way. To whom after he had made a very short but pithy oration, to this effect to show mercy to the city off Rome, the cruel monster without any further hurt doing recoiled back, granted to the bishop even as he had wished before: and confessed after to those that were nearest about him, marveling at and demanding the cause of this sudden change of his mind, that it was not for the fear of his person who came unto him, but of an other reverent old man standing by him in priestly habit, who threatened him terribly with a sword ready drawn, unless he accorded to all things that he should require. Now consider you good readers what manner of man he is that raileth thus upon such a father as Leo was, and think what it is that he will take conscience in the doing or saying, who is not ashamed to diffame the chief man in his time of all the world. But now let us see how you prove Leo to be untrue. You say that he dissentith first from S. Cyprian, and next Nowell. fo. 49. a. 23 from S Jerome. From S. Cyprian, because he is of the mind that controversies should be determined in the place where they do arise, and that this sentence of his, and that no, appellations should be made to any B. of an other province, yea and that namely not to the B. of Rome, nor that he should send any legates Lateral to hear or determine foreign matters, doth the whole council of Carthage where in was S. Augustine, Orosius, and Prosper confirm. Your allegation out of S. Cyprian is of no effect Dorman. because you belie him. He speaketh not there against lawful appellations but only, that criminal causes should be judged at home. And so the pope always observeth. He calleth not the witnesses to Rome from far countries, but delegateth a legate to the province where the controversy is. The thing that specially grieved here S. Cyprian was, that these desperate men of whom he speaketh, ran to certain Numidian bishops to be reconciled of them. Of the B. of Rome that he never meant to diminish his authority, his sending a messenger to Rome to purge himself and prosecute the matter against those naughty men, with other diverse arguments and conjectures mentioned before in the 11. chap. do well witness. Of the 6. African council because it dependeth upon the matter of Zosimus, I shall in the next chapter entreat. S. Cyprian you say applieth many such places of the scriptures Nowell. 49. b. 3. as are customably alleged for the pope's supremacy over all bishops, to the declaration of the equal authority of every bishop in his own diocese. The places brought by S. Cyprian, are alleged to persuade Dormen. obedience to those that be heads and governors. The granting of one chief head over all diminisheth not the authority of inferior bishops, who in respect of the priests and people under them, are in their dioceses the high priests and princes of the people. And thus much doth Leo grant in this epistle himself. Therefore hitherto there is no jar between S. Cyprian and him. You bring the place of S. Cyprian in his book De simplicitate praelatorum, or as the truer copies read, De unitate ecclesiae, to overthrow Leo. The which place because yourself have pitifully mangled, as one that was not ignorant how evil it would have served your turn without some help of your accustomed squaring: I will take the pains to allege it truly for you. The words are these. Et quamuis Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat & dicat: Sicut misit me pater, & ego mitto vos, accipite spiritum sanctum: Si cui remiseritis peccata remittentur illi, si cui tenueritis tenebuntur: tamen ut unitatem manifestaret unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique & caeteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, SED EXORDIUM AB unitate PROFICISCITUR VT ECCLESIA una MONSTRETUR. That is to say: And although our Lord gave like power to all his apostles after his resurrection and said: As my father sent me, so send I you. Take you the holy ghost, whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you retain they are retained: yet to set forth unity he disposed by his authority, the same unity to begin of one. That were truly the other apostles also that Peter was, endued with like fellowship of honour and power, but the beginning cometh from unity, that the church may be declared to be one. These be the words of S. Cyprian faithfully alleged and truly englished. I will now repeat the matter even from the beginning and do you good Readers to understand, the cause why S. Cyprian mentioneth here at all S. Peter, and why he entereth in to this comparison between him and the other apostles, and then after make you privy to the mysteries of M. nowels slight in alleging this place, which he perhaps thinketh that no man knoweth but himself, and would I dare say be loath that any more should. For the first it is to be understand, that not many lines before this place that I have now in hand, S. Cyprian complaining of the fraud and subtility of our enemy the devil, saith, that now that idols be every where destroyed, he hath bethought him of a new way to deceive mankind, and that is by heresies and schisms to carry them out of the church. And this cometh to pass (saith he) while men come not to the beginning of truth, the head is not sought out, neither the doctrine off our heavenly master kept, which things if a man would consider and examine, there would need no long discourse nor great arguments. The truth hath made the way to prove the faith easy: Our Lord saith to Peter and upon this rock will I build Math. 18. my church. etc. And after his resurrection he saith to him, feed my sheep. And although after his resurrection he gave all his apostles like power, and so forth as I rehearsed before. After all this he addeth: Hanc ecclesiae unitatem qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit? This unity of the church he that holdeth not, thinketh he that he holdeth the faith? Thus far S. Cyprian. The occasion you see that moved him to mention Peter, Note. and to compare him with the other apostles, was because to avoid schisms we must he said seek out unity by the scripture, where we should find, that our lord would have his church to begin of one: of him, to whom he said: thou art Petre and upon this rock will I build my church. Well then must this be retained as a truth in the mean season, if we will be within the unity of the church, we must keep us in that church which beginning and springing out of one root, or flowing out of one head fountain (for these be also in this place S. Cyprians similitudes) is one. Now let us apply the place as it is alleged by you M. Nowell, and see whether you have used S. Cyprian well or no. You allege the place to prove such an equality amongst th' apostles as that there should be no difference amongst them, and so overthrow all S. Cyprians drift whereby he would prove the church to be one, because it taketh beginning of one. For if they be all equal and no difference between them, then either the church hath no one beginning or 12. beginnings. If no one beginning, how can the unity proceed of that which is not? if 12, how can the church be therefore one because as S. Cyprian saith the unity thereof beginneth of one, or what beginning call you that of unity, that cometh from such an equal multiplicity? If therefore it be builded upon one alone (as by S. Cyprian it appeareth that it must) then is that one above the rest. Now to have the church builded upon one, is thus much to say, that as in a material building there is one foundation whereupon all the rest thereof, stone, timber, Iron and what so ever else, leaneth: so there is in the church one, to whom after Christ the great rock and first ground, all the rest that be members thereof must as it were lean, he himself bearing the burden of the whole building. Is not this to be the chief stone in God's building? If you should here perhaps wrangle, and say that although it appear by this place, that Christ disposed the beginning of unity to proceed from one, and from Peter toe, that yet here is no mention that the church should be builded upon him, notwithstanding that Christ speaking off Peter said he would build it upon that rock: then I remit you for the proof that S. Cipriammeaneth so here, to those places of his lib. 1. epist. 3. epist. 8. 12. lib. 4. epist. 9 lib. de habit. Virgin. lib. de bono pati. epist. ad I ubaianum. And last of all to the epistle ad Quintum where he hath in express words against this equality that you dream of: Petrus quem Dominus primum elegit & super quem aedificavit ecclesiam suam. Peter whom our Lord chose to be the chief and upon whom he builded his church. This because you saw M. Nowell M. Nowell shamefully misuseth S. Cyprian, that the very words of S. Cyprian in this place did purport, and that alleged wholly they were to unequal to serve your fantasied equality, you first hewed of this knot, Et quamuis, and although. Then you shaved clean away, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, yeat that he might make unity manifest, unto this place. Hoc erant utique. And yet that sentence escaped not your fingers, for the last part thereof: Sed exordium, but the beginning proceedeth from unity, you pared clean away. First the word Quamuis, although, is of such a nature, that where so ever it be put, it is a messenger that signifieth some diversity like to follow, as when S. Cyprian said here, although the Apostles were equal, that which followeth, yet he disposed the beginning off unity to begin of one, argueth in that point some inequality. Again, the words that follow: tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, yeat that he might make unity known, and, ut ecclesia una monstretur, that the church may be showed to be one: These you passed over because in them lieth the very cause, why our saviour hath appointed one to be above the rest, for unities sake: because otherwise it could not have been chosen, but so many rulers so many faiths, and then where had unity been? Beside this, the word ab uno incipientem, beginning of one, left also quite out, overthroweth that false proposition of yours, that to unite the church and make it one in earth, there needeth no other head than Christ which is in heaven. Which if it had been so, what need was there that Christ should appoint a mortal man to that office, as here it appeareth he did Peter. To this most shameless mangling and mutilating of this and other like places of the fathers used by you and your fellows, I say as S. Cyprian in this very place saith to such like crafts men, that used so to allege things to their vantage in his tyme. Corruptores evangelii atque interpretes falsi extrema ponunt & superiora praetereunt, partim memores, partim subdole corrumpentes. ipsi ab ecclesia scissi sunt, ita capituli unius sententiam scindunt. That is to say. The corrupters of the gospel, and false interpreters take that which cometh behind, and leave out that which goeth before, partly mindful, partly craftily corrupting. As they are themselves cut from the church, so divide they the meaning The answer to the place of S. Cyprian. of one sentence. Thus much of your falsehood in alleging this place. Now to the place I answer, that S. Cyprian sayeth not, that Christ gave like power to his Apostles in all respects absolutely, but determineth particularly wherein this equality doth consist, as in being sent to preach through out all the world as Christ was sent by his Father, in power of forgiving sins. Which power being given to them straight upon Christ's resurrection, and being common to them as they were all the general legates of Christ through out the world, derogateth nothing by S. Cyprians mind from that special authority that Christ departing out of this world gave to Peter to continue. And therefore to show that this was his meaning, even as before S. Jerome after the like equality mentioned Cap. 13. in the Apostles, concludeth, (that notwithstanding) that Peter was chosen to be the head amongst them: so doth here S. Cyprian after the general rule that they had all like power, add as an exception from the rule, the same that S. Jerome hath in other words: Tamen ut unitatem etc. yet to make unity manifest he disposed the beginning thereof by his authority to begin of one. Thus much may suffice to satisfy your wondering M. Nowell, with what face I have been so bold and busy with S. Cyprian. To the place of S. Jerome which you bring also to fol. 50. a. 9 b. 6. prove that the dignity of a bishop is not esteemed by the greatness of his diocese or city, and that all be equal in office, I say: that it is true that the dignity of a bishop dependeth not upon the greatness of his diocese: but it is false that there be no degrees in the office of a bishop. That you bring Erasmus to prove it, it forceth not. For he is with Catholics of no more authority than Pighius is with you. That between S. Cyprian Jerome and Leo there is no disagreement. The 15. chapter. You are now come to the comparing of the sainges of S. Cyprian and S. Jerome, with the testimony of Leo bearing witness (you say) to himself. The which you compare first after this sort. Leo saith, In the holy Apostles themselves there was a difference Nowell. b. 8. of power, and that it was given to one to be above all the rest. On the contrary part S. Cyprian saith, the Lord gave like and equal authority to all his apostles: all the Apostles be endued with like fellowship both of honour and power. Neither are Leo his words truly alleged, neither yet Dorman. S. Cyprians. Leo sayeth, that inter beatissimos Apostolos False dealing in alleging the words of Cyprian, and Leo. in similitudine honoris fuit quaedam discretio potestatis, amongst the blessed Apostles in likeness of honour there was a certain difference of power, & quum omnium par esset electio, uni tamen datum est, ut coeteris praeemineret. And whereas they had all one calling, yet it was given to one to be above the rest. S. Cyprians words are, that although our Lord after his resurrection gave all his Apostles like power, (behold the likeness of honour that Leo speaketh of etc.) yet to make unity known he disposed by his authority that it should begin of one (Lo here, quaedam discretio potestatis, that certain difference of power acknowledged by S. Cyprian, that Leo mentioneth). What jarring is there here M. Nowell, their words being truly alleged? Nay what sweet consent is there between these two learned fathers? Leo saith there was amongst the Apostles a likeness of honour, but yet a certain difference of power, he saith their calling or election was like, but yet given to one to be above the rest. Doth not S. Cyprian say the same, when first in their election to be sent into all the world to preach, then in the power of remitting sins he maketh them equal, and yet in adding afterward this particle tamen, but yet, he noted a certain difference of power, this forsooth, that upon one of them the beginning and very foundation of unity should be laid, notwithstanding all the equality otherwise? Is this true dealing M. Nowell thus to bring in M. Nowell mangleth the words of Leo and S. Cyprian to make them disagree. mangled at your pleasure the sainges of the fathers, to deface them to the world, as here you do, by taking from the words of Leo this particle quaedam, making him to seem the more to differ from S. Cyprian, and cutting from S. Cyprian those words, that unity should begin of one, containing that certain difference in likeness of honour that Leo speaketh of? You say that S. Cyprian hath this in his book De simplicitate praelatorum, noting them as double faced prelate's that teach or attempt to make one bishop above an other. The true title of the book is De unitate ecelesiae, of the unity of the church, as to him that shall read it, may easily by the contents thereof appear. You are therefore a double faced or many headed prelate, that for one chief head give us so many. You proceed in your comparison and say, that Leo hath: out of this form is taken our difference of bishops, that in every province one be Dorman. chief and of most authority, and the bishop of greater cities to have greater care, and consequently that he that sitteth in Peter's chair should have charge and be head of the universal church. Thus (you say) Leo saith because he himself would be Lord and head over all the church, whereas S. Cyprian on the other side saith: Every bishop hath his several portion of Christ's flock to rule and govern etc. that those who are under the charge of the B. of one country, may not appeal to a bishop of an other, for that the authority of one bishop is not inferior to an other, nor the authority of the B. of Africa is less than the authority of the bishops of Italy, or Rome itself (for his words have evidently that relation (and that none think the authority of one bishop to be less than the authority an other but a few wicked and desperate men. You were driven to the wall M. Nowell when you were forced Dorman. for a poor shift to say, that Leo said as he did, because he would have been lord and head over the church. S. Cyprian saith that every bishop hath his several portion. The same saith. Leo. Leo saith that the charge of the universal church must Lib. 1. ep. 3 have recourse to Peter's chair. S. Cyprian saith not the contrary. Yea so saith S. Cyprian toe, calling Rome matricem, the mother church. And whither should children I pray you have recourse for secure but to their mother. He saith not that the subject of one bishop may not appeal to an other, Lies. that is one lie: He saith not that the cause determined by one bishop may be called before no other, that is an other lie. He maketh no comparison as you say he doth, between the bishops of Africa, Italy and Rome, behold the third lie. He saith not that none but a few wicked and desperate men think the authority of one bishop to be less than the authority of an other: which if he should yourself were like by that means to be of the number of such desperate and wicked men, who before acknowledged chief prelate's, a word that presupposeth other that be inferior, and fol. 32. 2. be contrary to himself, as I proved before by his writing to Steven the pope, whereby he required him to take order by his letters for the removing from his bishopric, Martianus the B. of Arles, and by that, that himself sent to Rome to Cornelius to try the matter before him with those evil men that complained upon him there, by his excepting against the sentence given by the pope for the restitution of Basilides, for no other cause but because it was obtained by false information. All which examples do not only prove that he was not of the mind that no one bishop was above an other, but this also, that the B. of Rome was of greater authority than the bishops of France, Spain, or Africa. Hitherto of the disagreement between S. Cyprian and Leo, which by this time all men, I trust perceive to be no such as you vaunted it was, yea to be none at all, but such consent rather as in diverse words there can not be greater. It followeth that we examine how Jerome and Leo agree. S Jerome (you say) hath, that all churches worshipping one Nowell. fo. 51. a. 10 Borrowed out of Calvin Inst. lib. 4 cap. 7. Sect. 3. Christ and observing one rule of truth, are equal with the church of Rome, that all bishops be the successors of the Apostles and of one priesthood, and of the same merit and dignity. But Leo saith contrary, that it was given to one to be above all the rest, and that they who be in greater dioceses or cities have more care and authority, and that the only see of Peter hath charge of the universal church and is head thereof. You belie S. Jerome. He saith not that all the churches Dorman. A lie. 38. in the world be equal. If he did, he should say contrary to Irinaeus, who saith that the church of Rome hath potentiorem principalitatem, greater sovereignty than other churches have: contrary to S. Cyprian who calleth Rome the Li. 1. cap. 3 Lib. 1. ep. 3. mother church, the root and principal church, and contrary to S. Austen who calleth it the church in the which the principality of the apostolical see hath always flourished. Epist. 162. He saith that Christ's church is not divided, * Nec altera Romanae urbis ecclesia, altera totius orbis existimanda. as though Rome were one and the whole world an other. As for that, that he saith that all bishops be the successors off the apostles, those words make marvelously for the opinion of Leo against you. For upon that proposition of S. Jerome I reason thus. All bishops be the successors of the Apostles: but the Apostles were not all equal, because as S, Hierom saith Peter was their head. Ergo by S. Hieromes, mind all bishops who be their successors be not equal, but have the successor of Peter their head. Again, Peter was head of the Apostles, and made because there should arise no schism amongst them. Ergo the B. off Rome who is Peter's successor, must be head of his fellow bishops for the same cause. These two propositions, that there was amongst the Apostles one head, and that that was Peter, be S. Hieromes' own in his first book against jovinian. The words although I rehearsed before, yet because they pertain not only to this matter, but to show also how these three, Cyprian, Jerome, and Leo, meet and knit as it were together in this sentence, that Christ appointed over his church one general head: I will recite once again. The words therefore of S. Hieron to jovinian be these: At dicis, super Petrum fundatur ecclesia, licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes apostolos fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur, tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio. That is to say. But thou sayest: The church is builded upon Peter, although the same in an other place be done upon all the Apostles, and all of them receive the keys of heaven, and equally is the strength of the church grounded upon them: yet for all that is there one chosen amongst the twelve, that by making a head amongst them occasion of schism may be taken away. See you not now by this place of S. Jerome, M. Nowell how the equality of power that S. Cyprian speaketh of, the similitude of honour and equality of calling, that Leo remembreth, the building of the church in one place upon all the Apostles indifferently that S. Jerome mentioneth, notwithstanding: they all three conclude in one manner (with this word tamen, notwithstanding) that the church was builded upon one, that there was one head, that there was one preferred before the rest. This place of S. Jerome as it utterly stoppeth their mouths, who reason that the Apostles were absolutely in all points equal: so confirmeth it most strongly the answer made before to the place of S. Cyprian (that the Apostles were all of equal power and authority) that that was true at the first, but joan. 20. that after, our Lord (last before his ascension) gave the joan. 21. chief authority to one, in respect as one was chosen from the rest upon whom the church should be builded. S. Jerome saith that all bishops are of one priesthood and of the same merit: you play the falsifier and add of your own, and of the same dignity. The gentlewoman that translated a. 24. S. Hierom falsefied by adding the word (dignity) which is not in him. the Apology hath pre-eminence: which maketh me to think, that you borrowed this patch of her, as liking better to be a follower of her falsehood then of his simplicity, that translating Caluins institutions translated the place truly. Now for further answer to this place of S. Jerome it is to be understand, that he speaketh here of the custom which was in Rome, that at the testimony off deacons priests were promoted to orders. The which when he saith, he speaketh not of the B. of Rome himself and his authority, but of the use and custom of that one city. Now is this a thing most certain, that neither doth the pope require nor ever did, that all churches should follow the private customs of his church. And therefore saith S. Jerome, that the custom of the city of Rome is not the custom of the world. Yea in such a case if the custom came to be tried, the pope himself would say: Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis est maior urbe. If you seek to maintain this custom by authority, the world is greater than is a city. Again where as you would persuade men that all bishops be equal, because S. Jerome saith that they be of equal merit and priesthood: So were the Apostles toe, yet was one above the rest for all that, as Jerome himself confesseth calling Peter the head appointed by Christ. You have heard good readers and I trust in part understood, what shameful shifts M. Nowell hath made, how busily the man hath bestirred himself with false additions, wrong translations, hacking, hewing, and dismembering of sentences, how he hath spared no villainous words or impudent lies to deface this virtuous and learned father Leo. To show himself no changeling, he concludeth with a conclusion like to his premises, that he thinketh that fire and water are not of a more contrary nature, then are S. Nowell. a. 31. b. 13. Cyprian and S. Jerome contrary to this epistle alleged as Leo the pope's epistle, beside S. Augustine and 200. and more bishops agreeing with them against this Leo. He repeateth again his exceptions, that Leo in his own cause is to be suspected, that it is to be doubted whether it be Leo his epistle in deed or an others under his name, that the words of his testimony be either manifestly falsified, or at the least in diverse copies not only diverse but clean contrary. And here his tender heart could not suffer him any longer to refreine himself, but needs he fol. 52. a. 2. must burst out and lament as it were the case off the pope and popery, that is brought now to such misery, as that being forsaken of all men almost learned and grave, it could find no other patrons but such as I am. although for that he confesseth, that all such as are godly and love the truth have cause to thank almighty God. How contrary Leo is to S. Cyprian and S. Jerome, Dorman. let the learned judge: how S. Augustine and the other bishops make for you, the next chapter because it dependeth upon the history of Zozimus shall make evident. To the being witness in his own cause, to the doubt of the work whether it be Leo his or no, hath been answered before. Although to certify you further in the last point, albeit reason would you should have showed some better cause of your doubt than you have, lest by that means every authority brought against you may be called in to controversy, if it please you to doubt thereof: I do note to you here in the margin other places out of the same Sermon. 1. 2. 3. In die Anivers. assumpt. suae ad Pontificat. Leo his works, no epistles but certain sermons of his, where you shall find that Peter into whose place he saith that he unworthily succeeded, had the same right over the universal church that here in this epistle he challengeth. For the words that they be not falsified in this epistle, I alleged before a copy printed at Coleine, which readeth as I do. But than you say that the words be clean contrary, and so that it is impossible that both should be true. Nowell. B. 22. I am content M. Nowell to you, that you take the Dorman. place of Leo how you will, and read either as some copies have, without non, or as other have, with non: and when you have done, all shall come to one sense. For although non being but a little syllable be notwithstanding of great importance generally, yet here by reason of the word ordo which is ambiguous, and signifieth either a corporation and body, as we use to say the honourable knights off the order, or proportion in array, as when the herald telleth every Lord what order he shall keep in their solemn processions or other assemblies, where this word is taken in an other signification: and also of the word dignitas which being in like manner ambiguous, signifieth either the dignity of the state of bishops, or superiority in that state: it maketh no diversity at all. When we read thus: Quibus etsi dignitas non sit communisest tamen ordo generalis. To whom all though there be not one dignity common, yet is there one order general: we understand by this word (order) the whole order of bishops, amongst whom although there be diversity of dignities, yet because bishops, archbishops, primates, patriarchs, pope's, be all bishops, we say: that, that order of being bishop is common to them all. Likewise in this reading we take dignitas, for superiority in that order. As contrariwise in the other reading, Quibus etsi dignitas sit communis non est tamen ordo generalis, we understand that dignitas doth signify that, which ordo did before, and ordo signifieth that which dignitas did, that is superiority and pre-eminence in that vocation. We were not blind you see M. Nowell, and I trust will bear us witness. I think we saw more than you would we should have done. As for my part, by whose taking this cause in hand you judge that the matter should be brought to great extremity, I confess (God is my witness) that had I known that he had minded to have written therein who did, that I think I should never have taken pen in hand to have written, nor when I had done and ended my labour, and knew how much, how learnedly had been said for the defence thereof, should ever have suffered the same to go in to the knowledge off men, had I not followed the judgement off my betters therein. To which good meaning of mine at the first, and ready obedience to my superiors at the last, seeing that it hath pleased almighty God to give such success, as that M. Nowell having uttered all his eloquence, and spent all his other store in awnswering (of 143. leaves) to only 15. hath not yet answered truly to 15. words: I can not but think, that his pleasure was by a young man such as I am, to show how little those great pillars off their side were able to do. I am not I confess of that reading and study in divinity that many other be in our country. What so ever it be that is in me, I vow it to Christ and his catholic faith against all heretics and heresies during my life. And surely that little which I have, shall I trust (I will say with S. Cyprian, dico provocatus, dico dolens, dico compulsus, I say it being provoked, I say it sorrowfully, I say it compelled by you thereto) be sufficient at all times to match with you in any of those four questions that I have handled in my book. For why should I doubt, by the aid of God to be able to say in defence of the catholic faith, more than you shall against it? You say, that hitherto I have proved nothing, and that I Nowell. fo. 51. b. 1. have gone about most lewdly to gather, that because every several country, city, and company, have their several princes, rulers and heads, that all churches dispersed in all countries, cities, towns, villages etc. should have one only head here in earth. I reasoned and yet do reason in this wise: Every several Dorman. country, because it is one body, every several city and company for the same cause, must have their several rulers and heads: Therefore all the churches in the world being but one mystical body, must have one chief head to rule and govern the same. I reasoned after the same manner: Every particular church as hath S. Cyprian and S. Jerome, must have one bishop to rule the same, and to be the head thereof. Therefore the whole church of Christ where the danger of schisms is greater, and the mischief likelier to happen, must have in like case one head. I have showed you now that your reasons to the contrary: There is no one head over all the kingdoms in the world, and it is impossible that there should be one such, therefore in like manner it is impossible that there should be one general head in earth over the universal church, Fol. 32. b. 14. are of no force, uless as the difference of these two states is such, as suffereth Supra cap. 11. fol. 49. b. &. 50. b fol. 50. a & 61. a. not your argument to hold. As because the division off unity, (that is of faith) in the church, for the maintenance whereof this order was taken that there should be one head in the whole church, is marvelous dangerous to christian men, forasmuch as without faith there is no salvation, as hath our Saviour himself: Qui non crediderit condemnabitur: Marci vlt. Heb. 11. he that believeth not shall be damned. And the Apostle, Sine fide impossibile est placere deo, To please God without faith it is a thing impossibile. Whereas it is not so touching the observation of any other unity amongst Christian men in civil policy, forasmuch as it is not necessary that all agree in common government, but they may well according to the diversity of countries, tongues, conditions of men, have diverse manners of living and government. Yea it is necessary (the contrary natures of men and countries so requiring) that there be not only diverse but contrary positive laws in diverse countries and provinces. When notwithstanding, no diversity of natures, no variety of customs, no circumstances what so ever they be, can excuse them from the uniform observing in all the whole world of god-den commandments, and ministering of his sacraments, without the which there is no entrance to life. To this may be added, that to govern the whole church in spiritual things, how hard and impossible a thing so ever it seem to you, is yet much more easy to be done then to govern the world in temporal government, both because the business and affairs of the world are more diverse and contrary then are those of the church, and also because the sword of excommunication wherewith the head of the church doth punish rebels, and such as forsake the truth, passeth sooner and easilier to the correction of such offenders be they never so far of, then doth the material sword which the temporal magistrate useth. Again, that there should be one head over the whole church it is Christ's institution, who would so have it, when committing to Peter the charge of aswell his sheep as his lambs, he made him general shepherd, and Homil. 87 in cap. 10. han. 21. ruler as saith chrysostom, over the whole world. Whereas in temporal government, it appeareth not by the scriptures that he planted ever any such order. Nay the scripture Eccles. 17. maketh mention of the contrary if we will believe you. It followeth. Nowell b. 17. You have heard also, how ignorantly (if he did not understand) how shamelessly (if he did understand) he hath alleged S. Cyprian and S. Hieromo for him etc. Men have heard M. Nowell doubt you not, how like a Dorman proper man you have quit yourself. And yet as though no man had seen you hitherto, with a shameless repetition of a number of lies made before, you turn you as it were about again to be better considered. How S. Cyprian and S. Jerome make not against me but evidently with me, how vain or rather a balsphemouse lie it is to say, (seeing God hath so appointed it to be) that it is impossible that there should be one only head over the whole church: How my witnesses agree with most perfit consent, it hath been to your shame before declared. You see there was no such opinion, much less knowledge, Nowell. of any such head amongst the Apostles or in the primitive church, but that it is a new devilish devise of the late ambitious bishops of Rome: who when they were never able yet hitherto, well to rule the church of Rome, one city (as by all histories and experience is evident) would yet of the world usurp the superiority and supremacy. And if S. Paul did think he was not meet to have charge of one church who could not well govern his own house: of what monstrous ambition and presumption is he that being never yet able to govern one peculiar church, doth claim the regiment of all churches through out the world, whereas he is not able to tell the only names of a small part of the said churches, neither knoweth in what part a great many of them be. Are you not ashamed M. Nowell to call it a new devilish Dorman. devise of the late bishops of Rome, and to say that there was no such opinion of one head amongst the Apostles or in the primitive church, seeing that S. Cyprian, and Jerome who you say untruely are against Epist. ad Quint. fracrem. Lib. 1. adverse. joninian. me, do make mention thereof as I showed before? The words I alleged before, it shall here suffice to note the places. There was never yet such a governor, as could so rule his charge were it of any compass, that there were not many things amiss therein. The church off Rome hath been so governed, that it was never hitherto stained with heresies, which seeing none of the other apostolical seats can say, both must you be enforced to acknowledge Gods mighty providence in preserving the same, and to grant withal, that if that order to have one general head over the whole church were now to begin, and the head to be chosen, that there were none to be preferred before the bishop of that See. Because you make mention of S. Paul, who thinketh him unmeet to have 1. Timoth. 3. the charge of one church that can not govern well his own house: you put me in remembrance, that S. Ambrose expounding the same place, calleth Damasus the pope, the ruler of the whole church. And so there is one witness more by your good occasion given, to prove that this manner of head was not unknown in the primitive church, and that therefore you falsely slandered the late pope's and so have increased the number of your lies Two lies. 40. with two more. If no man may have under his governance greater compass than that he can tell if he be required the names off the cities, towns, villages, hamlets, etc. that he is king or Lord over, and in what part of his realm they stand, you will with your wise divinity, bring the world to a good pass shortly. It is not necessary that the French king, the King of Spain, the Queen our masters, or any other Prince, do know the names of all the parts that they be chief governors of. It sufficeth that their inferior officers do, and that if there arise any such controversy as they be not able to order and determine, they may then advertise the chief governor off all, who may by his greater power redress the same. Even so is it in the Pope M. Nowell, who hath the oversight of the whole church, not to govern all the members thereof himself by himself, but by the help of his brethren, who are called into part of that charge with him. That Zozimus the bishop of Rome, corrupted not the canons off the Nicene council. The 16. Chapitre. BECAUSE you shall not suppose M. Nowell, that I answer here to your by talk of Zozimus, as forced by necessity, but only as I told you before, for this that although it be not pertinent to the matter, it is yet a foul fol. 46. b. 3. slander to that blessed bishop, and brought commonly by your masters, to bring into hatred the See of Rome: I will this tell you before hand, that you are like to have as little honesty by the proposing of this exception in form of law against my witness, as you had worship (when being prolocutor in the convocation house, you would as it is reported, have first passed by the house, that they should all be taken for heretics that would not agree to a law that should be afterward made. And when you thought to conclude (being earnest to have your wise devise take place) upon the silence that then was in the house (every man being astonished at so foolish a demand) by this maxim in the law: Qui tacet consentire videtur, he that holdeth his peace seemeth to consent, where a wise man and a great lawyer telling you that in making of laws the consent must be express and not presumed: you sat down in your place, as wise as before you stood up. If here therefore happening upon the rule: Qui semel est malus semper praesumitur malus. He that is once evil is ever presumed nought, you thought, that if you were able to prove Zozimus a falsifier, you should discredit also Leo, because he was a pope as well as the other, you were surely greatly deceived. For this rule is personal M. Nowell and not local. Otherwise because it is in any court in England a good exception against his testimony that serving sometimes in your church of Paul's, and being now one of your chief preachers, stolen away the chalice, a man might take the same exception to any other honest man of the same church. But this being I suppose well enough known, how childish and unsavoury a kind of proof, how far from the purpose this that you bring of Zozimus is; let us examine how true it is, that he falsefied the canons of the council of Nice. How prove you this to be true M. Nowell I pray you? I prove it (say you) not by two only, but by 217. witnesses, Nowell. fo. 46. b. 23 the whole council of Africa, amongst whom was S. Austen, Orosius, Prosper, with many other bishops notable in learning and virtue. Well I am content to wink at you M. Nowell as cruel Dorman. M. Nowell rejecting Leo as witness in his own cause allegeth the Africanes in their own cause. Nowell. fo. 47. a. 1. as you were with me, for bringing the testimony of Leo in his own cause, and I will be ignorant that this was the Africanes cause, or that they were African bishops that gave this sentence that you speak of. But what be the words I pray you that they use against Zozimus? Do they call him expressly a corrupter and a falsifier? They all, as in their epistle to Celestine one of the successors of this Zozimus appeareth, testify that there was no such matter for the B. of Rome's superiority as was by pope Zozimus alleged, neither in their usual copies of the Nicene council, neither in the authentical examples which were sent them by ciril patriarch of Alexandria, and by Atticus patriarch of Constantinople: which authenticalles agreeing with their own copies, and all other copies every where, had no such thing as Zozimus alleged, but had the clean contrary: for that the 6. and 7. decree off the said Nicene council, make the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antiochia, and Jerusalem equal with the B. of Rome. If this be all M. Nowell, then are you a corrupter and Dorman. a falsifier of the sainges of 217. bishops. The more they be 217. bishops slandered by M. Nowell. in number, the greater in virtue and learning, the more is your fault to be detested of all men. They said that they had received from Cyrillus and from Atticus certain copies of the Nicene council, in the which they could find no such thing as the pope claimed. What thereof M. Nowell, was then the copy that Zozimus had at Rome falsified? Or if it were falsified must it needs be by and by falsified by Zozimus? Might he not allege it as he found it left by his predecessors? Seeing these learned fathers never used such words, but on the contrary part called him in their letters to Bonifacius after his death, beatae memoriae, Venerabilis memoriae, of blessed remembrance, of venerable memory: surly you have with the better sort not a little impaired your estimation, to use such cankered words, and father them falsely upon the council. But not staing here, nor contented only to have said this, you charge him further, with the maintaining of one Apiarius against his fo. 46. b. 19 bishop called Vrbanus. This is a malicious surmise of yours M. Nowell and hath no ground. You say, that Zozimus pretended that it was decreed at Nowell. fol. 46. b. 12. Nice, that the B. of Rome should be the chief judge above all other bishops, and that it should be lawful for any man under any other bishop, to appeal to the B. of Rome as to the highest judge over all ecclesiastical persons. You have made two lies at once. For first, whereas Dorman. to make men believe that the Africanes acknowledged no manner of jurisdiction in the B. of Rome, you feign the state of the cause between the pope and the bishops of Africa to have been, that he pretended a decree of the council of Nice to be chief judge above all other bishops, as though the Africanes had denied that, and not stood rather upon this point to limit and restrain his authority in matters criminal, and causes of correction, that is one spiteful lie. As to them that considre how in matters concerning A lie 41. faith, the Africanes submitted their doings against August. epist 90. Prosper lib. contra Collator. cap. 41. Pelagius and Celestius the heretics, to Innocentius, and this very council to Zozimus the pope's, by them to be approved: how they required Innocentius to cite to Rome Pelagius the heretic being then in the east so far from Rome, it is a thing most evident. So that to allege this fact of the Africanes truly, helpeth nothing your cause at all: as by a familiar example of our own country may be proved unto you. It is not unknown, that there be some places in England so privileged, that for contracts made within those places, they can be called from thence to none of the kings courts, yet cease they not therefore to be the kings subjects. Now if the Africanes pretended that they were not to be called out of their own country to Rome, for such causes as seemed to them reasonable, namely as they themselves alleged, because it was a cumbrous thing to call witnesses for every thing by danger of sea to Rome: yet would they not hereby take away his authority, and withdraw their whole obedience. The second lie is, that the B. of Rome should pretend that it Concil. African cap. 105. A lie. 42. should be lawful for any man under any other bishop to appeal etc. That this is a lie the epistle written by the bishops of Africa to Bonifacius the pope doth manifestly show, in the which they making mention themselves of such points as were contained in the pope's letters, say, that the third was, de tractandis praesbiterorum & diaconorum causis apud finitimos episcopos, si a suis excommunicati perperam fuerint, of pleading the causes of priests and deacons before the next bishops, if they were unjustly excommunicate by their own. Is this now sincere dealing M. Nowell, to say that the pope pretended that any man under any other bishop might appeal to him, whereas here appointing the priests and deacons to the bishops of their own country, he releaseth all such right. But hereof I shall have anon more occasion to speak, when I come to that place where you charge the council of Africa with making a decree, against sailing over the sea with controversies or appellations to the B. of Rome. In the mean season I will return to the accusation put in by you against Zosimus. M. Nowell you have for your part done what you are able, to prove Zozimus a falsifier and can not: I will for the justifying of his innocency, prove by such means as a negative may be proved, the contrary, that he is no falsifier. First I say therefore, that this canon of the council of Nice was not only alleged by Zozimus, but, if not before Zozimus was borne, yet surely almost 100 years before he was ever pope, by Athanasius B. of Alexandria, by all the bishops of Egypt, Thebais and Lybia. Who writing to Felix the pope make express mention thereof, not by hear say, but of their own certain knowledge, as they that were present at the making thereof. Their words are these. Nam scimus in Nicaena magna Synodo etc. For Epist. Athanasij et Egypt. pontific. ad Felicem de in festat Arianorun. we know that in the great Synod of Nice where were 318 bishops, it was of them all by one consent confirmed, that neither councils should be holden, nor bishops condemned without the B. of Rome his sentence: that these and many other very necessary synodical chapters are burned and taken from us * The heretics burned the canons of the council of Nice. by heretics, which daily molest us and seek our destruction, that they may thereby the easilier entrap us. Whereupon having found occasion, all canonical and Apostolical authority indifferently contemned, they drive us unlawfully, * An absurdity to deprive bishops without making the pope privy thereto without making you privy thereto from our own bishoprics, invade the sheep committed unto us from Christ * The apostolical seat maketh bishops. by the Apostolical grace, and deprive us of our degrees. To Marcus who was bishop of Rome before Felix, they writ for the true copy of the council: they make express mention of 70. canons that were there by their own knowledge agreed upon. Marcus writeth again: his epistle is to beseen, that he hath not only inquired out the truth of those canons of such about him as were also present at the said council, but by searching the records of Rome, had found all things to be as they had written in their letters. Now join these two letters of Athanasius together M. Nowell with the answer made by Marcus, and cry shame to yourself that have so injuriously defamed this blessed bishop, as with the crime of forging a decree, which Athanasius and all the bishops of Egypt, Thebais, and Libya, testify by their letters to have been truly made almost a hundred years before his time, in the council of Nice, where they were present. Confer now the testimony of the bishops of Africa, with the witness that Athanasius and the other bishops of the east give to this matter. The one part saith they could find no such canon in the copies that were sent from Constantinople and Jerusalem: and no marvel the canons being burned as Athanasius saith so long before: The othersaieth, it was in the copy sent from Nice to Rome. The one part denieth not but such a canon might be else where: The other saith there was such a one, and showeth that it with other were burned by the Arrians in the east churches, that they might the rather overrun the catholics. The one part giveth a perfect cause of their testimony, because they were present when the matter was concluded. Imagine now the other, who having sought in the east church for such a decree said they found no such, to say (which they do not) that they had hard of some that were present at the council, that there was no such thing decreed, which witnesses were to be believed? This that hath been said, may seem I doubt not to any reasonable man a sufficient cause, why we ought to give full credit to Athanasius, and those other bishops, and pronounce for the innocency of Zozimus. yet to make it the better appear how true it is that Athanasius Many canons made in the 1. council of Nice. that we have not now. saith of the burning of the Nicene canons, I will note unto you certain canons, which the fathers and stories off the church witness, to have been concluded in that council, which yet are not amongst those twenty which we have. I will first begin with S. Ambrose, who telleth you M. Nowell, that you have done evil being twice married, Epi. 82. li. 10. colun. 11 Note. M. Nowell. to thrust yourself into the ministery of the church, not only because the apostle (he saith) forbiddeth it, but the fathers also in the council of Nice. S. Augustin reporteth that there was a decree made in the council of Nice, that a bishop should not ordain his Epist. 110. successor bshiop with him, notwithstanding that him self (he confessed) by ignorance thereof, was so ordained by Valerius his bishop and predecessor. justinian the emperor saith, that it was defined by the first four general counsels, that the B. of Rome should be Constitut. 131. the chief of all other priests. S. Jerome saith, that the book of judith was counted amongst the canonical by the fathers of Nice. In praefat. in judith. Theodoritus allegeth a decree of giving ecclesiastical degrees, of consecrating bishops, made also by the council of Nice. Lib. 5. cap. 9 Leo affirmeth that there was an other canon touching the doctrine of Christ's incarnation. Epist. ad Leonem, 78. Where is there any canon of the observation of the Easter day, the desire of the uniform observation whereof, Histor. tripart. lib. 1. cap. vlt. Hear. 70. Lib. 2. ca 2 was one cause why the council of Nice was called? yet doth both Epiphanius and the tripartite history, make mention of a decree made by the father's touching the same. Your Apology citeth out of the council off Nice, that we ought not to be humiliter intenti ad panem et vinum, over basely bend to bread and wine. We confess it to be true, but show you it amongst the canons. Who doubteth that the council of Nice was assembled together against Arrius? yet show one canon against him amongst the 20. that remain. Was there think you none made? That were surely a strange matter, that in the whole doings thereof, nothing should have been concluded against him, for the repressing of whom the council was specially called together? How say you now M. Nowell, is it likely that the Arrians burned the canons of the council or no? Are all these falsaries and corrupters that have alleged thus many canons to be of the council of Nice, because at this day there is none of them extant? I think you will not say so. If you will not, why Zozimus more than they? Yes you say there is an other cause, why if not Zozimus (for I think by this time you be ashamed of that matter) yet some other hath fasified those canons. What is that I pray you? Because there appeared in the copies sent from the east, the Nowell. fol. 47. a. 11. clean contrary to that which the pope claimeth. For the sixth and seventh decree off the said Nicene council, make the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antiochia, and Jerusalem, equal with the bishops of Rome. truly if it had been so, it is marvel that Athanasius, Dorman. who was there present, should have been ignorant of it. Therefore except you will say that either this epistle is feigned and not Athanasius own (as that is wont in other authorities brought against you to be your common and last refuge when you be sore pressed, which if you do, you must not only say it, but prove it also): Or that his memory was so evil that he could not remember so notable a thing so lately before done, or his malice so great that he would feign that which never was done: you must needs grant, that this sixth and seventh canon have an other meaning then to make the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antiochia, and Jerusalem, equal with the bishops off Rome. And so have they in deed. For the true meaning of The true understanding of the 6. and 7. canon of the council of Nice. them is, to appoint the limits and bounds of those primates jurisdictions, of whom mention is there made, according to the custom of the bishop of Rome. As the words which answer truly to the greek and are in Latin these, do well declare. Antiqui mores obtineant in Agipto, Libya, & Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus horum omnium habeat potestatem, quia & episcopo Romano hoc consuetum est. Similiter etiam per Antiochiam & in caeteris provincijs privilegia seruentur ecclesijs. Let old customs be kept in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapoli, that the B. of Alexandria have the authority over them all, for as much as the B. of Rome's manner is such. semblably also, through out Antioch and in other provinces, let the churches have their privileges kept. These words of the council, as they do nothing at all diminish the B. of Rome's authority, so do they confirm it very much. The reason of the council why the jurisdiction of the B. of Alexandria should extend so far, being (beside the ancient custom in those parts) the custom also of the B. Rome, who it is to be thought used of long time so to allow it, by containing in his rescriptes those provinces under the patriarchy of Alexandria. Which was now brought as an argument to confirm and continue the same. For this meaning that they should be all equal in power and authority, there is no word there able to induce. Except a man would bring in those grave father's reasoning thus foolishly: because the B. of Rome hath jurisdiction over his own bishopric (for more you give him not, and the council nameth no place at all) therefore the B. of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all the bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapoli. Had not this been think you a goodly making of them equal? If you will say that the council ment that the B. of Rome should be patriarch in the west parts, and therein they should be equal, beside that there be no such words in the council to enforce such a meaning, yet should we of England be never the nearer, for our lot being to be still under the bishop of Rome, all your labour were lost. And again one chief rule of yours overthrown, that all bishops be equal. Which I desire the learned reader to note diligently. Because you kept before M. Nowell such a stir to have all bishops M. Nowell cast in his own tune. equal. Whereas even this very council that your self bring, by making only three of all the world equal (if that were the meaning of the council) do the evidently overthrow you. Well, whether be liker of these two senses to be the sense and meaning of the council, I will leave to the indifferent and learned to judge, who I doubt not when they shall easily perceive, that the council attributed so much to the authority of the B. of Rome, that his custom was alleged to prove the jurisdiction of the B. of Alexandria, to be as a direction not only for that, but also for the conserving of the privileges to other churches thorougheout Antiochia and other provinces, he will with as like facility espy, how this sixth and seventh canon, do not only not disagree with that alleged by Zozimus, but also peaceably agreeing together, the one confirm the other. Thus much touching these canons that you would so feign have made contrary, without showing the points wherein the patriarchs should be equal with the B. of Rome) to the other alleged by Athanasius, and after him by Zozimus. Having already sufficiently declared, that Zozimus is not guilty of the crime laid to his charge, I will add this as for a more confirmation, that Zozimus if there had been No cause way Zozimus should forge a canon. no such canon in the council of Nice, had yet no cause to forge one (which he was not so simple but he well knew would not if he did, long be unespied, and then the shame would light upon him) seeing that he had for him the council of Sardica, not long after that of Nice (for Osius the B. of Corduba in Spain was present at them both) nor of much less authority neither, as in the which were. 300. bishops, not of one province, but gathered together out of all the world, out of Rome, Spain, France, Italy, Campania, Calabria, Aphrica, Sardinia, Panonia, Misia, Dacia, Dardania, an other Dacia, Macedonia, Thessalia, Achaia, Epiros, Thracia, Rhodope, Asia, Caria, Bithynia, Helespontus, Phrigia, Pisidia, Capadocia, Pontus, Cilicia, Phrygia again, Pamphilia, Lydia, the Islands called Cyclades, Egypt, Thebais, Libya, Galatia, Palestina and Arabia. I say that he had for his purpose the canons (namely the fourth and seventh) of so general a council as this was, in which were also the bishops of Africa themselves, whom he might have objected. 300. if you go to numbering (Athanasius that strong pillar of Christ's church being one of them) against. 217, witnesses all (if I would reason as you do (in their own cause. I am not ignorant that Calvin being not so impudent as you, saith that Zozimus alleged this decree of Sardica as a decree of the council of Nice. But as you in that point more wily than he, saw that he Distitut. li. 4. cap. 7. Sect. 9 could never be able to prove that: so perceived you also that he had far overshot himself in making of the council holden at Sardica any mention at all, and therefore you thought it wisdom slily to slip it over, and to involve it utterly in silence, lest thereby you might give occasion to some to search that council, that otherwise would never have thought of it. It followeth. And the said. 217. bishops made a decree in that African Nowell. Fol. 47. a 15. Concil. African. cap. 105. council, that no sailing over the sea with controversies, nor appellations to the B. of Rome, nor sending of his legates Lateral in to their countries as judges, should be used, according as by the epistle of the said whole council sent to pope Celestin it appeareth. Behold good Reader a most impudent man, who is Dorman. not ashamed to name an epistle for the proof of that which is not there. Read over the epistle here mentioned, if there appear to be any such decree made there as he saith there is, never let me be credit more. The bishops of Africa in those letters of theirs, desire Bonifacius the Pope in this wise: deinceps ad aures vestras hinc venientes non facilius admittatis, that you will not hereafter over easily admit to be heard such as come to you from us. Again, they apply the canon of the council of Nice forbidding to receive Can. 5. to communion such as be excommunicate of other, to this, that the pope receive not such, vel festinatò, vel praepropere, vel indebite, either with to much haste, or to rashly, or not duly: they desire his holiness to repel improba refugia, wicked refuges. Finally, they pray him to call home his legate from thence with these words, probitate ac moderatione tuae sanctitatis salva, the goodness and moderation of your holiness excepted. Where be now the words M. Nowell that you ground your decree upon? Doth not the contrary rather appear by this epistle, that he might receive such appeals, but not commonly, and rashly, not but upon great advise? Otherwise to what end were those words of not receiving complaints facilius, to lightly: or these, praepropere, indebite, etc. to rashly, unjustly? Why said they not rather boldly and freely, our authority is as great as yours? Why invade you other men's jurisdiction? Why usurp you where you have no right? Why bad they him not call home his legate, telling him if they had made such a decree as you say they had, that they had made a law amongst themselves that neither they should sue to him, nor he send his legates to them? What meaneth all this humble submission of theirs, but the contrary to this which you affirm, that there was yet no decree made, or if there were (which notwithstanding appeareth not by this epistle) by this humble demeanour of theirs towards the pope, to move him the rather to bear with, and to confirm their doings? But there appeareth no such decree to be made amongst them, by the epistle here alleged. Except of that particular narration of theirs of the incommodious calling of witnesses to Rome by sea, of that they found not (they said) ordained by any council of fathers that his holiness (I will use their own words) should send anielegates lateral thither (all the which was written to move the pope as is may seem, to consent to their petition) except I say of this particular narration, your wit will serve you to make a general decree. Which is like enough to be your meaning by the wise reason that followeth, taken from the superscription of the letters sent to Celestinus. Belike you remembered the maxim of the lawyers, that those things which help not alone, may yet gathered together stand in some stead. You go forward and say. For the which it pleaseth D. Harding to call the Aricans, amongst Nowell. ●. 25. whom S. Austen, Orosius, and Prosper with many other learned and godly bishops were, schismatics: as those that submitted not their necks to the pope, and following Hosius his auctor, he saith that Africa continued in this schism 100 years, to wit from Boniface the first to Boniface the second. M. Doctor Harding never mentto involve S. Austen, Dorman. Orosius, or Prosper in any schism with the Africanes. For as at this council it appeareth not in the records thereof, that Orosius (who never was bishop but only a priest, and therefore could give no definitive voice in the council that consisted of only bishops) or Prosper either, were present: so is it more than probable, that S. Austen who to the first epistle sent to Bonifacius gave his consent and subscribed with other, wherein they protested to observe all things demanded by the pope till they could get from the east the true copies of the council of Nice, it is I say more than probable, that uless as in this latter epistle to Celestinus, no mention is made of him at all, notwithstanding that he was legate for Numidia, his name so famous, his bishopric so great, that he saw in the mean season so much right in the bishop of Rome's cause, and so little in the other (although by no means their doings tended to the universal abrogating of the pope's authority) that he refused so much as to put his name, or suffer himself to be named in those letters of theirs. So that before you had charged M. D. Harding thus odiously, you ought to have proved that such a decree was made in the African council, and have noted to us the canon, then that Orosius and Prosper were present at the making thereof, and gave their consents thereto: Last, because you seeing that the decree of the council was not to be found, referred yourself to the epistle written to Celestinus, you should have told us in what words there the mention of this decree lay hidden, and proved although S. Austin's name be not there mentioned, that yet he consented thereto. Again M. Nowell, when this matter between the B. of Rome and the Africanes began first to be called in question, it was entreated with such humility and submission by the Africanes, as appeareth by this epistle to Celestinus, that they could by no means be accounted schismatics. Afterwards in deed the matter grew so far, that it burst out in to open schism, and so continued to the time of Boniface the 2. To the which schism that ever S. Austen, Orosius, or Prosper consented, or any other good catholic priest or bishop, you shall never be able to prove. And so this lie with that huge Lye. 43. heap of all the rest remaineth with you, and the truth with us. But because you brag as you do of the company of S. Austen and Prosper, and slander them to the world to be schismatics: I will in defence of their innocency allege out of their works so much, as shall I trust with the better sort suffice for their purgation. Who is it I pray you M. Nowell that saith of the church of Rome, that in it the principality of the apostolic chair hath August. epist. 162. ever flourished? Who calleth Bonifacius, (the same in whose time this controversy was moved) the bishop that hath Lib. 1. contra 2. epis. Pelag. ca 1 the pre-eminence in the bishoply care above all other? Who calleth the See of Rome (alluding to the words of Christ in the Psalm contra part Donat. gospel) the rock which the proud gates of hell shall not overcome? Who but S. Austen, whom you be not here ashamed to match with yourself, as thinking of the pope and See of Rome as heretically as you do. To come to Prosper, when you here him acknowledge, that Zozimus (of whom all this talk riseth) added to the decrees of the African councils, sententiae suae robur, the strength and force of his sentence: Lib. contra Collatorem cap. 41. that with Peter's sword to the cutting of, of wicked men he armed the right hands of all bishops, (for so are his words in Latin) ad impiorum detruncationem gladio Petri dexteras omnium armavit antistitum. When you are not ignorant (if you know any thing) that the same Prosper saith, Lib. contra Collatorem cap. 10. that the holy See of Rome spoke to all the world by the mouth of Zozimus: Will you not for shame call back again that wretched slanderous lie off yours, that Prosper should be touching the bishop of Rome of the same mind that you are? Was Zozimus taken off Prosper to be a corrupter and falsarye, a countrefeite catholic, and in deed a false schismatic from Christ and the truth, as your venimouse tongue hath not feared to pronounce of him? Is fire more contrary to water then is this judgement of yours, to that of Prospers for his virtue and authority? You pretend that the fathers of the council of Carthage would bar Zozimus of all authority: Prosper telleth us that so much he was esteemed of them, that they had the strength of his sentence added to their decrees, as much to say, as to confirm and allow them. You call him a corrupter, a falsary, a countrefeite catholic, a false schismatic: Prosper calleth him one that armed the right hands of all bishops with Peter's sword to cut of wicked men from the rest of Christ's mystical body the church. You restrain his power to Rome: Prosper confesseth that by his mouth the See of Rome spoke to all the world. If this be not more than impudency good reader in M. Nowell, than what is impudency I confess I know not. But acknowledged Prosper this authority in Zozimus only? no verily. For in Celestinus to whom this epistle here mentioned was sent from the African bishops, he witnesseth that there was such power, that he cured the Island The pope meddled in England, Scotland, France, and in the East. off Britannye infected with Pelagius heresy, that he ordained Palladius bishop over the Scottish men, that with the Apostolical sword he aided Cirillus the B. of Alexandria, to purge the churches of the East of a double plague, the Nestorians and Pelagians: that in France he put them to silence who reported evil of S. Augustins' writings. Finally to them that rejected certain books of S. Augustins' upon pretence that they were not allowed by the pope, he answered An exception in the primitive church against books that they were not allowed by the Pope. Ibid. ca 43 in this wise: Agnoscant calumniatores superfluò se obijcere, quòd his libris non speciale neque discretum testimonium si● perhibitum, quorum in cunctis voluminibus norma laudatur. Apostolica enim sedes quod a praecognitis sibi non discrepat, cum praecognitis probat, & quod judicio iungit, laud non dividit. That is to say: Let these wranglers know, that they object superfluously that there is no special nor several testimony given to these books, the rule and doctrine whereof is praised in all books. * Note. For the Apostolical See alloweth with those books that it knew before, those that differ not from them, and those which it joineth together in judgement it separateth not in praise. Now to conclude M. Nowell, are you no otherwise a schismatic think you then S. Augustine, and Prosper? I would to God ye were not. Then would you acknowledge with S. Augustine a pre-eminence in the B. of Rome above other bishops, the seat of Rome to be such as hell gates shall not prevail against it. Then would you submit to the pope your doings to be allowed, as both S. Augustine and the whole council of Africa did: then would you extend the jurisdiction of that See to England, Scotland, France, and to the east churches. Then would you confess that the B. of Rome for the time being is the mouth to speak to all the world, and beareth the sword of Peter to cut of wicked men, to help and arm the good. For all these things do S. Austen (as hath been declared) and Prosper acknowledge. Whereby appeareth, how shamefully you have slandered them with the maintenance of your schismatical and erroneous opinions concerning the See of Rome. To S. Augustine, Orosius, and Prosper, you join the patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople, Cirillus, and Atticus. But why them I pray you M. Nowell? Because in those canons that they sent there was no mention of that which the B. of Rome alleged. I grant you, for they were burned by the Arrians as by the report of Athanasius you heard before. And must they needs be schismatics with you because the Arrians burned the true copies of the council of Nice, and they sent such as they had? How holdeth that argument I pray you? Well, you thought every thing would help and therefore you jumbled all together, let it speed as it might. * The answer to the objection made of the African council. Now to return to the African council, and to conclude in few words all that hath been or may hereafter by me be said therein: I first say that the African council made no such decree as you say it did: next that at this time when S. Austen and the other bishops of Africa were assembled, about the time of Bonifacius the pope the first, the controversy was not about the universal authority of the B. of Rome, but touching the moderation and limiting thereof in certain causes of appellation. The like whereunto as it hath been attempted and done in this realm of England, in the days of that noble prince Edward E. 3. anno 25. &. 27. the third, by restraining the pope's power in conferring of ecclesiastical promotions, and barring the trial of certain suits out of the realm, without breach of unity, or renouncing due obedience to that See: so was it at the beginning in Africa, although after it broke out in to an open schism. Thirdly I answer, that if there had been such a decree made as is pretended, yet this considered that it had but the authority of one province, it ought to give place to that council, at the which there were present bishops, not of Africa only, who were also there, but off all the parts of the world beside: I mean the council of Sardica, in the third and 7. canon whereof (the bishops of Africa consenting thereto) 300. if you go to numbering M. Nowell for your 217., and chosen men all of purpose to match with the Arrians, agreed upon this which the Africanes denied, to wit, that it should be lawful for any bishop condemned to appeal to the bishop of Rome. Last of all, iff you think M. Nowell that it may be lawful for you to object against us the fact of the Africanes, who upon such beginning as hath been declared came at the last to open rebellion against their lawful head, I doubt not but to all that be learned or wise, it will seem as reasonable, that we object to you again, the perfect reconciliation and humble submission of the said Africanes, made after a hundred Epistol. Bonifacij 2. ad Eulalium Alexand. Tom. 2. Concil. years wandering a stray, after great plagues by longue captivity, under the most barbarous and cruel Wandales, by Eulalius the archbishop of Carthage in the name of that whole province, to Bonifacius then pope, the second off that name. Thus much touching the African council. It followeth. After this Zozimus, his successor Bonifacius the first, Celestine the first, with all others almost, following Zozimus steps and Nowell. b. ●4. ambition, have with tooth and nail striven for this supremacy, and for that purpose did stick still to the falsified Nicene canon, and have likewise falsified other councils in sundry places, and have forged a great many of the epistles now abroad, in the names of the old pope's, Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Telesphorus and other their predecessors. surely M. Nowell if there had been that sincerity in Dorman. you and uprightness that should be in a divine: yff that gravity and poise that should be in a writer: yff that common honesty, that should be in every Christian man: you would either for the one respect or the other, have so tempered your style, that there should never have slipped from your pen into the view of the world, such cankered and rancorous slanders against such learned and virtuous fathers, so sclendrelie yea by no means at all proved. Bring forth the canons therefore that you say have been falsified: name the pope's that have forged these epistles? Name them not only but prove it, otherwise you willbe taken for a malicious Liar. Think you that it may be sufficient for you to borrow this out off calvin's Institutions, and without any farther proof bid Lib. 4. Inst. cap. 8. Sect. 11. all the world believe you? You be not Calvin M. Nowell, nor England is not Geneva God be praised therefore? But you prove it thus. Whereas ever those godly old fathers ever subject to persecution Nowell. fo. 48. a. 3. and death, never thought of any such matters, neither had lust or leisour to occupy their heads and pens about such ambitious matters. You are foully deceived M. Nowell: for the greater the Dorman. persecution was, the more necessary must it needs be, to teach that order which Christ left in his church of the necessity of one head, that so the members acknowledging the same, might be out of the fear of all schismatical discord. Neither made they so often mention thereof for ambition sake, as your spider's nature sucketh out, having learned at their masters hands before, that the greatest amongst them should belike the least. Who seeth not that Lucae. 22. by such foolish collections as this is, a froward heretic might deny S. Paul's epistles to the Corinthians, especially the Latter, in the which (the case so requiring) he glorieth so far, that himself confesseth that he hath played the fool 2. Corinth. cap. 11. 1●. compelled thereto by them. Iwis S. Paul was as much subject to persecution and death as any of the pope's that you have named. He had as little lust or leisour to occupy his head or pen about the setting forth of himself, to boast of his apostleship, to tell of his revelations, as any of them. But necessity compelling both him and them to stand upon their authority, it was expedient that they should earnestly set forth the same. The epistles that you speak of here to have been forged, were gathered together above nine hundred years passed by one Isidorus, archbishop of Hispalis in Spain, so that when you come to prove this matter, those pope's of these latter nine hundred years you see how they be discharged. Now M. Nowell, if you think that you have walked long enough out of the way, we will return thither from whence we departed, to the. 53. Leaf of your book. The which because as the reader may see, it containeth nothing but very matter of brags not worthy to be answered, I step over. Ofschismes and sects wherewith M. Nowell burdeneth the Catholics. The 17. Chapitre. HERE M. Nowell by occasion of a few lines (but such Nowell. fol. 54. a. belike as touched him to the quick and made him to wynse) discourseth in many leaves in defence of schisms and sects. This note of mine, whereby I admonished the reader for better credit to be given hereafter to the ancient father's Cyprian and Hierom, (who telling us that the not obeying of one chief head in one several diocese is the cause of schisms and heresies, say withal although not in express words asmuch by force of greater reason, unless there be one such head acknowledged and obeyed in the uniform government of the whole church) to have an eye to the present schisms, which have burst in upon us in our country, in stead of one common received truth in the days of our fathers: this note I say, so graveled M. Nowell, rubbing him on the very head of that festered boil of his poisoned heresy, that he could find no ground to stand upon, but needs must he fling out and lay about him, as a man half wood, and beside himself, sparing none, not the blessed Apostles them selves. He beginneth this pastime after his accustomed manner, with this Lewd lie. It is well known that there is as much consent in true doctrine Nowell. A facing lie. 44. in the church of England at this time, as ever was in any realm at any time. What a face think you hath this man, or hath he any Dorman. face or forehead at all? I will not trouble him with foreign realms, showing him what consent in true doctrine there is presently in many Catholic countries, nor I will not appeal to all the former ages that have passed. I will only put him in remembrance, of the consent in true doctrine in our own country fifty years ago. Can you say M. Nowell (for with you I love gladliest to talk) that there was then any dissension in doctrine at all? Can you reckon us up any diversity of opinions touching belief in all the realm of England at that time? Will you say they had no true doctrine at all, and therefore no consent in true doctrine? If you say so, then name us a time when there was ever true doctrine in England, that such a time being known, it may be proved unto you, that there were no such sects and schisms then, as rage's amongst you now. Note unto us the year and religion used at any time since our realm was first christened, when you writ next, that we may ask you whether at that time Canterbury, Rochester, Glocestre, were of one opinion concerning the presence of Christ's most blessed body & blood in the sacrament, and London, Winchester, and Dirham, of a clean contrary, as they are now that occupy these rooms. Who hath not heard of a sermon lately preached before the Queen's majesty in the defence of the real presence, and the preacher called of his brethren for his labour an ass in a Rochet, the Sermon itself, by a mighty Samson shortly after as it seemed confuted? Is this a consent in true doctrine M. Nowell? Have you not heard off these Sermons? Or if you heard them did you nod there while and bear so little away, that you have clean forgotten the whole matter, telling us now scarce out of your sleep, that you have as much consent in true doctrine as ever was in any realm at any time? How many of your brethren be of Verons' mind touching predestination? Let M. Moulins the usurper of the Archedeaconry of London your neighbour, tell you M. Nowell, why he did excommunicate M. Thomas Walbot a ministre in London. Let the said Walbot instruct you who they are that in his learned supplication to M. Doctor Parker, he calleth Florinitians. Tell us M. Nowell whereof it proceedeth, that three of the most grave, modest, and learned amongst you, men, to say the truth, in all respects (heresy set a part) worthy to bear the office off M. D. Parker. M. Cheyny. M. Gest. true bishops in Christ's church, are of their subjects so contemptuously set at nought: whereof I say it proceedeth, that one is called Matthew meal mouth, a Lince wolsy bishop etc. that the other hath Moyer the minister of Wootton under headge borne out against him, the third termed an Ass, but of this that there be schisms and sects amongst you? Are you ignorant M. Nowell what communion M. Whittingham celebrated at Duresme, not only against the mind of his bishop, but the order appointed also by the communion book? Never heard you what a singular and strange manner off baptism he devised and ministered at Duresme? Is all this in your eye consent in true doctrine, when you agree not amongst yourselves neither in the substance of the chiefest Sacraments, neither in the manner of their ministration? Are we ignorant think you of the Anabaptists, Arrians, Eluidians, and whole swarms of these and other heretics, that lie smothering in corners looking for the joyful time of their deliverance in to the world and broad light, as you and your fellows did 30. years ago? Are we ignorant thereoff, because when some of them stirring before their time are brought before your bishops, they are with good words (of great policy) dismissed, with exhortation to them to live like quiet subjects, etc. Lest such hasty and untimely teeming, might be not only the utter ruin and overthrow of all those heresies that having now continued almost twenty years begin to grow to man's state, but of so much fair issue also as that cursed mother is like to bring forth hereafter? judge you us to be such dolts, and so deprived of common sense, that we understand not to what end the favour showed to an Anabaptist, an Eluidian or any other heretic, for the cruelty practised on the catholic, tendeth? Argueth it not to the world that you seek rather means politicly for the time to stay them, then utterly for ever to repress them? Well, thus much off your private dissensions, and lurking heresies (whereof one of late in spite of all policy sustening Verons' heresy touching predestination. to abide no long burst out) hath the blast off common fame blown over to us. What other privy store of opinions and several doctrines may be found among you, they know best that best are acquainted with you. We as we can not know all, so we can not report all. This that hath been brought is sufficient to prove you M. Nowell a loud liar, until you show the like to have been amongst us before your heresies began. The which because you despaired to be ever able to do (for you confess hereafter that there was at that time a coloured kind off quietness amongst us, fol. 56. b.) You bethought you off a better council, that is, to say that amongst the Apostles of Christ, the learned fathers of the council off Nice, and other off no less fame in Christ's church, there have been also schisms and sects. your words are these. And though there were not a perfect consent of all men in all points, what marvel yet were it, if that should happen amongst Nowell. us, which was not altogether lacking amongst the Apostles themselves, etc. This impudent and blasphemous shift you have borrowed Dorman. of your Apology, the Apology of john Calvin, he of that great Lombard the devil himself. But here I beseech Staphilus in Epist. ad Episcop Eystetensen. the consider with me good reader, what either a miserable and detestable religion is this, either else what weak but shameless patrons hath it found, when such faults as be noted therein can no otherwise be excused, but by sclaundring most wickedly the learned doctors of the church, the general councils of the same: yea the most blessed and glorious apostles themselves. Tell these new gospelers that whereas the church of Christ is Matth. 5. a city builded upon the top of a hill, a candle set in the house to give light to all that be in it: a kingdom that reacheth from sea to sea, and from the East to the west, that Lucae 11. Psalm. 71. their church that they boast of is a secret scattered congregation unknown to all the world and to themselves toe, you shall have a peevish proctor step forth and answer as M. Nowell did before: we take this objection as Supra. fol. 39 a. 32. no reproach being common to our congregation with the primitive church of our saviour Christ and his holy apostles, specially in the time of persecution. Charge them as I do here with schisms, and you have heard the answer thereto already. The reporter whereof and as many as before have used this and like defences: I can resemble to no worldly thing better, then to a filthy and beastly sow, who being fowl and bemired herself, never careth to be clean, but fodeth on still in the dirt beraieng all things that she meeteth or rubbeth herself upon, as these schismatical proctors do, not caring so much to purge themselves, as to lay their filth upon other that be clean, and to make them tumble and wallow in the mire as they do. Now to this blasphemous shift because it is in the confutation of In the 3. part fol. 136. and seq. the Apology so learnedly answered, I will say no more, but that it is most directly repugnant to the holy scriptures, which bear witness, that credentium erat cor unum & anima una. Those which believed (at the first preaching of the Act. 4. Apostles) were of one heart and of one mind. It tendeth The Apostles varied dot in doctrine. openly to the defacing of that mark which Christ as of all other the most certain and sure to discern those which are his, gave to his disciples, when commending peace and unity he told them: In hoc cognoscent omnes quia mei joan. 13. discipuli estis si diligatis invicem. In this (mark) shall all men know that you are my disciples if you love together: M. Nowell chargeth the Apostles, as the heathen philosophers did. that finally it cometh from the ethnic and heathen spirit of certain vain philosophers as witnesseth the learned father Cirillus the B. of Alexandria, who made in his time this very objection that M. Nowell now doth. Th● Lib. 1. contra lulianun which place may it please the learned reader to view, and there shall he find, that this good bishop was so assured off that perfect agreement of the Apostles, that he was not afeard to make the offer to those vain philosophers (that so reasoned with him as M. Nowell doth with me) to leave to defend them any farther, in case they could prove any disagreement amongst them in doctrine. Now that you have done with the Apostles, you come to the fathers and doctors of Christ's church, of whom you say. What wondre if that were amongst us touching some points, Nowell. that was not wanting in the primitive church amongst the old fathers? Let the variance amongst the bishops assembled at Nicene council: let the contention between the bishops of the east and west church about the keeping of Easter day, * Behold an arrogant spirit, taking upon him to judge and reprehend, the most virtuous and learned bishops of the East and west church. Dorman. a matter not worthy of such variance, be a witness thereof. This vain objection, borrowed also of your Apology, as is almost altogether what so ever you have here patched up in five leaves concerning this matter of schisms, is in the answer thereto made, abundantly satisfied. Thither I refer thee (good reader) where as thou mayest find, that some of these controversies here mentioned by M. Nowell were of matters indifferent and not determined by the church, other some not of doctrine or religion, but off private quarrels, as happened amongst the fathers in the council of Nice: finally, some such, as be schisms (if they be schisms at all) in logic, not in divinity or matters off faith: so in matters of weight arrested upon by the determination of the church, such strifes can not be named, neither by this schismatical proctor neither yet by any other. So great cause we have to give thanks to almighty God the preserver of his church, who hath so mightily defended the same, that when schismatics and heretics have done all that they can, for the better cloaking of their dissension, to prove the like in the fathers and learned doctors that have gone before, they being not able with all that malice can devise or falsehood invent to spot them there with, are compelled at the last with shame enough to twhite this great post to a pudding prick, saying that there be schisms amongst the catholics about Genus and Species, and the rest of the predicables, because forsooth some men be of one mind about them, and are called by a name agreeable to their opinion, Nominals: other some off an other mind, and be called reals. But you have better stuff than this you will say, for you ask. What be these Benedictines, Cistertians, Carmelites, Carthusians, Dominicans, franciscans, with others like an huge numbered Nowell. 54. b. 25. but names of popish schisms and sects? Who all forsaking the religion and name of Christ, have chosen to be called religious, as by a special name of a several religion, and to be named after Matth. 23. men their fathers on earth, forsaking the heavenly father etc. That whereof your Apology for shame would say Dorman. nothing, you, so much are you one alone more impudent than so many as were the compilers thereof, set out to the vantage, making a great matter thereof. Your Apology saith, I say nothing of so many diversities of friars and mocks. You say, they shall not escape your hands so. You call their names, the names of popish schisms and sects, their persons you charge with the forsaking of the name and religion of Christ etc. Had it not been better for you M. Nowell to have imitated also the countrefeit modesty of your Apology, rather than by such unmerciful dealing to slander and belie your Christian brethren? Thought you that you should be able to make any honest nature believe, that these religious men whom you here name, professing to be of this, or that order, should in so doing forsake both the religion and name of Christ? What is, if this be not an impudent lie, of all other that I have heard, most like to that made by your fellow Fox, when he saith that Bradforde was charged by the queens council that then was, amongst other things with the believing Acts and monuments fo. 1173 b. and preaching of Christ crucified. What will these lying Masters be ashamed to feign that utter such untruths as these are? It is false that you say (to colour the better your slaunderousse report) that they have chosen to be called religious as by a special name of a several religion. For as the religion is not several but the same that is common to all true Christians: so never gave the professors thereof any such name to themselves to be called religious. The uniform consent it is of good men through out all the world that hath given them that name, as to those that having chosen a kind of life more straighter and painful than the common sort of men have done, the rather to attain to the perfection (as much as man's infirmity will suffer in this life) of that one religion which we all profess: have seemed best worthy thereof. It is the manner therefore of conversation and living in this one common religion, that severeth the followers thereof from the rest, not religion Religion hath two significations. itself. Religion hath two significations M. Nowell. The one concerneth faith, and so there is in all the world but one religion, to wit of the catholic Christians, as S. Austen noteth: the other pertaineth to virtue and good life. And so there are both diversities and degrees of religion, as the same S. Austen reckoning up Anachoretes, Eremites, Cloister monks, nuns, and colleages of religious, not without rejoicing therein objecteth Lib. de morib. eccl. Cath. cap. 31. to the Manichees. But how forsake they the religion and name of Christ M. Nowell, why tell you us not? Think you that it may be lawful for you in print to use your pulpit talk, and flowing in your ruffianly Rhetoric to drop in slanderous lies, as you do, without all proof? These religious men that you mention, follow Christ in poverty as the Apostles did, and many holy men in all ages have done, and as Christ himself gave the young man council to do, that asked what way he should take to get heaven, when he bade him, if he Matth. 19 would be perfect, to sell all that he had, give it to the poor and follow him. They vow chastity to be the more apt to serve Christ as the Apostle saith of them that be 1. Cor. 7. unmarried. They renounce themselves utterly (by vowing obedience to their head) which our Saviour willeth Lucae. 9 them to do that will follow him. In all this what is there to be misliked? where is any forsaking of Christ's name and religion? Where are the popish schisms and sects, that you ravingly talk of? If these be schisms and sects, if to live thus be to forsake Christ's name and religion: then is Christ the auctor of our schisms, then have the holy fathers Paulus, Hilarion Anthony, Basile, Jerome Austen, yea the Apostles themselves forsaken Christ's name and religion. Who both have practised this kind of life in themselves, and earnestly comm●n did the same to their followers. O God for thy mercy how perilous are the days that we live in? How far are the heresies of our time passing those which in times past have been raised up, and have raged in thy church? This manner of life which M. Nowell here declameth against, and calleth schismatical, persuaded by Christ, practised by the Apostles, and from their time continued in the church till ours, as the stories of all ages bear witness, hath been by good men always honoured, by tyrants and infidels wondered at, even by the worst kind of men well spoken of, only proud protestants, and licentious Libertines, who neither can say well nor do well, call it schismatical, term it a for saking of Christ's name and religion. Whereof as we have here by one of them a glimmering in general words: so hath his fellow given us a perfect sight and full view thereof, in the combat that he keepeth with the blessed spirit of that holy saint, than whom since the Apostles time I may be bold to say, there lived not one that expressed Fox keepeth a combat with S. France's in his Acts and monuments fol. 70 more near the life and conversation of our saviour, S. Francis himself. He calleth him Assisian ass (because he was borne in a town called Assisium) rude idiot, and Frantic francis: himself being as very an ass as ever was bread in the mountains of Arcadia for so saying, a right idiott for calling the wisdom of God foolishness, 1. Cor. 3. and if not when he made that huge dunghill, yet surely at that time when he imagined himself to be an Urinal, a frantic Fox. And why giveth he to him these reproachful titles I pray you? Forsooth he calleth him Ass, rude Ideott &c. because (I will use his own words) hearing upon a time how Christ sent forth his disciples to preach Fox's testimony of Saint Francis. he thought to imitate the same in himself, and his disciples, and left of shoes, 〈◊〉 but one coat, and that of Vile cloth, in stead of a latchet to 〈◊〉, and of a girdle he took about him an hempen cord, and ● appareled his disciples, teaching them to fulfil (for so he speaketh) the perfection of the gospel, to apprehend poverty, and to walk in the way of holy simplicie. He left in writing to his disciples and followers, his rule, which he called Regulam evangelicam. i. the rule of the gospel, as though the gospel of Christ were not a sufficient rule to all Christian men but it must take his perfection of frantic Francis. Hitherto this frantic fox. Now whether these be just causes to storm and took on as he doth against this blessed saint (for either these be the causes or he giveth none at all) let the wise and godly reader judge. Whereas he calleth him frantic, for calling his rule the rule of the gospel, what would he have said of him, if he had termed it a rule of man's invention, which now rageth so for calling it the rule of the gospel? But he quarreleth with him, because by this rule given by him to his disciples it should seem that the gospel off Christ were not a sufficient rule etc. O fond man. By that means might he also call S. Paul frantic, for writing: Follow Philipp. 3. me brethren, and mark them which walk so, as we have given you the example: As though the example of Christ were not sufficient, but it must take his perfection in saint Paul. For even as S. Paul willed the Philippenses none otherwise to follow him, then as he followed Christ: so did saint Francis give no other rule than Christ had given before, as the title of his rule itself doth declare. And as S. Paul willed them to follow him because he followed Christ, so delivered S. Francis to those that would follow him, that rule of Christ to be embraced, in such sort as he had given them the example before. This fox runneth on his course, and spareth not with his tail to cast his urine in men's eyes. For he addeth: This Francis as he was superstitious Fox counteth it superstition to cast away worldly Gods. in casting all things from him, even also the girdle, girding a cord about him: so in outward chastising of him self: so straight he was to himself (leaving the ordinary remedy appointed by God) that in winter season he covered his body with ice and snow. He called poverty his lady, he kept nothing over night. marvel not now good reader if M. Nowell call religious men popish schisms and sects, if he charge them with forsaking the religion and name of Christ, when thou hearest the abandoning and casting away of worldly goods, the embracing of poverty, the free committing of a man's self to God's providence, without cark or care what shall become of him on the morrow (according to Christ's own counsel) the chastising off Matth. 19 & 6. the body to make it serviceable to the spirit, used by saint Paul, when I say thou hearest all this expressly called superstition, cease to marvel any longer. Of this blessed 1. Cor. 9 saint S. Francis, I could say much listed I to make impertinent discourses. Although of his virtue and holiness there can be no greater testimony, then that his enemies themselves can find nothing to object against him but that which christ and his Apostles taught and practised, and every good man should wish to be in himself. For which cause Henricus Pantaleon an heretic as M. Fox is, but yet of a more calmer spirit, speaking of him in his chronography, useth these words: S. Franciscus Asisius Pag. 95. Hispanus, sanctitate & erudition illustris in Italia claret. S. Francis a spaniard of the town of Asisium, famous for his holiness and learning flourisheth in Italy. Well you see good readers what nowels our unhappy age that can abide nothing that well is, hath brought forth. You see what foxes Satan the master of the game hath unkenelled in our country of England to destroy our lords vinyeard. You are not ignorant what flesheflies and canon crows have builded their nests even in the church off God. Our Lord grant us as we see them and know them, so to flee them and avoid them. But now to return to M. Nowell, some man may happily ask me what answer I make to the scripture noted here in the margin forbidding expressly that we call not men our fathers on Fol. 54. b. 31. Matth. 23. earth which these orders of religious men do. To this I answer with Euthimius, Theophilact, and S. Hierom upon this place, that we are not by these words forbidden to Euthimius Theophilactus, Hieron. in. ca Matth. 23. call them that begot us either to the world by the flesh, or to God by the spirit, fathers. The words of Euthimius are these. Hoc dixit non prohibens vocari patres eos qui juxta carnem genuerunt etc. This Christ spoke, not forbidding them to be called fathers who have begotten other either carnally or spiritually, but that we might know who is chiefly and as the very first cause to be called our father. For that father of ours is god only that is in heaven: they that beget us after the flesh or after the spirit, be workers together with God and ministers rather of our nativity. He saith therefore, call none your father in earth, as your chief father, and first cause (of your being) for that father is but one which is in heaven. With Euthimius agreeth Theophilact, saying of this place. Non ut neminem patrem vocent, sed ne ignorent quem principaliter patrem vocare oporteat. Not that we should call no man father, but that we should not be ignorant whom we ought specially to call fathers S. Jerome moveth this very objection upon this place, How then the monks of Egypt, and Palestina were called fathers, how S. Paul contrary to this precept 2. Cor. 5. (forbidding aswell the name of master as of father) called himself the master of the gentiles. To the which he answereth agreeing with Euthimius and Theophilact, that there is one principal master, one special father, that all other be fathers and masters, but not properly. Thus called S. Paul the Corinth. His children and him self 1. Cor. 4. their father. Thus called the monks in S. Austin's time their heads fathers. Thus call those of S. benedict Lib. de morib. eccl. cathol. cap. 31. his order S. Benedict their father, because Christ wrought by him as an instrument this spiritual birth in them. Thus do the Cistertians, Carmelites, Chartusians, Franciscans, with the rest. Amongst whom I can not but note how warily and wisely you passed over the Augustine's, left you should either have been driven to make S. Austen the auctor of a popish and schismatical sect, or else be compelled to recant your words. Now for answer to your scripture most untruly applied, I say, that in that sense which Christ forbiddeth us to call men our fathers, that is as our chief and special fathers, either carnal or spiritual, the Benedictines, Cistertians Carmelites etc. never called any man their father, acknowledging always and confessing, that that father is but one, god himself which is in heaven. M. Nowell marching on lustily in his lies and untrue application of scripture, addeth: And continuing and accomplishing the schism first begun in Nowell. fol. 55. a. 1. 1. Cor. 1. S. Paul's time, after the example of those who said, I am off Paul, I of Cephas, I of Apollo, saying I am of Dominicke, I of benedict, I of Francis, who also may directly answer S. Paul ask, was Paul or any other saving only Christ crucified for you? Yea may the franciscanes say, S. Francis was crucified for us of his family, and behold the wounds in his side, hands, and feet. It loatheth me to see how shamefully you abuse the Dorman. most holy and sacred scriptures. The schism that was amongst the Corinthians was in a most necessary point of doctrine, to wit, about the grace conferred in the sacrament of baptism, each of them thinking that the virtue thereof depended upon the excellency of the ministre that ministered it, as both by the text itself and the judgement of S. Austen thereupon is most evidently to be seen. Now is this diversity of professions in religious De praedes. Sanctorum cap. 5. lib. 3. contra. Crescon. Grammat. cap. 1●. men, not in doctrine or faith as was theirs, but in manner and trade of life, which all though it be in some straighter, in other some loser, yet because all tend to one end, that is to the perfection of the gospel, although not by one means, and agree beside in the three substantial points of their profession, chastirie, poverty, and obedience: you can by no means call them schisms. It is a fowl lie therefore M. Nowell, that you labour here to colour with the pretence of god's word, to say that religious men do follow the example of those, who said I am of Paul, I of Cephas etc. Who agreeing all in one faith and doctrine, how ever they differ in certain outward observations, say not neither (as you also untruly report) I am of dominic, I off benedict etc. But I am of that order that S. Dominike was, that is to say, I have professed to serve God in such sort as S. Dominike while he lived did, and so of the rest: none of them in the mean season preferring their patrons the one before the other, or judging themselves to be the better for following this rule or that, but leaving the judgement thereof to him who in the day of the revelation of his just judgement shall give to Rom. 2. Six lies in 8. lines. every one according to his works. To conclude therefore, you have here in eight lines made no fewer than six lies. The first is in calling the diverse orders of religion that are in the church popish schisms. The second in saying that the professors thereof have forsaken Christ's religion. The. 3. that they have forsaken his name. The 4. that they have chosen to be called religious. The 5. that they have chosen to be so called by a special name of a several religion, is a lie, if you mean (as it is to be thought you do, for otherwise it is no schism) by the word religion, religion in faith, ot in manners or trade of life. The sixth, that you charge them to follow the example of the schismatics of S. Paul's time, between whom there is no manner of resemblance at all, as hath been declared. So that now having quit yourself like a proper man in these few lines, you will take a conscience to lie any more for a while, and therefore you dare not precisely affirm, that the franciscanes do say that S. Francis was crucified for them, but say that they may say so. Blessed be God you can not charge them M. Nowell that any such thing they do say, which seeing you can not, how holdeth the argument I pray you, whereby you prove them schismatics such as were in S. Paul's time, because they may so say? Now M. Nowell what may not you say, and so prove yourself, not only a schismatic, but also an heretic if all things which you may say you should be also charged in deed to say? You may say (for some of your schoolefelowes have said so much Lucas Sternberger of omuluke in Moravia Staphil. in English fol. 112. a. Instit. li. 3. cap. 23. before you) that to worship the name of the blessed Trinity, is to imagine falsely three Gods: you may say and must say if you will follow your Master Calvin, that God is the auctor of their damnation that are damned: would you now be contented because you may say thus, and yet worse toe, if worse may be, that one should conclude against you that you be a schismatic or an heretic. And yet who seeth not, that such a conclusion were much more liker to be true, your fellows and Master having taught such opinions before, than this wherewith you burden these poor franciscans, of whom there was never yet any I believe that had so idle a brain, as to imagine so vainly of S. Francis and wickedly both, as you have done. You proceed in your pastime and say. If S. Paul ask again, is jesus Christ divided? Yea, may a false Nowell. Hypocrite one of the sect of the jesuits say: for we have the one part of jesus, thereof called jesuits, and have left the other part Christ, to the silly souls abroad, to hold themselves contented therewith, and with the name of Christians thereof derived. When you speak off a sect of jesuits, I know not Dorman. what you mean. I may guess that you mean those religious men that are called of such as know them. The company or society of jesus. If that be your meaning what have you to say to them? Marry say you, one of that sect may say jesus Christ is divided. And you, may not you also say so if you list M. Nowell? Who doubteth but that you are in as good possibility to say so as they or any other? Why then, because both you and they, and all other may say so, are you therefore and they, and all other schismatics, hypocrites, and so forth? But why may they say so more than any other. For so the because they are called jesuits. For so the they be not so called truly. Look in the decrees of the The profession of the clerks of the society of jesus. Late council holden at. Trent, and there you may learn how they be called. They bear the name as I said, of a company gathered together in the name of jesus to serve him wholly and perfectly, abandoning all worldly care. Their profession is to teach the liberal sciences to youth without reward, to bring up their company in the study of divinity, in knowledge of the tongues aswell the vulgar and common, as the learned and principal tongues, the latin, greek, and Hebrew, to preach at their home, to convert infidels abroad to the faith, and heretics to the church, and all this in the name of jesus, and for the love of jesus. Hereafter you find fault M. Nowell with such orders of religious men, as bear the names of sinful men, as of S. benedict, S. Dominike, and S. Francis: now you blame them which bear the name of jesus himself, as you imagine. Why wright you so contrarily, but because it is not the name that grieveth you so much as the thing, the order, the rule of religious men. The which because you are notable to reprove so truly as you are (a man even made for that purpose) to scoff at the name wretchedly, you flourish agaainst the coat, and foin against their garments, but their order you can not reprove, their body you can not pierce unto. For speak of the order, life, and behaviour of these whom you call jesuits, and speak truly M. Nowell, and one colleague of that company, as for example that in Rome, or in Conimbra of Portugal, shall shame for virtue and learning (beside the sincerity of religion) all your congregations of protestants what so ever or where so ever they be. The miraculous converting to the faith of infinite millions of infidels, in more than 20. diverse kingdoms of the east and West Indians, and other most ample countries of late years discovered, the miracles by them wrought, the Apostolical travail by land and by see a of these good fathers, the cruel martyrdom of many for preaching the faith of Christ to infidels (all which may at large be seen in the epistles called Diversi avisi etc. in the Italian tongue, set forth from the year 1551. until the last of 1564. in four several parts) do evidently declare, babble and prattle, rave and rage as much as you list, that their order is no schism or hypocrisy as you lewdly talk, but a blessed and learned company of holy men, raised up by God in these wicked days, both to stay the faith ready to fall in these parts, to plant it in other places where it was never heard of before, and finally for the utter overthrowing Augusta. Dilinga. Prussia. Brunsberg. Vienna. Ments. of heretics where so ever theey be, as in germany especially (where diverse learned colleages are of them) to the no small heart burning off your fellow protestants and you M. Nowell, God be praised they have done. Which old grudge made you I believe in this place more spitefully to speak off them, then of any other order of religious men. For thus you continue yet to inveigh against them. Why is jesus one then and Christ an other? Be there two Nowell. Christ's then, or one divided into two? One of these must needs be. Neither is jesus one and Christ an other, neither are Dorman. there two Christ's, nor one divided in two, neither was this the meaning of S. Paul when he asked whether Christ were divided, how ever it please you pleasantly to dally thereupon, abusing the holy scripture most wickedly to serve your scoffing and railing spirit. If there had been amongst the Corinthians no other schism then that some of them for the love of jesus Christ leaving all worldly substance and hope thereof; had assembled themself in to a company together, to preach, to teach, to instruct freely all men, and that for jesus sake, professing to be called by the title of a company gathered together in his name, and other some not minding to follow such high perfection continuing the common course of life were called by the common name of Christians, he would never we may be sure have asked whether Christ were divided. And surely if this should have been S. Paul's mind, I see not but you might have brought a more evident place, than you have brought any yet, to prove that even in S. Paul's time jesus Christ was divided, and that so there were then schisms. For in the Acts of the Apostles we Act. 11. read, that at Antioch the disciples were first called Christians, and then if S. Paul chanced to be in that company, as it is not to be doubted but he was of that company, you might prove S. Paul by his own words to have divided jesus Christ, and so to be a schismatic. For the text hath you wot well, that the disciples were called Christians, not jesuchristians. But God be praised M. Nowell, S. Paul had no such meaning as you would make the world ween he had, no nor any such words neither as you ascribe to him, and therefore you have most wickedly falsified the scriptures the more pleasantly to scotne and scoff at the servants of God. S. Paul's words M. Nowell falsifieth the scripture. 1. Cor. 1. are. Nunquid divisus est Christus? is Christ divided? Why make you him to say, is jesus Christ divided? Was there no other vantage to be found against those whom you call jesuits but to make such a homely shift as this is? Now jesus be praised therefore, in whose name they are gathered together. els if jesus Christ be not two but one (as he is most certainly Nowell. one) and being not divided (as he most certainly is whole) then are you jesuits, were your religion good, nothing else but Christians. It were pity to interrupt your pastime, otherwise I Dorman. would put you in remembrance that there be no such religious men (as you fantasy) called jesuits, but then were all the sport marred: and therefore let the society of the name of jesus be called for your pleasure at this time, jesuits. And now I say to your objection, that if you take jesuits precisely for all that believe in jesus Christ, I grant to you, jesuits and Christians are all one. But they are not called jesuits M. Nowell (if they were so called at all) because they believe in jesus Christ. So they believed before they were jesuits. But why they are called as they are, you have heard before. And thus this argument of yours is proved to be but a sophism, which being thus overthrown, all that you heap thereupon hereafter, falleth down also, as when proceeding in this lewd kind of talk, you say. Then are all Christians jesuits also, then do you in vain Nowell. brag of a several name of religions, if your religion and ours be one. All Christians are jesuits, and all jesuits are Christians Dorman. touching the faith and belief in Christ. But in that some of a more passing love to the honour of God become to be of the company of such as forsake the world, the pleasure and liberty thereof to follow jesus only, to preach his holy word to infidels, to convert heretics, to instruct youth in good learning, to profess the tongues, Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, Philosophy and Divinity, without reward or penny taking: in that I say some addict themselves to this trade of life, and are therefore called the company or society of jesus, not every Christian is such a jesuite M. Nowell. You yourself were not I am sure when you received your stipend for teaching at westminster: whether you be now suddenly become such a jesuite, that other men know better than I. Where you say that they brag of a several name of religions, that is one of your ordinary lies M. Nowell. Would God you and I with other that have not yet perfitly renounced this wicked world, could as well practise in our doings that lesson of S. Paul: modestia vestra nota sit omnibus hominibus. Phillip. 4. Let your modesty be known to all men, as they have done and to the great increase of Christian faith, daily do. Again their religion is not several in respect of faith which they profess, being no other than that one known faith of Christ's universal church, but of manner and kind of living, which may be diverse without fear off schism. But if your religion be hypocrisy (as it is in deed) then have you stirred up an horrible schism dividing and cutting the glorious Nowell. name of jesus, in the which only is salvation: yea tearing Christ himself in pieces, infinitely more wickedly and cruelly, then ever did the wicked soldiers that crucified Christ, who had a remorse to cut his coat a sondre. Hitherto M. Nowell hath wrangled about the name, Dorman. supposing the religion of those of the society of jesus, as good as his. And truly were it no better, it were but a stark lump of heresies, partly old newly scoured: partly new lately invented. Now he cometh to the religion itself, and upon a bare supposition that it is hypocrisy, this lusty Rhetorician dischargeth a peal of threatenings, and concludeth upon the same, that the professors thereof are a horrible schism, dividing, tearing and cutting Christ himself, and so forth. But what if the religion of those whom you call jesuits be no hypocrisy M. Nowell? You bid me prove that. On god's name I say it is no hypocrisy in deed. How think you have I not well and substantially proved it? Do not I prove it to be no hypocrisy, as you prove it is hypocrisy, when you bring only to prove it this bare assertion of yours (as it is in deed): as though every word that you spoke were the gospel itself? If you say that you minded not to prove it but to affirm it, than it shallbe enough for me also to affirm the contrary only, without any need to prove it at all, attending after your proof, that so I may have some matter to answer to. Therefore I repeat again, if the religion that you speak of be no hypocrisy as it is none in deed, then have you maliciously lied. When you speak of cutting the glorious name off jesus Christ, the tearing of himself in to pieces, you put us in remembrance of that miserable and most horrible tearing that you have made of Christ, you cause us to think how you have cut his mystical body the church by schisms and heresies, how you have haled and mangled his sacraments, how you have rend his true body in that most blessed sacrament, how you have trodden it under your beastly feet, infinitely more wickedly and cruelly on the altar, them did those wicked soldiers that crucified him on the cross. And lest all these sects of hypocrites should not be known Nowell. sufficiently, by only diversity of names, they have by other infinite ways and means travailed to sever their sects a sondre, studying for division as for the best, and flying all show of unity as the worst of all things. The Catholics being sufficiently proved schismatics Dorman. by the diversity of names, M. Nowell will not stay there, but by other infinite means and ways he will (he saith) prove the same. Now I pray you good Readers mark well these infinite means and ways. For except they were of great force, M. Nowell you may be sure, would have contented himself with such stuff as he hath in such abundance brought already, without heaping any more. Wherefore to their diversity of names, they have joined diversity Nowell. of fashions, and diversity of colours in their apparel, diversity of girdles, hose and shoes, diversity of shaving, diversity of going, becking and bowing, diversity of diet and meats, diversity of reading, singing, and tuning, diversity of church service, and diversity of rules of life. Who is it now M. Nowell that magno conatu magnas nugas Dorman. agit? That playeth the triffler so earnestly? Who proveth quidlibet ex quolibet, all things of every thing? What great trifles utter you to prove a schism amongst religious men? What childish diversities heap you together to prove the horrible crime of schism? If these diversities be (as you say they are) the very property of schisms and sects: what shall we say to our serving men, that go in diverse liveries, the aldermen of London that go in one colour, and the burgeoises and meaner citizens that go in an other? What will you make of the grave judges and learned Seriantes at the law. Shall they be schismatics and sectaries, because the one sort is clad in scarlet, the other in fine black? Doctors in the university in their scarlet gowns, and Masters of Art in their school habit, are they sects by your judgement M. Nowell? Yourself with your long gown and square cap, maintain you a sect because you go otherwise appareled then other lay men do? Or if judges, Doctors, Aldermen, scholars, serving men, may have diversity of fashions, diversity of colours in apparel, and yet this diversity in them no property of schisms and sects: may not religious men also being of diverse vocations and professions, have the like diversity of appareile and such other things, without suspicion of sects and schisms? Let your wisdom if you say nay, instruct us when you write next and show the cause why. But I pray you good sir, that affirm so peremptorily that this diversity is the very property of schisms and sects, have you any scripture that leadeth you to say so? Have you any learned writer within the first six hundred years that giveth this mark to know schismatics by? Is there any beside yourself and the Apology, and some other of like credit, that describeth schisms and sects by this diversity? Nay if this diversity that you vainly object to us, were the very property of sects and schisms, might you not perhaps by that means prove Christ and his Apostles schismatics? For as you have no scripture to prove that they went all in one livery, so is the likelihood and presumption on the contrary part, that they went diversly appareled. But how so ever they were clothed, this is most certain, that those good men that wandered about the world in pelttes and goats skins, of whom S. Paul maketh Heb. 11. mention, and saith that the world was not worthy of them, had apparel diverse and distinct from other men, and yet I trust you will not make them schismatics. As for the other diversities that you gather, as of shaving, going, becking, bowing etc. Who would ever have thought that a man of your qualities had been so scrupulous or superstitious, as to require that all men should be shaven a like, that they use the like gate in going, the same manner of becking and bowing, and such like? But if in shaving there must needs for the avoiding of schisms be one uniform fashion, why not in clipping I pray you M. Nowell? And then you might do well, when you preach next, soberly to persuade with the barbers, that they cut hereafter all men's beards alike, all a la marquesato all a la philippina, all a la moresca, all forked, all square, or otherwise, as to your wisdom shall seem best, so that all be a like and schism hereby avoided. Let your discretion also prescribe some one uniform manner of going, becking and bowing. Now concerning diversity of diet and meats, you will not I think take upon you to prescribe all England one diet and one kind of meat, you will rather turn it over to the physician, and bid him under peril of schism to appoint one such diet to the whole realm. But if this be a note of schisms or sects M. Nowell for one order of religious men to use one diet, an other to feed after an other sort, both of them notwithstanding sustaining nature with no other than with such as by order and law they may: what are they I pray you, that in the holy time of lent when all the world abstaineth, and from the Apostles time hitherto ever hath abstained from flesh, do then of all other times most greedily desire the same? That religious men have not always observed uniformity neither in cutting their hear, neither in their diet, amongst other of the ancient fathers none witnesseth more evidently than Epiphanius the B. of Cypress: who describing the form of the church in his days, when he cometh to make mention of the religious men, writeth thus. Quidam verò ex solitariam vitam degentibus etc. Some of these that Sub sin. lib. 3. contra haereses. Diversities of living amongst religious men in the primitive church. Acto. 18. lead this solitary life in the church, dwell in cities: Some continue in monasteries, and get them far out of the way. Some have thought good to let their hear grow for comeliness sake, of the proper invention of their mind, not of any commandment of the gospel or tradition of the Apostles: for S. Paul the Apostle cut of this attire. There be beside other most excellent conversations of life, which are observed in the same holy catholic church, I mean off them which abstain from all flesh, four footed beasts, birds, and fish, yea eggs also and cheese, and other diverse rules of life, For every one shall receive his reward according to his own labour. And some truly abstain from all these: other some from four footed beasts only, eating fowl and all other meats. Some abstain from fowl, and use eggs and fish. Some eat no eggs neither, some eat fish only. Some abstain also from fish, and eat cheese. Some there be that eat not so much as cheese. Beside these, there be other which abstain from bread, other also from hard fruits, nuts, and all sodden things, many have the ground for their bed. Other wear no shoes: other were privy sack cloth Wearing of sack cloth for penance. for virtue and penance sake, which do truly well. For it is unseemly to be seen openly wearing sack cloth, as some do. Hitherto Epiphanius touching the diversity of manners amongst religious men in his tyme. How say you M. Nowell, were you ignorant of this place when you made your description of sects and schisms, or knew you of it? if you were ignorant thereof, acknowledge at the length that you were deceived: if you knew it, cry shame to your self that durst charge the Catholics with schisms, using such manners, as the primitive church of Christ used? Now judge good Reader whether thou hadst rather believe, Epiphanius or M. Nowell. The one, (Epiphanius) taketh occasion by these diversities to set forth the beauty of the church: the other (M. Nowell) to obscure thereby and deface the same. The one calleth these diverse fashions off living, praeeminentes vitae conversationes, most excelling converastions of life: the other, the vorie property of schisms and sects. Epiphanius sayeth they shall be rewarded: M. Nowell as much in effect, as that they shall be condemned. But where hath Epiphanius these words, for that maketh not a little to the matter? Forsooth in that work of his, where he doth nothing else but fight against heresies and sects, in the very end thereof, when having declared before how heretics and schismatics had deformed the church, he would as it were oppose and set against them, the holy life and virtuous conversation off such good men as had decked and garnished the same. So that if these diverse fashions of livings had been the very property of sects and schisms, he would never we may be sure that wrote purposely against them, have commended them for good and virtuous. Now for reading, singing and tuning, it grieveth me to hear how far you be M. Nowell from all good tune. As though it were either needful, or your churches at home, used through out all the realm one tune and not diverse. But for this matter I will leave you to the musicians mercy, for divinity maketh no matter thereof, I assure you. yet there is an other diversity and that is of church service. If diversity herein make a schism, than woe be to you M. Nowell and your companions, who have altered the common received service through out all the latin church: Ex ore tuo te judico serve nequam. But it is not every diversity of church service that maketh a schism, but only such diversity as is done against order and law: I mean God's law, the law off the church, given by those spiritual rulers and governors whom Christ hath appointed for the building off his Ephes. 4. Acto. 20. mystical body the church, and to guide and rule the same redeemed with his precious blood. Is there any such diversity M. Nowell in church service amongst religious men? Or how ever the same service be amongst them in this point diverse, that in some places it is longer and hath therefore more lessons, Antiphones, Responces, then in other: in some places shorter, and therefore fewer (which proceedeth of this that some of these ordres being specially instituted to preach, as the Dominicanes and those of the Society of jesus: other some to live in contemplations The cause of diversity off church service amongst religious men. and meditations, as the Carthusians, must bestow more time in study and contemplation then in public prayer: other to be wholly in the church to pray for their sins and the sins of the people, as the Benedictines and other, who may and ought therefore to have their service longer) yet all this notwithstanding, the church service is in the substance thereof in all places uniform. For all religious men worship one God, call upon his blessed saints to help us, pray for the dead, etc. This because the whole church of Christ doth and ever hath done, (deny it if you can) and you do not in your service, the blow that you had thought to have fastened upon us is light upon your own noll, and your service thus far differing from Christ's church, not theirs that agreeth therewith, is schismatical. Your last diversity is of rules and life. Is it any marvel good Reader, if they that after the Apostles first practised the imitation of their life, in renouncing the world and vanities thereof, as S. Basile. S. Austen, S. Benedict, S. Dominike, S. Francis, did deliver to their followers diverse rules of life, this considered that although Christ were the only mark that they all shot at, yet the means that they used to compass and attain thereto were diverse? S. dominic for example, had this special meaning to make Christ known to the rude and ignorant by preaching. S. Francis both by word and example enforced himself to persuade to the proud and arrogant, humility and contempt of riches. Who can now deny but that such means are here to be prescribed, as by the which the professors of this order or that, may soonest attain to their desired end? As it is in these, so is it in all other, Benedictines, Carthusians, Bernardines etc. Amongst all the which, it sufficeth us that you are able to name no such diversity of rules and life, as being diverse one from the other, are any of them against the commandments of God: whereas contrariwise how diverse so ever they seem to you, they all agree in the end of glorifying God, although they differ in the means, the one working this way, the other that, and yet every way good. All times would fail me if I should or could rehearse all Nowell. their diversities, which is the very property off schisms and sects. Help the man to a day more, some good body for Dorman. god's sake. Will you see so much worthy matter lost for lack of time to utter it. If not a day, some man spare him an idle hour, perhaps it would serve his turn as well as a year. O that there were now an other johannes de temporibus to lend you M. Nowell some of his time. But if the worst happen that no such creditor can be found, rather take the morrow after Domes day, or the Griekes kalends, and hold men in suspense till that time: put them not out of all hope by such uncomfortable words. Well we have all that we shall have at this time I perceive, what conclude you therefore of these diversities that you have rehearsed already? Forso the that they are the very property of schisms and sects. Now iwisse M. Nowell if you had all times at commandment, if you could prove no otherwise schisms and sects to be amongst us then by this means, you need to take no long day, the time that you have spent already was long enough, and to long to without you had better bestowed it. S. Austen teacheth you an other S. Austin's definition of a schism. lesson to know schisms by, than this that you have learned of the Apology, of Bale, and such like masters, of the diversity of coats, hosen, shoes etc. For thus defineth he a schism: Schisma est recens congregationis ex aliqua sententiarum Lib. 2. cap. 7. contra Crescon. Crammat. diversitate, dissensio. Schism is a new dissension of a company by some diversity of opinions. Now I pray you what schism or sect have you proved all this while to be amongst Catholics, or what such schism or sect could you prove if all times failed you not? The learned father's Cyprian, Austen, Optatus, and other, describe schismatics to be such as set up chair against chair, erect altar against altar. How far wide is this from your description? These be those schismatics and sectaries, with an infinite multitude Nowell. whereof, of late England was replenished, of the which now thanks be to God the realm is well rid. Upon your false and untrue premises you infer as Dorman. false and as untrue a conclusion. I will make therefore the conclusion true and right for you. These be the religious persons, who embracing the perfection of christian religion, after the counsel of our Saviour, after the example of the Apostles, of the learned and holy fathers, S. Jerome S. Austen, and S. Basile, who professing voluntary poverty, holy obedience, and perfect virginity, served God both day and night, preached the Catholic faith, prayed for all estates, relieved the poor about them, kept liberal hospitality. These be such, whose profession and order is blameless, though the life of many were faulty, as it was also even in the primitive church, in the time of S. Paul, of S. basil, S. Hierom and S. Augustin, who yet have been tolerated in Christendom for the good and virtuous sake, (as among all other sorts of men, the evil are tolerated for the goods sake). These are they, with a great multitude whereof, praised be God, and the devotion of such as were the authors of such godly foundations, our dear country of England, not of late only M. Nowell, but even sense the first coming of Christian faith in to England, abunded, to the honour of God and wealth of the realm, of the which now, thanks be to lewd Apostatas, to rennagat friars and monks, to vowebreakes, and incestuous votaries, to upstart protestants, the realm is miserably spoiled, so that if you pass from one end of the realm unto the other, of so many thousand monasteries, hospitals, alms houses, chapels and cloisters as then stood, partly endued with bountiful lively hods, partly charitably maintained of the inhabitants to the great weal of their souls, of so many I say so standing, you shall not see one stand now, but either defaced, or profaned, either all ruinous, or in the hands of such, who use it as temporal lands, not for the maintenance of spiritual exercises. So that if you meet a thousand men and women, one after an Nowell. other, and ask of them, of what religion be you, they shall all and every one answer you, I am a Christian, we be all Christians: there shall not one answer to you (as was wont under your head) I am of the religion of S. Francis etc. I told you before that this word (Religion) was considered Dorman. two ways, either as it pertaineth to faith or to manners. In the first sense there was never man nor woman yet, that would otherwise have answered you, not if you had met ten thousand one after an other, but that they were all Christians. That they did customably otherwise answer, it was in this latter sense, as taking those that asked them the question to mean of their rule and profession of life not of their faith, whereof they had cause to think that the demaunders of such questions being Christians were not ignorant. Of this there can be no better proof, then that if in England when religious men were there, of Funladres, Spain, Italy or any place where they now be, a known Jew or infidel should ask any religious man or woman, of what religion they were, they would to such a one answer forthwith that they were Christians, not franciscans, Dominicanes etc. because they would judge the question to concern religion as it pertaineth to faith, not otherwise. And so what have you gotten by this. These so diverse sects of false religion abandoned now out of Nowell. fo. 56. a. 1. England, and the one true religion of our Saviour jesus Christ only there remaining: I marvel with what face you can charge us with schisms and sects, which is your own special sore. These so diverse orders of religious men being all of Dorman. one religion by belief, and therefore no schisms nor sects of false religion: these by your means being wickedly abandoned out of England, whereas they remain yet in all catholic countries to the inestimable comfort of good people, and so many false religions, schisms and hesies brought in by you in to their place, as well with us as else where, where you have displaced them, I marvel with what face you can charge men and women of one faith and belief, with schisms which is a breach of the common faith. I marvel with what heart you could charge the blessed Apostles, the Nicene council, the learned fathers, with nourishing of schisms and sects amongst them, for squaring only about private matters. I merueille with what stomach you could allege schoolmen and Logiciners, to prove schisms▪ and sects amongst the Catholics. I marvel with what unbridled boldness you could call the diversity of apparel, girdles, hose, yea shoes, diversity of meats etc. the very property of schisms and sects. Last of all▪ I marvel, with what face you can charge us with schisms and sects, which is your own special sore. And where you warn the renders upon experience of the multitude Nowell. of schisms lately risen, sithen the forsaking of that one popish head, to credit the ancient fathers as witnessing with you against us: you might as justly warn them to credit the ancient Phariseis rather than Christ and his Apostles: both for that the In psal. 54 first heresy as S. Augustine saith, sprang amongst the disciples off Christ etc. and also for that in the Apostles time, some used such schismatical sainges as these: we hold of Paul, some other, we hold of Cephas etc. whereas there was no such dissension amongst the high priests and Pharisees, but great unity and concord amongst them against Christ's Apostles. Now M. Nowell having done what he can to charge Dorman. us with schisms, and knowing withal how simple the stuff is that he hath brought, hath found at the length that it is best to renew his former plea, that is, that it is no such great matter though they agree not amongst themselves, especially seeing that, as before he told us that the Apostles were at dissension amongst themselves: so here he will prove the like of the disciples: and again to deface our unity and quiet agreement, he hath found it to be right good council to say, that that is no such great matter as the which is common to us with the Phariseis against them, Christ's Apostles and disciples forsooth. Now is not here as I told you before a goodly religion, Protestant's deface unity. that maketh the Apostles and disciples of Christ schismatics, that when it can not have unity to maintain it, laboureth all that it can to deface it? But now let us hear how he proveth that their side ought not to be charged with schisms and sects, because I might as justly (he saith) warn men to credit the ancient Pharisees rather than Christ and his Apostles. Why then were there sects and schisms between Christ and his Apostles as there are between Luther and his followers? or agreed the Phariseis in unity of one truth not only against Christ and his but amongst themselves also, as we Catholics do and ever have done against Luther (whom in this argument M. Nowell you resemble to Christ and his Apostles?) For sects and schisms to be between Christ and his Apostles, that you dare not plainly affirm, but whereas that being the pretence whereby you would defend your schisms, that you should have proved: you leaving it altogether unproved, think yourself sufficiently discharged, because the disciples of Christ fell into heresy. Not doubting but amongst the simpler sort, heresy being proved within less than two lines after the mention of the Apostles in the disciples, they not observing the difference between Apostles and disciples, would easily be deceived, and believe that you had sufficiently proved the Apostles heretics. For answer to this that you bring here of the disciples, I say in few words: that these disciples were not of the Apostles, but of such followers and hearers of Christ, as forsook him before his passion, when he preached of the blessed Sacrament, as it appeareth in the gospel. The Apostles remained still with Christ their head, joan. 6. and forsook him not. Between Christ and them was most perfect unity and agreement. How can you then I pray you, charge Christ and his Apostles with schisms, because of the disciples departing from Christ? Let us grant your imagination, if you can not otherwise understand reason, that Luther were Christ and Carolstadius, Melanchthon, with some other his Apostles. If this your new Christ, and his Apostles agreeing all in one faith, some other disciples coming to them should revolt and depart from them again, were this now a just cause to call Luther and his company agreeing all in one, schismatics? I think you will not say so, at the least there is no reason, why such departure should prejudicate or hurt them that remain quiet still as they did before. If you will not, nor can not say thus of Luther, why say you so off Christ and his Apostles? Why say you that we may as justly call them schismatics as we do you: whereas your false Christ and his own Apostles never agreed together, and our true Christ with his his never disagreed? And this is the cause why we call you heretics and schismatics, because you nourish and increase those heresies and schisms, that sprung up even with your first master and his scholars, as yourselves can not deny, and depart from Christ's known church (or else Christ had no church at all) as those disciples off Christ that you speak off did. With whom your resemblance is so much the greater, because that as these first heretics departed from the church (Christ and his Apostles) because they would not believe in Christ's doctrine of the blessed sacrament: so have you parted a great number of you, from us for the same cause, and maintain the same heresy as S. Augustine In psalm. 54. calleth it. Now as it were no good reason to prove us schismatics, because you are parted from us: being onoe as you can not deny, of us: so can no man justly charge Christ and his Apostles with that crime, because his disciples parted from him. And as I answer to this, so do I to your other objections of the schismatics in S. Paul's time, of those other also of the Nicolaites, the Simonians, Cerinthians, etc. who all parting from the known church of Christ, ought not to prejudicate the same. For their departure was always so sensible, that the true christian might say with S. john. They have departed from amongst joan. 1. cap. 2. us, but they were none of us. The Apostles and their company remained always a visible and known church. So that these examples can nothing help to cover your schismatical sores, whereas in Christ and the Apostles themselves, there was never any breach of unity, which you should have proved likewise, thereby to excuse your first Christ and his Apostles. Whereas an other plea of yours is, that amongst the high priests and Phariseis there was no dissension but great unity and concord amongst them against Christ's Apostles: to that I say, that although they agreed in this all to persecute the Apostles: yet amongst themselves they were joseph. lib. Antiq. judaie. 13. cap. 8. divided into sects and schisms, some being called Phariseis, other some Sadduces, and yet a third sect called Esseni, so that they resemble more lively you protestants, then us catholics, agreeing as the Phariseis did against the truth, and divided also with them into sects amongst yourselves. If you departed from us as Christ and the Apostles (you say) did from the high priests and their church, then should you be at unity and concord amongst yourselves as the Apostles were, then must you show out of the scripture, the fall of the church of Christ, the corruption of Esaiae. 6●. the same, and the restitution in the latter days to come, all Esaiae. 66. Hierem. 6. Ezech. 44 Habacuc 2. Act. 7. 13. &. 28. foreprophecied in the law, as the Apostles proved out of the scripture, the fall of the synagogue, the corruption of the high priests, the coming of Messiah, the placing of the new law that should continue. When you can prove this and defeat Christ's promise made of his church to be visible, and universal over all the world, and to his church, to continue for ever, then call us Pharisees hardly Matth. 16. and spare not, call yourselves Christ and his apostles, we give you leave. For further excuse of your schisms and divisions, you fo. 56. b. 1. tell us of the troubles that rose in jury, and shortly after over all the world, upon the preaching of Christ's gospel etc. If divisions and troubles were then it is not to be marveled at, our saviour himself, saying of himself: non veni pacem Matth. 10. mittere sed gladium, I come not to send peace, but a sword. But our age is not now M. Nowell the primitive church, our faith is not now to be begun of new. It hath been with consent of all the world established these 12. hundred years. And therefore your comparison is lewd, and untrue. You say further. And as justly might you charge the Apostles and their doctrine Nowell. with those schisms, sects, and troubles, as you do charge us with those that have risen in our days. Ever you harp upon that string that you would be Dorman. like the apostles, which (when you can prove that Christ promised to build an other church, beside that whereof he made Peter the head, and that friar Martin Luther should be the second Messiah, and Zuinglius or Carolstadius the head thereof) than we will easily grant to you. But note again I pray you M. Nowell, the difference of the schisms arising in the Apostles time, and of your schisms arising in our time. The Apostles were not at division amongst themselves: you are. The Apostles were before those schisms: you have risen together with the schisms. Those schisms departed out from the Apostles: your schisms are within yourselves. Again see the agreement of those schisms with yours, and confer the case of the state of the church now, with that of the primitive church then. Those schisms and sects departed out off the primitive church: even so have you departed now out of the same church being of long continuance. They being departed multiplied into more schisms, and parted into farther division, you being departed multiply daily from schism to schism, and new sects have risen sense your departure from Martin Luther. They troubled and disquieted the primitive church of the Apostles: you trouble and disquiet the catholic church that now is. If you demand the proof of this which I say, answer the book (which I am sure you will never be able to answer) lately set forth in our tongue, most truly called, The fortress of the faith etc. And show us, as you will stand to it hereafter, when the faith and light of gods holy word, which you say hath now of late sprung again, was extinguished, where, and by whom. Where it is well known to the world, that our learned men Nowell. have by their writings more oppugned and repressed the said sects then all the papists have done. This is that which I said before, that you in deed Dorman. wright diligently one against an other, which is a most evident assurance of your dissension in doctrine. And if these your writings were in the vulgar tongues to be read of all men, there would be no better argument in the world to disgrace your doctrine for ever. Whereas you compare your diligence in writing with that of the catholics: if the late writings of learned catholics of all countries, especially of Germany itself, were in deed compared to yours, it should appear how false and untrue this is. In deed we must needs confess a truth, that whilst we all remained Nowell. under this quiet obedience of your romish head, in one doctrine of his traditions, there was a coloured kind of quietness etc. Foelix necessitas quae cogit ad meliora. Happy is the Dorman. necessity which forceth to the better. Here M. Nowell correcting himself, for that before he charged us so heinously with schisms and sects, will somewhat mitigate that cruel sentence off his, and therefore he must he saith, needs confess, that there was when we lived under the obedience off the pope, a coloured kind off quietness amongst us. surely I am sorry M. Nowell that we can not say as much off you, that we can find no time, when amongst you there was so much as any shadow off coloured quietness. But do you remember with what schisms and sects you charged us before? The Thomists and Scotistes, the Nominalles and Realles, met they not daily at the schools? The Benedictines Cistertians, Carmelites etc. kept they their names so privy that they were known to no man? Their habit in some whit, in other black etc. were men so blind they could not see? Their diverse diet, their shaving, going, becking, bowing &c. were they things so privily used, that no man knew of them? If these things were known to all men as they were, how say you that there was a coloured kind of quietness amongst us, when the greatest and all the schisms and sects that you could falsely charge us withal, were so far from all colour, that M. No. well writeth contraries. they were manifest and open to the eyes of all men. And thus are you manifestly contrary to yourself, saying here that we had amongst us a coloured kind of quietness, and before, that lest the religious men whom you call sects Fol. 114. a of Hypocrites should not be known, they studied for division, and fled all show of unity. But when that Christ the auctor of that light, as he himself, Nowell. so. 57 a. 7. and by his Apostles bewrayed the errors of the jewish traditions by the said light first springing, and withal troubled their unity and concord in the doctrine of such traditions, and their quietness in their synagogue so settled before: so now the same our saviour, in the time by his wisdom appointed etc. In this place M. Nowell openeth to the world the secret Dorman. judgements of God, about the restoring the truth quite extinguished in these latter days. For proof whereof the indifferent reader may note, that he who triumpheth so much of holy scripture, and of the necessity of proving all things by the express lettre thereof, bringeth now no one text or piece of text, out of the whole bible. yet shall you see how weighty the matters are that he affirmeth. First (he saith) that our Saviour in the time by his wisdom appointed, hath disclosed that the pope and his have obscured, hidden, broken and forbidden the law of God. Again, that this he hath done by the light of his holy word again springing and shining to them sitting in palpable darkness etc. Now these points M. Nowell uttered by you without all warrant of scripture, as they are the foundation of all your religion, so contain they against our Saviour, and his holy word most horrible blasphemies, as the which import an utter overthrow of the church, and such a terrible Eclipse and defect of light in that clear son, wherein the son of God hath pitched his beautiful tabernacle, that the darkness Psal●. 18. you say was palpable, and could by no means be chased away, till a lewd Apostata and ronneagate friar, the worst man by the judgement of his own scholars that lived in his time, and worst able to bridle his affections, upon malice, envy, and covetousness, restored the same again. All that followeth you build upon this foundation, the which being nought the matter laid upon it must needs come down withal. And therefore it followeth. By this occasion, is there risen a like schism between you and Nowell. us, as was between S. Paul and the Phariseis etc. Here you heap number of lies together, laying to our Dorman. charge, that the cause why we cry and bark (you say) against you, is because by this occasion of the light our gain is decayed, our quietness troubled, our rest interrupted, our good cheer marred, our pomp abated. We are not offended with you for this M. Nowell. The cause of our misliking with your religion, and why we call you schismatics you dare not so much as name, which is, because you separate yourselves from Christ's church, because you teach contrary to the scriptures, that the church of Christ prophesied by the prophets, promised by Christ to continue for ever, hath been quite overthrown. To this because you can not answer, you feign other causes at your pleasure to bring us into hatred. Of the which faults objected by you to the catholics, I say generally as S. Austen did to the Donatists objecting the like. In his omnibus nullum crimen orbis Li. de unit. eccl. cap. 2. Christiani esse ostendimus, we show you that in all these things (which you lay to us) there is no fault of the whole christendom. And again: ad quosdam quip illa perimere possunt, non ad universum orbem christianum: for those faults may pertain to some, they can not be the faults of all Christendom. Leave therefore M. Nowell these extravagant excursions, of railing against the evil life of some, or abuses of certain, wherewith a great part of this idle reproof of yours is stuffed, and come to the doctrine it self. Prove us your negative divinity by the rule and trial of holy Scripture, by the counsels and decree of the church, or by the learned fathers if you be able. It is an easy matter sayeth Saint Augustine to the Donatists, either for you Lib. de vuit. eccl. cap. 5. to call us Phariseis, or for us to call you so: It is as easy for us to say that you persecute us the true believers as the Phariseis persecuted the Apostles, as it is for you to say (as you do here) that we follow the Phariseis in persecuting you. It is as easy for us to say that you are like painted graves, full of old rotten bones within, pretending outewardly God's word, contempt of the world, brotherly charity, etc. being within covetous, whoorders up, great exactours of money, proud, cruel, with such like, and so call you Phariseis, as it is for you to say and write the same of us. But M. Nowell, though Christ as the searcher Rom. 8. and judge of men's hearts might boldly so pronounce of the Phariseis, whom he knew better within then other did without, yet we must not judge other, lest we be judged ourselves as the gospel teacheth us. Briefly the strife Matth. 7. will be endless, vain, and childish, if in controverfie of doctrine and religion, such impertinent discourses be entremingled. Wisdom it had been for you M. Nowell, to have pricked directly at the matter of schisms, discharging thereof plainly yourselves, by showing that you join in communion with all the world, and not to have roved as you have done, now here, now there, at no certain mark. And so finally for this part of purgation of ourselves, against Nowell. fol. 58. a. your slanders of schisms and troubles as by us raised, do we allege the effect of the same parable of the strong man so quiet in his house until a strongre than he came and disturbed him, which Christ our saviour in like slander, rehearsed for defence of himself. Although the parable served our saviour against the Dorman. Phariseis, yet it serveth not you against the church off Christ. When you can prove that which you only without proof blasphemously hitherto have affirmed, making it aswell of the application of this parable, as of all that you else have said touching comparing of us to the Phariseis, yourselves to Christ, and his Apostles, the very foundation: that all faithful Christians were in that case when Martin Luther began first to preach, that the Phariseis were at the coming of Christ, then apply it and use it, it will well serve your purpose. yet truly to make this parable in some wise to serve your turn, it maketh well for your Sacramentaries against the poor Lutherans, whom you have in deed not only disquieted, but driven from their possessions in most places, and devoured also and swallowed into your hongresteruen paunches, even as is said that Pharaoh dreamt of the seven lean carrion oxen, that they had eaten up the fat. And so let Gen. cap. 41. this parable and dream both if you will, serve your turn. Iff the reader shall think that I have been to tedious in answering Nowell. this matter here but touched as it were by the way, I trust he will bear with me therein, for that M. Dorman, as he began and flourished the first face of his book, with blotting us with the slander of schisms, so hath he hitherto continued in the same, and applied all his allegations out of S. Cyprian, Basile, Jerome, Nicephorus, and others, chiefly to that purpose, etc. The reader must bear with you in more things than Dorman. this, or else it will be wrong with you. And even in this me thinketh, and so I doubt not but other think to, wherein you crave pardon as having said to much, he had ned● to bear with you for saying so little. For your own defence, till you prove us by Scripture that Christ's church should decay and come to utter ruin, and that so it did, you have said nothing: against us, till you bring better matter then different opinions of schoolmen in disputable matters, of Logiciners about the predicables, of religious men in clothing, diet, going, becking, bowing, etc. you have said as little. The first sentence that I prefixed before my book out of Saint Augustine, you have not yet answered. If you had answered it there as you pretended that you would, you should not have needed here to have troubled either yourself or the reader with that matter. For answer once directly yea or nay to this, whether you communicate with all nations, and with those churches founded by the Apostles labour, and the matter is answered who be the schismatics in few words, you or we. Where you say that my allegations out of S. Cyprian, Basile, Jerome, Nicephorus, were applied chief to this, to note you of schisms: I must note, that you be here contrary to yourself and your sainges before. For M. Nowell contrary to himself. in your reproof upon these places, you make me to have such sense, as though I had alleged them all directly to prove the pope's supremacy. And for that cause you labour with tooth and nail, to prove that they ought not so to be taken. Neither are they contented here with, but do also play with Nowell. pictures very pleasantly as they think, in the which they paint out a multitude of such heretics or rebels, as our confederates or allies, whose opinions we do most abhor, and against whom we continually both preach and wright. Yea forsooth this was the matter in deed, although Dorman. you be loath to confess so much, that made you to lavish out your store in defence of schisms and sects. It was this table, this arbour as you call it, or crooked tree that made you to dance. But what say you to this tree I pray you. You say, that we have placed there a multitude of heretics whose opinions you do most abhor. We marvel not though you like not all, for therein standeth the grace of the table, that of so many sects as be there set out, no one of them liketh the other. Yowe should have done well to have named the opinions which you do abhor, as perhaps you would, had it not been for waking some of your fellows that seem to be a sleep. That these sects appear not all of them evidently amongst you, as they do in Germany where your heresies first began, Why sects and schisms show not them selves so evidently in England as they do in Germany as that excuseth you not being all members of that malignant church your mother, so is it the less to be marveled at, because the states of these two countries are not like. England is ruled by one sovereign head, Germany by diverse. Which is the cause that the heads being diversly affected in religion, advance every of them that religion which liketh him best. Whereas in England you lack that commodity being under the rule of one only head, which is an invincible argument to show how necessary in the church of God it is, to have one head to govern the rest. Had you in England as they have in Germany, your free cities, your dukes, your Lantgraves, your Palsgraves, every one a king within his own dominions: O how your sects would triumph in the courts of princes, what combattes they would keep in open pulpits, that now dare not but by steal the and in corners, one of them snatch and snarl at the other. As for your continual preaching and writing against these sects, whereof you brag so much, what you preach against the Lutherans, anabaptists, Osiandrins, or any such like, I report me to them which be your hearers. I think what so ever face you set upon it here, you be cold and rare enough in that argument, and be as plentiful and hot as you will, you shall have these heretics and such other in places where they dare, say as much of you. As for your writing, you protestants at home have not written any one word that is to be seen abroad against any sect of the table, more than in some silly translations of your fellows books, as you term by contempt that kind of excercise. So busy you are in doing the message of your father in setting forth to the world your sacramentary heresy, and defacing the pope's authority, that as little leisour have you to wright against other sects (if you mislike them as you pretend) as you have to exhort men by preaching, to fasting, to prayer, to good works. And therefore your writing I let pass as a manifest Lye. 51. lie. And all this do they for that they are not ignorant, that such Nowell. though most false slanders, being yet so importunely and continually laid to our charge, are of much effect to offend the weak and simple, and to stir up their hatred against us. And therefore they use such constant asseverations for arguments, as in their schools they are taught to do, when they are destitute of due proofs etc. If we slander you, how easy a matter had it been for Dorman. you to have recovered your good name, by saying: There be not so many sects sprung out of Luther as the table saith there are, and then have named some such as had been falsely noted in the same. The which because you have not done (not for lack of good will as appeareth.) you have very much confirmed the truth of the table. Whereas you stand upon the bare denial against manifest proof, you make us in deed remember a saying of the schools: plus potest asinus negare quàm Aristoteles probare. But because this table offendeth you so much, you may perchance shortly have an other of almost 90. diverse sects gathered together by the reverent father WILLIAM In Dubitantio suo. LINDAN Bishop of RUREMUND. But perhaps you count this a slander, because you acknowledge but one religion of jesus Christ, how many sects so ever there be amongst you. For so it followeth. For we as we have no religion but only Christ's, so desire we Nowell. to be called after the name of none but his, etc. Which we M. Nowell? For so saith every sect Dorman. in the table aswell as you sacramentaries do. It is not enough for you to say that you have no religion but the religion of Christ, the contrary whereof never heretic durst yet in words profess. Prove it first, then say it afterwards. Begin from the Apostles and come to our time, and show your religion in every age, as ours hath A reasonable challenge to the protestāns of late been learnedly showed, and then brag that you have none but Christ's religion. We offer you fair, refuse us not, in god's name and in the behalf of his church I say, refuse us not. If you dare and mistrust not your cause, procure us liberty freely to send in our books, and to other indemnity for having and reading them. It is the thing, that (if you mean as you pretend the planting of true religion in the hearts of all men) you should most earnestly have desired: refuse it not therefore being freely offered. It is the thing, that on your knees jointly together with us, you ought to become humble petitioners to the queens most excellent majesty to voutchesaufe to grant, and to remove all such occasions, as might stop or hinder in any wise the course of so necessary an attempt. It is the way to end all controversies, to cease all strifes, to restore unity, to betray schismatics, to make manifest the true catholics, and so consequently to make it appear, whether you have no religion but only Christ's. The which saying of yours till you prove by this means, will be counted no better than a brag common to all heretics. Think they that if we list and had leisor as they have, we could Nowell. not frame an arbour or tree, twice as great as they have devised? etc. Now let this pleasant devise of yours come forth when Dorman. you will M. Nowell. What shall you prove or win thereby? No schism, no sect, no contrariety of opinions in doctrine of the faith, can ye prove or show there. No blasphemy against the blessed trinity, no heresy against the Sacraments of Christ's church, against the godhead of Christ, against our blessed lady, no article of our Crede denied, shall you find in that your devised arbour, as in the table of your pedigree M. Nowell, all such things are to be found. But think you again, that if we list and had leisure to be evil occupied, we could not devise as fond foolish toys, as your sharp wit hath imagined, (touching your ministers and their wives, your ronnagatfriers and monks with their strumpets, your late skirmish upon square caps and copes, your diversities of apparel, of hats and cloaks, of beards and such like trifling toys) more meet for children in a Christmas play, or for lads of the country in a whitson game, then for a preacher and pretended dean in his printed works? Wherefore I conclude omitting all other not necessary trifles in this your trifling process, that the crime of schisms and sects most truly laid to your charge, hath most falsely, unjustly and barrenly been, reversed upon us, and do rebound directly and truly upon you and your fellows, in such sort, that while you live M. Nowell, nor in many years after the storm of your heresies be calmed, this your horrible division and multitude of schisms in so few years sprung up; shall at any time be forgottten, or blotted out of eternal memory, to the perpetual ignominy of protestants, and great glory of God and his church. That the place brought out of the. 17. Chapitre of Deuter. is well and to the purpose alleged. The 18. Chapitre. YOU say M. Nowell, that the circumstances of this place Nowell. fol. 59 a. 27. B 26. of Deuteronomium being well considered, they may easily inform the reader, that the pope's tyranny to say and do what he list, can not be grounded upon this place, and that if the pope or any creature do command against god's word, he may and ought to be disobeyed therein. And that therefore both Pighius and I, have in vain alleged this place for such supremacy as the pope claimeth. The circumstances to be considered are, the A 27. place which God hath chosen; the priest which must be Levitical. thirdly the place to be doubtful, whether the whole determination B 1. do pertain to one or to many, etc. Fourthly, that it is requisite that the said priests or priest, do teach according to the law of God, and not at his own pleasure. To your text M. Nowell for shame, will you ever be Dorman. thus ranging at random? It was not my purpose here to prove by this place of Deuteron. the bishop of Rome his supremacy over Christ's whole church, no more than it is Pighius his in the place by you alleged. The matter that I have here in hand, is to prove that there must be one head to govern the church now, as there was to govern the same in the old law before. Whether it be at Rome, at Jerusalem, or in any place else I dispute not here. And therefore your first * The place. consideration and * The priest. second, came without all consideration out of season. But I may bear with you the better, because I have been used to this manner of dealing of yours before, as the reader I doubt not can bear me witness. One thing yet I can not by the way but marvel at, why in challenging the pope to be no levitical priest: you did not aswell except against Rome because it is not in judea. For why should not the place be all one as well as the priest? Well it shall suffice for this time M. Nowell, that as when it is not impertinent it shallbe proved that Rome is the place which God hath chosen: so in the mean season it is not needful, that the priest should be of the levitical order which now is abrogate, but of that only which Christ having Hebreo. 7. planted in his church to continue for ever, hath succeeded in place of the other, * Whether the place be to be understand of one priest or many. Your third consideration cometh nearer, and is in deed to our purpose, of one head in the church or many, yet that also if it had been so well considered as it ought: iff you had as depelye weighed the words that follow: nolens obedire Sacerdotis imperio, that will not obey the priest his commandment, as you lightly and gladly snatched at those that went before, Thou shalt come to the priests of the levitical sort: You should easily have seen, that the plural numbered doth note rather the continuance of the commandment from priest to priest in succession, then that it should be meant of many priests at one time. The judge of the nation joined with the priest, maketh for the secular sword executing the law off the priest. * Of judging according to the law. The fourth consideration brainsick Brentius considered before you. To the which I answer, that whereas now you flee to the old translation, who at other times call us to the fountains, to the Greek and to the Hebrew verity, as seemeth best to serve for your advantage, that I, not with M. Stapleton, but with the late learned and godly council of Trent, affirming the old translation to be specially followed in the correction of manners or determination of faith, do avouch the same, and that yet you are thereby never the nearer to your purpose, the common translation as well overthrowing you as doth the Hebrew verity. For the words whereupon you ground yourself: And thou shalt do what so ever they shall say unto thee, who govern the place that our Lord hath chosen, and what so ever they shall teach the according to his Law, as though say you, the priest might teach otherwise, and then he should not be obeyed: be not conditional, but enunciative, that is to say, words that express what he shall do in deed, to assure the rather the ignorant man to obey his commandment. This interpretation may many ways be proved. First because it ought to be presumed, and all men are bound as much as may be to endeavour, that the old translation and the fountains may agree together. Which because by this means is brought to pass, and by that sense which you give in no wise it can, it followeth, that this meaning is rather to be received then yours. another cause is, the circumstance of the place itself, which telleth us, that the people was bidden go to the priests, and to the judge which should be for the time, to ask his judgement of hard and doubtful questions. If every one of the people had been able to find out in the question that he should propose to the judge, what were agreeable to God's law and what were not, when the judge told him truth and when he failed: Neither could there any question have been doubtful, neither should there consequently have been any need to have had such a judge. When should those words have been ever put in execution that follow: He that off pride refuseth to obey the priests commandment shall die, if this had been the meaning that you dream of? Might not any man have wrangled as oft as he had listed, that the sentence was not according to the law? And therefore to put the matter out of all doubt, the Scripture saith in this very place, indicabunt tibi indicij veritatem, they shall tell truth and give thee right judgement. To conclude, there is one place in the scripture off all other most plain, to covince this sense that the catholic doctrine maintaineth. Read Malachias the prophet the second chapiter, and you shall find, that it was a covenant made by God with Levi, that his priests should Malath. 2. observe in judgements, truth and equity. He pronounceth that the lips of the priest should keep knowledge, that the law should be required at his mouth, because he is God's angel. Can there be any thing that might more assure us off the meaning of that place then this? As for that that you object of S. Paul, threatening vengeance fol. 59 b. 14. to the high priest, and of S. Peter also and S. john the Apostles, who would not obey him because the last condition off commanding after God's law was lacking: for S. Paul Actor. 23. I might answer you, that he repented him afterward and pleadid ignorance, although I doubt not but that both by him he was justly reprehended, and by S. Peter and S. john lawfully disobeyed. And yet will it not follow, that therefore in this place of Deuter, which we handle, the priest might err in his judgements. Will you know why? Forsooth because as saith. S. Cyprian, our Lord Lib. 1. epist. 3. being now crucified, the priests began to be sacrilegouse, wicked and bloody, and retained nothing of priestly honour and authority. Lo M. Nowell why you may not conclude as you do, because the priests had now lost their authority that before they had. The high priest (you say) charged them not B. 24. as guilty of death for this disobedience. The text hath that Act. 4. they sent the apostles away, non invenientes quomodo punirent eos propter populum etc. Not knowing how to punish them because of the people. Are you able to say that yff they had not stood in this fear of the people that they did, that the apostles should have escaped so? Thus far I have thought good to join with you concerning this place, from the which (craving help of Bucer and Brentius) you thought to scape by wrangling about the words, juxta legem eius, according to his law. Which words toe when all is done, if they were conditional as you would make men believe they are, be to the uttermost fulfilled in the pope. Of whose predecessors being in number 235, you are not able to name any one, that ever delivered to the church any wrong faith or false opinion to be believed. If any of them erred as men, yet were they privileged as the successors of Peter, and either speedily forsook the same, or keeping it within their own breasts, were never by god's providence suffered, to utter it to the hurt of the church. For a notable example whereof Vigilius the pope may serve us. Who obtaining that seat by unlawful means, that is to say upon promise made to the Empress to restore to the bishopric of Constantinople Anthemius, deprived thereof by Agapetus for heresy: as soon as ever he entered into that seat, the empress challenging him off his promise (so was his wicked mind by gods special providence suddenly altered) made answer, that rather then▪ he would restore an heretic to his seat from whence he was justly removed, he would sooner suffer all the extremity that might be. And so did he in deed, lying long in prison, suffer both hunger, cold and diverse other torments. Which notwithstanding he acknowledged to be worthily due unto him for his great offence. The privilege therefore I say of this seat is such, that we be assured by his promise that said to Peter that his faith should Lucae. 22. not fail, that as hitherto the pope hath always fed Christ's church with sound faith and wholesome doctrine, so shall he continue to do so long as there is in earth any church at all, that is so long as there is a world, so long as Christ's church militant here in earth and triumphant in heaven, meet not in one to join together. And therefore you talk of the pope's tyranny to do and say what he listeth, you talk without book M. Nowell, and continue your accustomed wont of sclaundring and lying. Because you well understood that all this roving talk of yours was wide from the mark that we shoot at, and that happily some one might say unto you, that the matter which now is handled, is whether there ought to be one general head in Christ's church or no, and that therefore this place was brought in, not to prove who it should be, or where he should be resident: you thought it good to say somewhat to this effect, to prove that this place is untruely applied to the proof of the supremacy, of one head. But how prove you this M. Nowell? Because S. Cyprian allegeth this and other like places of scripture, Nowell. fo. 60. a. 6 to make for the several authority of every peculiar bishop in his own diocese, not of one head over all bishops. What thereof M. Nowell, may not one text be applied Dorman. by diverse men diversely, and yet no sense contrary to the truth? The commandment of S. Paul. Omnis anima Rom. 12. potestatibus sublimioribus subditasit. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, maketh especially for the authority of Emperors and kings, because it importeth moste that they be obeyed: yet will you not I think say, that if the justice of a shire, or mayor of a city, would bring this text to some stubborn man to win him to obedience, that it were evil applied, or were not (when occasion serveth thertoe) to be applied to the obedience of a king or emperor, because it serveth also for his subject. The meaning of S. Cyprian was to persuade obedience to such priests as have the charge to rule, to the which purpose the example of the high priest is well applied, if it were for no other cause, yet even for this, that every bishop is in his own diocese the high and chief priest of all the other, that be of the same: and no less to be obeyed (in that portion of his charge) of those that be under him, than he himself is bound to obey the pope, the chief and head in earth of all bishops. It agreeth not (you say) that because the jews one nation, had Nowell. one chief priest, therefore all nations through out the world should have one high priest over all other. You misuse the reader with the term (nation). For not Dorman. as one nation, but as one synagogue, as the only church that then God had, they had one high priest. And so all Christians being but one catholic church though many nations, aught to have one head bishop over all nations. For as for the impossibility that yeat once again you repeat of having one head, it hath been sufficinetly proned already, that that plea of yours is of no force, and so far wide from the truth, that it is not otherwise possible to have the church well governed and without schisms, God having now taken that order. Which I say as of the church consisting of frail and sinful men. For as touching God, as you say it is possible to him to govern the church without one head: so say we it is not impossible to him, to give us one head to rule the whole, and so to direct him that he never fail in his decrees, concerning our faith. Which because hitherto in deed he hath done, and beside hath promised that the faith of Peter shall not fail, we say Lucae. 22. of necessity, that it is and must be so. S. Cyprian (you say) allegeth this place of Deuteronomie of obedience to the high priest, aswell for the authority of Rogatianus Nowell. a. 21. b. 28. as for his own. This is no more than you said before, which you oft Dorman. repeat to seem by oft saying one thing to say somewhat. In deed it confirmeth very much my answer made before. For whereas it is manifest that this place concerning the obedience due to the high priest, is alleged as well for the authority of Rogatianus who was an inferior bishop, as also for S. Cyprian the archbishop and Metropolitan of Africa, it followeth, that S. Cyprian in the citing and alleging thereof had no other meaning, then to persuade obedience to every bishop, of what calling so ever he were, bishop, archbishop, primate, patriarch or pope. Except you will say that he was of the mind that between bishops and archbishops he put no difference. Yea verily say you of that mind was S. Cyprian in deed. Nowell. b. 15. For he confesseth in the beginning of his epistle to Rogatianus, that he did but of courtesy and not of duty, refer this matter of his disobedient deacon by complaint to him etc. I need not much to travail to prove that S. Cyprian Dorman. should not be of this mind, seeing that the learned know that the very word itself Archiepiscopus, used in the church both in S. Cyprians time and long before, doth prove the contrary, and yourself have used before the word chief prelate's of every province: which were toe foolish to be said if there were between bishops no difference at al. Li. 3. epist. 9 The words of S. Cyprian praising Rogatianus for that he did honourably towards him, and according to his accustomed hunulitie, in referring the matter of his stubborn deacon to him being his archbishop, whereas he himself by his own authority might have punished him, make nothing for this equality between all bishops. If they had been equal, then might belike Rogatianus have punished aswell one of S. Cyprian'S diocese, as he might the deacon who was of Rogatianus diocese. Which if you say, then will it follow that every diocese hath not now one chief ruler but many. If you will not so say, then must you yield to this, that Rogatianus complaining to the archbishop, granted, that notwithstanding that superiority which he had over all that were of his diocese, there was yet the archbishop above him. And if these two may stand together: Every bishop is the head and chief priest of his own diocese, and yet there is one archbishop above all: then why may not these propositions stand together, Every archbishop is chief of the province where he is archbishop, and yet there is one pope chief of them all? Rogatianus did here more than he needed: who denieth that? If the B. of London have in his diocese a stubborn and unruly priest, who doubteth but he may first punish him by his own authority if he list? And yet if he refer the matter to the archbishop of Cauntorburie, he doth the archbishop more honour, and showeth himself to be the more humble. The archbishop is an eye to oversee the bishop that he do his duty, as the pope is to oversee all. So long as the bishop is able to take sufficient order for all occurrentes in his diocese himself, if he use not this power, but refer it to the archbishop, he doth more than he needeth, but yet honourably for the Archebishoppes' part, and humbly for his own. Where you say, that such by S. Cyprian transgress the Nowell. fo. 61. a. 1. law of God in the Deuteronomie, that make themselves bishops over other bishops. etc. It is true in S. Cyprians meaning, that is in such as Pupianus Dorman. was, who being an inferior member, no primate, no patriarch, no pope: would take upon him to judge S. Cyprian the archbishop and judge appointed of God. This place includeth no more the pope who is head bishop over all other bishops, and head judge over all judges, than it doth note the bishops of every diocese, for taking upon them, to be the judges of the curates that be under them, who in their several cures be judges in Christ's steed it can not be denied. For they have power given them of God to loose and bind, to judge inter lepram & lepram between sin and sin. It pertaineth I say no more to the pope, than it doth to the archbishop, who judging and overloking the bishops doings, falleth not I trust by your own judgement into this fault that S. Cyprian noted in Pupianus. If then the bishop may judge over such priests as be under him (Gods judges in their particular cures) and, the archbishops again over the bishops, without any offence, why may no● I pray you the pope be judge of the doings of the archbishops and all other? Your argument which is this: Pupianus the bishop, might not be judge over the doings off Saint Cyprian An absurd reason. who was an archbishop: Ergo the pope may not be the judge off all other bishops, is like to this: M. Nowell may not make himself judge over the bishop of London, ergo the Archeb. of Cauntorbury doth not well and is a false usurper in making himself head bishop over all the bishops and chief judge over all the judges in his province. For such a one as is M. Nowell, was Pupianus that proud arrogant man, a private person for any thing that appeareth to the contrary, as he is. This property which you falsely note to be in the pope, is the property of your good Lord M. grindal with his fellows, who occupy the places of other lawful bishops yet living, and therefore make themselves (as S. Cyprian noteth of Pupianus) bishops over bishops, and judges over the judges off God for the time appointed. That the place of Gregory Nazianzen was applied aptly and to the purpose. The 19 Chapitre. BECAUSE I say; that I remember a saying off Gregory Nowell. fol. 61. b. 3. Nazianzene, you infer thereupon M. Nowell, that men may note that I have a good memory etc., which notwithstanding had I (you say) enlarged to a few words going before, it had appeared, that these words being spoken of one god governing the whole world, had been impertinent to prove that there ought to be one pope to govern the whole church. You may note good readers that M. Nowell hath more Dorman. wit than honesty, that can cavil at a phrase of speech pleasantly, when the matter itself he can not reprove truly. For you say M. Nowell full clerckely, that this place b. 29 is altogether impertinent to the purpose. yet in the very next words following your shrewd wit put you in remembrance, that there was a way how I might bring it, to make yet at the least some show to the purpose. And therefore you say. Now if M. Dorman list to transfer the sentence from God governing Nowell. b. 29. all the world, to men ruling in the world, after this sort: Nazianzene saith there is one only God who governeth all: Ergo there must be one only pope or head bishop to govern all the church: I deny the argument, and affirm that it followeth no more, then that there must be one only Emperor to govern all the world. I reason not M. Nowell altogether so barely as you Dorman. surmise, that there is but one God, and that therefore there must be but one head to govern the church. The force of my conclusion dependeth upon the reason why there is but one God, which is this: where many rule there is sedition. This argument of mine I so little repent me of, that I will here press you with one other coming from the same mould. S. Austen labouring to prove the certainty of one God, amongst other reasons useth this for one. Sicut enim in ipsa rerum naturamaior est auctoritas unius ad unum omnia Lib. de vera religio. cap. 25. redigentis, etc. For even as in natural things the authority off one bringing all things to one is greater, neither hath any multitude in the kind of man any power, but such as consentith, that is, thinketh one thing: so in religion the authority of them ought to be greater and of more credit, who call us to one. Of the place of Gregory Nazianzene as before I reasoned, that as there was but one god in the world to avoid confusion: so there must be in the church but one head for the same cause. Even so from this faing of S. Augustine I reason in like manner, that as the authority of them is greater in religion, who call us to one God, because their opinion maketh most for the conservation of unity, so ought their authority and credit to accounted greatest, who call us in the church to one head. Now what have you to say against this manner of reasoning M. Nowell? You deny the argument, and say that it followeth no more, then that there must fo. 62. a. 3. be one only Emperor to govern all the world. This fond reason of yours hath been sufficiently answered. The 11. and 12. chap. It is in deed the effect of your whole answer in this your Reprouse as you call it. yet have you not (so great a clerk you are) in your whole book, brought so much as one poor silly reason for the confirmation of it. But you (as if you were in the pulpite tanquam auctoritatem habens) affirm many things stoutly, and willbe believed at your word, without reason or proof at all. Where you say: There is no confusion in the world nor disordre, Nowell. a. 13. for that sundry parts of it have sundry civil governors: Surely your wits failed you much, and you nodded Dorman. a little M. Nowell. For what wise man seeth not, what learned man readeth not, of yearly and almost daily battles, quarrels, contentions, bloudeshead, conspiracies, and of infinite such disordre to be in the world at this present, and to have always been by the reason of sundry civil governors? Our Saviour when it pleased him to take flesh, and redeem man, chose that state wherein most quiet and rest should be, that men might so the better attend to the preaching of god's word, which by wars and tumultuous hurly-burlies can not but be hindered. He chose to come at that time, when but 15. years before, the whole known world of Europe, Asia and Africa, was under the obedience of one Roman emperor Octavius Augustus. In that state the world was ruled certain hundred years after, until the Christian faith was published and dilated unto all the parts of the world. Do we not read M. Nowell, that the same emperor August bis clausit janum, as much to say, had twice in his days a perfect Alexander ab Alexandro lib. 1. Gema. dier. cap. 14. peace through out all the parts of the world, yea thrice as some write? Before that state of one universal Emperor was, and sense that state hath decayed, how many wars have been to the disquieting of all Christendom stirred up? How many battles cruelly fought? How much innocent blood unmercifully spilled? What one year in one place of the world or other, hath not plentifully brought forth such fruits as these are? Are not all histories full? Have we not daily experience? Have we not heard of the Turks wars scarce yet cold against us at the Isle off Malta, of the late wars in France and Scotland, of almost the continual wars in the days of Charles the fifth, now with France, now against the moor, now in Germany, now in Italy itself? All this is but in one part of Europa. If we had before our eyes the acts of other countries, how much might be said thereof? And yet M. Nowell as though all the world were shut up in the house where he dwelleth at Paul's, saith there is no confusion in the world nor disordre, for that sundry parts of the same have sundry civil governors. This is I confess a matter more meet for some practised counsellor to debate, then for scholars such as I am professing no such policy to entreat of. It reacheth I wot well beyond the compass of my discourse to say herein, but some small part of that which might be said. yet this small note, shall I trust be sufficient to instruct the ignorant, and able to move the learned to farther consideration. You say, the scriptures declare it to be so appointed by Nowell, a. 16. God, that sundry parts of the world should have sundry civil governors. Eccles. 17 So hath the church toe sundry several governors, Dorman. in sundry several dioceses, and yet one chief head over all notwithstanding. And therefore that text might be verified well enough, although there were one general Emperor or other ruler over all the world. And surly if this place of Ecclesiasticus were so to be understand, as that it did forbid the having of one general ruler over the whole: never would you may be sure our Saviour, have chosen that time to be borne in, and that for a special liking (as all writers agree) that he had in that state of government that then was. But if it were so that God had appointed the order of the world to be such, as that there should be of necessity in every particular country a particular head, and no one over the whole (which negative words the scripture hath not): yet might there be a secret cause of god's providence, why this order should be rather in worldly government then in spiritual, which we be not worthy to know. Perhaps to be a punishment for sin this order was taken, that one off us might be a whip and scourge to the other, which although God by his justice do to our bodies, through battle and war punishing them, yet would he not of his mercy so punish by schisms and heresies our souls. You note to the Reader after the Hagiographa in the English The book of Ecclesiasticus rejected by the protestants, alleged. Bibles, that this book of Ecclesiasticus is of the number of them, that are not to be alleged for the proof of doctrine. Now what double dealing is this I pray you M. Nowell, there to reprove it, and here to allege it, and ground a doctrine upon it never heard of before, to wit, that of necessity every country must have a several supreme governor? If you should preach openly this doctrine in pulpit M. Nowell, how soon would you either prove a traitor yourself, or make other traitors? For were it not think you a fault to the crown of England, in the nature of high treason, to say that Ireland being a several country divided from England by the main Ocean, aught to have a several governor other than English? Were it not treason for your brethren protestants of these low countries, to preach by this text as you writ, that because Spain and flanders be far diverse and several countries, for this cause they ought not to be under one head prince, and king as they are? Therefore if you love the quiet of the realm, and esteem your duty to your sovereign and ours, twang no more upon that string I warn you like a friend. You prosecute your fond argument and say. So is their no disordre that several churches have several bishops to their heads. Nowell. a. 17. No disordre at all, but most convenient order, if those Dorman. several bishops obey the one head placed by Christ over them. But to make those several bishops to rule the several churches, without recourse when occasion shall require to a higher as you do, we say it is a great disordre. To return to Nazianzene his saying, where is no rule there Nowell. a. 27. b. 1. is no order: where many rule there is sedition: you say, that if many magistrates have equal authority in one common wealth, or if many ecclesiastical persons, have equal authority in one several church, it is like to their fantasy who would have many equal gods to rule the world. But one several ruler in one several dominion, one several bishop in one several diocese, do resemble one God ruling one whole world. I take you at your word M. Nowell, that if many magistrates Dorman. have equal rule in one common wealth, it is like to their fantasy who would have many equal gods to rule the world. But the church of Christ say I, is but one An argument against M. Nowell upon his own grant. christian common wealth, therefore it followeth by your own confession, that if many do equally rule, without relation to one head, it is like to their fantasy who would have many equal gods to rule the world. One several bishop in one several diocese doth not fo. 62. b. 4. resemble one God ruling one world as you dream, but one chief bishop in the catholic church, which in your creed you profess to be but one, he M. Nowell resembleth truly one God, without any presumption at all, seeing god's pleasure is it shallbe so. It was no presumption in the apostles to sit still and suffer Christ to wash their joan. 3. feet. You know what Peter had said unto him for straining courtesy as he did. That you say, it is a thing unheard of but in the pope of Rome, there you made your bargain somewhat wisely. We grant the same, and add beside, that it were intolerable presumption for any other to lay claim to that authority. And yet we trust because S. Peter Homil. vlt. in joan. was pope, and (as chrysostom saith) master of the whole world, and thereto out of the compass of the last nine hundred years, and had this authority by Christ and not from Phocas: you willbe the better for his sake to all the rest. Now followeth your conclusion. Wherefore M. Dorman and D. Harding may as well say, that Nowell. b. 19 the world is seditiously governed by diverse Princes, as the church by several bishops. But as Nazianzene never dreamt of one Emperor over all the world to avoid sedition, though he teacheth there is one God: no more did he though he teach one Christ, yet ever dream of one only head bishop or pope. etc. I have oftentimes showed here before, that the regiment Dorman. of the church is far different from that of the world. It shallbe needless to repeat it here again. You can not therefore reason from the one to the other. Whereof Nazianzene dreamt I know not: of this I am sure, that to apply by drift of reasoning the sentence of an Auctor to that which he never meant or intended (so that to his meaning and intent it be in no wise repugnant or contrary) is not only no dream, but the usage also and practise off learned men. And therefore in the law, many a case is decided by words which the lawyer never dreamt peradventure, that they ever should be so applied. The better and more excellent the Author is, the more ample sense may be gathered in his writings. As in the Scripture especially, the infinite variety of commentaries doth declare. Wherefore I do the more marvel that you a man traded and brought up in good letters, and a professor off the same, should rave rather waking, then talk after such a sort in your sleep dreaming. But I know the cause, your part is here altogether to reprove, not to prove, as by the title of your book you warned us before. He speaketh further in his sleep and sayeth. How shall we Nowell. fol. 63 a. 1. Psalm. 86 then say, our lord loveth Zion above all the tabernacles of jacob? What this doth mean or to what purpose it is, I know not. Nor I believe M. Dorman when he waketh (if ever he wake) can tell himself. I am glad that my name ministereth you so much Dorman. matter of scoffing mirth, and sorry that so excellent invention should be more then half lost, for that that the greatest part of your ministers through lack off the Latin tongue, can not perceive that sweet allusion, that is between dormire in Latin, and Dorman in English. But think you thus to pass over the scripture with a sleepish scoff? Thinketh your noddis nowlle (I might say M. Nowell, if I listed to contend with you in this kind of eloquence) so to delude the word of God, that you may call it a dream, and so let it sleep? No M. Nowell truth will overcome, when it shallbe with you as it was in the beginning. And therefore I repeat again: if the synagogue of the jews had one head to rule them, and the church more ample, and therefore in more danger of schism, and consequently standing in more need of one head, have yet no such head: then I say M. Nowell, how doth God tendre Zion the church of Christ, above the synagogue of the jews? By Zion is meant therefore in this place the church, which our Lord loveth more than the synagogue, as Saint Augustine upon this place doth in these words well declare. Diligit illam spiritualem civitatem super In. psalm. 86. omnia figurata, quibus intimabatur illa civitas semper manens. He loveth that spiritual city above all the figurative things, by the which that city which ever shall continue was signified. This being therefore true, it followeth, that he hath left to us aswell one head to rule us and direct us in one uniform faith, as he gave to the synagogue. Now am I awake M. Nowell you see, and can tell you, and have told you what I mean by these words. if you could as well tell what you meant by that musical twang of your harp, you should take out of many men's heads many odd crachettes. You need not now to be careful for Pighius waking, or to make any combat with his spirit for the matter, who sleepeth not, except you will defend the heresy of them that believe so of all souls, but is in perfect rest I trust, or in assured hope to be. How God hath provided better for the church then for the synagogue, and of the strength of my reason drawn from the synagogue to the church. The 20. Chapter. God hath provided for the church (you say) as well as he Nowell. fol. 63. a. 24. did for the jews and better too. Here you grant all that I said and more too. But let Dorman. us mark your mighty reasoning how you prove it I pray you. For whereas they had but one chief bishop for their whole Nowell. nation, he hath provided for the church in every diocese one, that they may be the better governed and less pained to travail far, for the decision of their doubts and controversies. To this say we, if God had done no otherwise, he had Dorman. done less for the church then for the jues. For better it is to have one head unto the which doubts of great importance may be referred, then to have many in many places, and every one (without respect to one chief) to do as he shall think good. How think you M. Nowell, is it not better in one family to have one Master, in one city one Mayor, in one shire one lieutenant, then in a family many masters, in a city many Majors, in a shire many lieutenants? I know not who governeth in your house, your wife, or you, or both: but this I think I may be bold to say, that if your wife were, not quarter master only, but as much master as you, that you were not therefore in better case than your next neighbour, that had the whole rule of his house himself. Iff the straits off your own house like you not, look upon the largeness of the whole realm, and judge whether it be better to have one liege sovereign or many. You heard S. Augustine's opinion Lib. de verarelig. ca 25. (a better divine I trow than you) touching this matter before, concluding that their authority was greater, and they of better credit, that reduced all things to one God, because in the works of nature he said it was so. So in the church M. Nowell, seeing that as God is one the faith is also one, one head is better to conserve that one faith and the unity thereof, than many. Therefore if the jews had one head bishop, and the church diverse heads, it is by all reason worse provided for. Except you will say, that to have many equal rulers in one body, in one common wealth, is better than to have only one. Which notwithstanding before you resembled to their fantasy, who would have many equal gods to rule the world. But you say, there is much labour and pains saved. Here while you seek for ease you lose unity: while you diminish pains, you prepare the high way to the multiplying off schisms. You have an eye to the resorting to that one head from all places of the world, but you considre not the fruit of peace and unity that is thereby procured. Make diverse equal heads in the church, and you shall never be able to avoid schisms in the same, which S. Jerome as you heard before, saith can not be kept out of particular churches, without there be one priest of peerless authority above the rest. Now let the learned reader judge whether pains be well redeemed, by such an inestimable benefit. You clatter still that this head amongst the jews was but of one nation. I tell you again as I did before, it was the church that God had in earth at that time. But M. Dorman dealeth not truly with the Apology etc. The Nowell. fo. 62. b. 7 Apology saith, that as the church decayed in the old law, where was the same God, the same Christ, the same holy ghost etc. then as is now, so may it and hath it decayed now. M. Dorman handleth the matter as though he could prove by the Apology, that because where was the same God, the same Christ, the same holy ghost etc. in the jewish church as is now, therefore must there be one head bishop over all the christian churches through out the world, as there was one head bishop over all the jews, which followeth no more, then that we must have circumcision now, for that the jews had it then. I marvel that you be not ashamed to make any mention, Dorman. The reason of the Apology, The church decayed in the old law, ergo it may and hath decayed in the new, confuted. of that foolish, false and blasphemous reason used by the Apology. For the concealing whereof reason would you should rather have thanked me, then have accused me of untrue dealing. But wilt thou see good Reader how untruely I have dealt. Forsooth because the proposition off one God, one Christ etc. brought by the Apology, served not for the proof of that for which it was brought, I used it being a general and true maxim, to prove a true conclusion. But why should it not serve his purpose as well you will say, as mine? I will tell you the cause. One especial cause why this argument of the Apology, The synagogue hath decayed; Ergo, the church hath decayed, defended here stoutly by M. Nowell, should not be good, is, because God hath made other manner of promises for the continuance of his church, than ever he made to the synagogue. He hath promised that hell gates shall not prevail Matth. 16. against it. This were not true if it had been either these 15. or nine hundred years either, overrun with heresies. He hath appointed it to continue with the son, and to remain till the monel be taken away. If because the church Psalm. 71. of the old law was brought to that paucity that some times there were but eight, as in noah's time, or but Elias alone Gen. 7. as he was persuaded, but yet in deed 7000. more as God told him, and that in Israel (for in juda notwithstanding 3. Reg. 19 the church flourished) although your Apology had not read so far: If I say the church of Christ might after 15. hundred years continuance be brought to the same case In the Portress● the 6. 7. 8. and 10. chapters. now, where were all these promises with diverse other, diligently of late gathered together, made to the church and of the church? If because in the old law God was Notus in judea, & in Israel magnum nomen ei us, known in Psalm. 75. jury and his name great in Israel, but so no farther, it may be lawful for you to defend your secret conventicles at Geneva or else where, where is then, through out all nations Lucae. 24. beginning at Jerusalem? Where is the prophecy of David spoken before hand of Christ's kingdom the church, that it should rule from sea to sea, and from the flood to the Psalm. 71. end of the world? Seeing therefore these great promises have been made by all mighty God to the church, whereas to the synagogue the figure thereof there were made no such: although it decayed, although at the last it vanished away as the priesthood and law did: we can not conclude that therefore the same should happen to the church which hath other manner of stays to hold it up. The compilers of your Apology might be ashamed M. Nowell, if they had not abandoned all shame and honesty, to abuse after this sort the examples of the holy scripture to prove that Christ's church might fail, because in the old law it was brought to some pancitie●, which reason they borrowed of the donatists those wicked heretics, as appeareth by Saint Augustine who confuteth the same. And Lib. de unitat. eccle. cap. 12. thus have I showed you M. Nowell a cause, why this saying of your Apology could not be applied to the church of Christ that is now: it remaineth that I answer your objection made of circumcision, which you say I may aswell prove to be to be used now, because it was used in the old law, as prove the necessity of one chief head thereby. No that I can not, I will in few words tell you a cause why. The new law is called by the scripture Hebr. 9 tempus correctionis the time of reformation, because it correcteth and reformeth the old which brought nothing to perfection. circumcision in the old law was one of Hebr. 7. those things, that God would in the time of grace take away, and substitute in the place thereof a better, that is Baptism. So was not the placing of one head over the synagogue, which being done for the quieting of controversies, you may be sure God would no less should continue in the order of his church which he loved so dearly, then in the synagogue which was but a figure thereof. And yet if we should follow your judgement, the wisdom of God which came to reform the old law and make a new perfect law, should by appointing over his church many heads for one, make the law in that point less perfect than was the other. Thus you see I can not reason as you say I might, circumcision in respect of baptism being utterly an imperfection of the law, whereas that order of one chief priest was most perfit and appointed to continue for ever, except you can prove, that God hath changed that order for the better, as he hath in taking away circumcision. This first side of the. 64. leaf containeth no other matter fol. 64. a. then great brags of the Apology, with a prophecy of M. Nowells, that none of the romish clergy shall ever be able to answer it to any purpose. That prophecy is now thanks be to God proved false, and M. Nowell withal a vain liar and a pelting prophet. And now I think M. Nowell a false prophet●. that by this time all honest men will marvel the less, to see so many lies in this reproof of M. nowels, seeing that he hath been so friendly to show himself a patron in defending this lewd lying Apology: of the which though I have made any lie, it is because I called it but a farthel of lies, whereas I should have called it as M. Nowell hath sense taught me, a whole lighter. You blame me not you say, for alleging any thing out Nowell. b. ●6. of the old Testament, but for my guileful and untrue application of places of the old Testament, and of the doctors to such purposes as they appertain nothing unto at all, nay are most contrary to the same. You refuse not scripture, but the wrong application. So will Dorman. any heretic say to you (except the Swenckfeldian) with whom you shall have to do. I apply this scripture as the catholic consent of all the world doth apply it, whom follow you in refusing it? That there hath been nothing proved by me, neither fo. 65. a. 3. by reason, nor by examples of common wealths, it is an impudent lie of yours M. Nowell. I have proved by both, A lie. 52. that as every kingdom and country hath his temporal head to govern the same, by like statutes, laws, and customs: so the church which is but one, must have one head to direct it in one faith and religion. No reason, no examples be against me: for no reason admitteth, no example teacheth, that one body should be better governed by many heads then by one. And therefore that is an other Lye. 53. lie. S. Cyprian and S. Jerome, though they speak but of bishops in their own diocese: yet by greater reason their words take place in the whole church, as before hath been declared. That every diocese have a peculiar bishop it is not contrary to the Pope's supremacy) as you untruly say). And if it should be contrary, how would you then avoid his reason, that would infer here upon, that the having then of several governors of every shire in a realm, should be contrary to the government of one supreme governor the king or the Queen? Well then seeing it is not clean contrary to the having of one general head, to have many inferior heads, S. Cyprian and S. Jerome be not clean contrary to me, nor contrary neither. This is therefore also a lie. I gave to Leo such an epitheton Lye. 54. as the whole council of Chalcedon gave to him before. If you be angry there at, wreak yourself upon them. Leo maketh for us directly all were it true, that you cavil of Zozimus. But as the reader understandeth by this time I doubt not, both Zozimus is proved innocent, and you a false slanderer. a 18. Neither the law, neither S. Cyprian upon the law, speaketh against one head bishop. That is an other flat lie M. Nowell: For to testify one sense of scripture which Lye. 55. Saint Cyprian doth, is not to condemn an other. My collection from the one head bishop of the synagogue hath been proved to be good and lawfully deduced. I need not here to repeat it again. You wish that I and all other adversaries of the truth (so it Nowell. a. 17. pleaseth you to call us) would reason from the shadows off the old law, as did S. Paul, but you say we do not. You prove your saying by a bare denial. And then Dorman. you pass to an other clean wide from the purpose. But such is your rhetoric most worthy to be noted. Well let us examine, your wandering extravagant note. We have made you (you say) off christian's jews: and Nowell. fol. b. 14. ourselves off ministers off the Gospel aaronical levites, & cet. Not we M. Nowell, but the primitive church as your Dorman. self confess in this place, in saying that these things began in Saint Hieromes tyme. You do well to follow so Lib. 4. cap. 18. near the steps of your Master Calvin, who chargethe in his institutions the fathers of the primitive church, for counterfeiting the jewish manner of sacrificing more nearly, than The fathers off the primitive church. slandered by Calvin. other Christ had ordained, or the nature of the gospel did bear. But if these things were in the primitive church, then bear the people no more I pray you in hand, that you resemble the primitive church: if S. Jerome complained of such things in his time, then appeal no more to the first six hundreth years if you be wise. Then term not church ornaments late superstitions. But if S. Jerome complained not at all of such ornaments of the church, but in the Epistle ad Nepotianum lamented only that weightier matters, as the true decking of Christ's church with good ministers, were neglected: If in the epistle ad Demetriadem, he plainly saith: Non reprehendo, non abnuo: I reprove it not: I descent not: then have you abused the reader with S. Hieromes' name, and belied him once again. That which followeth is but a common place of railing, wherein because you talk but in your faculty, I can the less blame you. And to reason sadly with an outrageous railer, were but (you wots well) to preach to frantic Tom of Bedlam. The foundation you say, of altars, bells, banners, candles, Nowell. fol. 67. a. 3. etc. leaneth to this reason of mine: It was so in the shadow, therefore it must be so now in the body, in the truth, in our church: This reason you think (you say) that I like as well as the former reason of one head, and that reason it is that so I should think. No M. Nowell, you are foully deceived if you writ as Dorman. you think. But what? It seemeth to me that you foregtte yourself. Will you I pray you on high days, when you distribute those holy mysteries of yours, wear no cope? Or if you do, must the foundation of the wearing thereof be grounded upon the jewish ceremonies? No you will answer, I wear it because the queens majesties injunctions will have me do so. And our priests wear them because the laws of the church will have them do so. Iff of your doings the Princes law may be the ground: Why may not the church be the same of ours? Now if the Prince may command the ministre to wear a cope, Why may not the same command the bishop to wear a mitre, albes and tunicles? Why may not by the same commandment, altars, bells, banners, candles, plenty of gold and silver, be brought into the church? And then if the Prince may command it, why may not the church of Christ do as much? Thus retain we these things as commanded by the church, not as used by the jues. Who ever useth them so is a Jew: who so useth them so, sinneth deadly. Neither is the reason like, why I should reason from ceremonies in the law, appointed but for the while (as you would have me) to that, by which I argue from things foreshadowed in the synagogue to continue in the church for ever. You proceed, and (after my manner of reasoning) you ask, Nowell. a. 13. why you may not also reason for the scriptures to be had in a language that the people do the understand: For priests to have wives, for images to be taken away, seeing that in the jewish church, all the people, men, women and children, had the scripture in a language that they did well understand, the Levites and priests had wives and children, seeing that in that church there were no Images, especially when reason beside the law proveth that it ought to be so: Who can deny such a friend his request? Will you Dorman. gladly learn, why my argument should hold and not yours? Listen a while and you shall know. first for the Scriptures, I take not here upon me to resolve that question, whether it be expedient that they should be in the vulgar tongue or no. For I know it is impertinent to our matter. But to your question I answer, that whereas you say that women and children, had the scripture in a language that they did well understand, that is once false: for first that Hebrew tongue, wherein the scriptures were written, was not the common tongue, that the people used amongst themselves, but such as being peculiar to the learned, could not being uttered by the priest be understand, except he did first expound and interpret it. next being written without points, that is without any vowel at all noted in the text, as we have it now pointed, when or by whom it is not certainly known, but by the learned jews themselves as it is thought, being gathered together in a council at a town called Tiberia, it followeth that the unlearned, could as evil read it as understand it being readen, till it were expounded. And for this cause the 72. elders had only power and authority to interpret the scripture, and to read it to the people, as here in the Chapter by you alleged, Moses did. This being Exod. 24. most true, as for the first point we have the testimony of that learned bishop, Theodoretus the B. of Cyrus, for the next (that of long time the Hebrew tongue remained unpointed) the consent of the best stories: how had then the people of the jewish church, men, women, and children, the scripture in a language, that they did well understand being readen by other? The words of Theodoretus are these. Vocem Hebraicam arbitroresse sacram. Quemadmodum enim In quaest. in Gen. q. 60 in templis Graecorum quidam sunt literarum characteres peculiares, quos sacros appellarunt: Sic deus omnium per Moysen donavit hanc linguam, non naturalem sed ad docendum aptam. Siquidem cum reliqui omnes loquantur lingua gentis suae in qua nati fuerint, & nati in Italia Italorun utantur uòce, qui in Graecia voce Graecorum, qui in Perside Persarum, & qui in Egipto lingua Aegiptiorum loquantur: nihilominus nulli pueri Hebraeorum reperiuntur, qui statim hebraica lingua utuntur, sed eorum apud quos nati sunt. Deinde cum parum adoleverint, docentur literarum characteres, & discunt literis scripturam divinam hebraica voce scriptam. That is to say. The Hebrew tongue I think to be holy, for as in the Greek temples there be certain peculiar characters of letters which they call holy: even so the God of all, by Moses hath given this tongue, not natural but apt to teach: for whereas all other do speak the tongue of their own nation, wherein they were borne, and they which be borne in Italy use the Italian tongue, being borne in Grece speak the greek tongue, in Persia the Persian, and in Egipte the Egyptian tongue: yet notwithstanding none of the children of the hebrews be found, which from the beginning use the Hebrew tongue, but their language amongst whom they be borne. afterward when they wax somewhat big, they be taught the characters and letters, and learn in letters holy scripture written in the Hebrew tongue. Yowe here M. Nowell that the hebrewe tongue wherein the old law was written, was no natural tongue, that the characters and letters were peculiar, that is to say not to be understand of every man, and for that cause called holy, as those were that the Greeks had in their temples. You here that it was not learned by nature as are the English, french, Italian and other vulgar tongues, but by art as are the latin, Greek and Hebrew with us. So that as the reading of scripture in latin helpeth nothing the unlearned Englishman, no more did the reading of the law in the Hebrew tongue profit the unlearned, till the reader did expound it. For which cause by the law the people was commanded, to Malach. 2. demand the law at the priests mouth who kept it. And thus much for the law: for your reason that they that are bound to obey god's law ought to understand it, it is true I grant, by such lawful ministers as are appointed Cap. 31. to teach it, as appeareth by the very place of Deuteron. that you allege here. For the marriage of priests, why you may not reason from the old law to the new to establish it, the first cause is, because the priests of the old law did serve in the temple by turns, and when their courses came to serve they were separated from their wives. In the law of the Lib. 1. contra jovinia. Ca 3. 1. ad Timoth. distin. 31. cap. tenere. gospel, the priest must be ready continually and daily to minister. This do, S. Jerome S. Ambrose, and Innocentius the first confirm by this argument; The priests off the old law abstained from their wives when their course came to minister, but the priests of the new law must be always reaadie to ministre: therefore they may not mary at all. Again the church maketh such only priests as do vow chastity. This vow is free to be made or not made: when it is made not the church only, but the law of God forceth men to keep it. The single state in the old law was not so commended, now it is by the Apostle preferred before honourable wedlock. Beside this the Apostle sayeth: The married thinketh 1. Cor. 7. on those things, that pertain to the world, and how he may please his wife: the unmarried man upon those things, that pertain to God, how he may please him. Therefore he exhorteth all men (most of all the ministers of God) to be like to himself, that is single and unmarried. The fifth cause of difference may be, because priesthood went then by succession within one tribue, and therefore it was necessary, that they married to continue the same, whereas ours goeth by lawful vocation, and the priests are and may be chosen through out the world, and therefore there is no such necessity. Last of all I answer as Saint Austen did to Faustus the Manichee, objecting Lib. 22. Cap. 47. to jacob as a great crime, the having of four wives: Quando mos erat crimen non erat: & nunc propterea crimen est quia mos non est. When the manner was so it was no fault: and now therefore it is a fault, because it is not the manner. Are not these M. Nowell reasons sufficient to assoil your doubt, why priests should not now marry, because they were married in the old law? Reply first against these, and then shall you here more. In the mean season thus much be said to the law. Now to your reason, why ptiestes should be married now, as well as they were in the old law. You reason not with S. Paul: as you brag here, but against him. For whereas he saith, that such young widows a▪ 28. 1. Timot. 5 as after their vows married, have their damnation, you bring him for the contrary, disagreeing by that means both with himself, and the ancient fathers, who agree all in the interpretation of this place. He that can not contain, let him mary etc. that it is to be understanden of such, 1. Cor. 7. Amb. cap. 5. ad virg. lapsam, & alij alibi. as having not vowed to the contrary be yet in the full possession of their liberty, and intend not to use the means to attain chastity. You reason against S. Paul, whom you wrist here to this meaning that he should will all men to mary. Whereas he wisheth on the contrary part in this very chapter all men to be unmarried, as he was himself. He meaneth here M. Nowell, as witness S. Jerome, S. Lib. 1. contra jovin. Amb. in hoc cap. 7. Chrysost. hom. 9 in hunclocum. Ambrose, and S. chrysostom, that the Corinthians (whom saith S. Ambrose, he saw so to swarm with vices, that he thought it very hard for them to live continently) should continue to keep every man the company of his married wife, which they doubted whether it were lawful for them to do or no, and therefore consulted S. Paul therein. That this is the true meaning of the place, beside the authority of these fathers, by the whole discourse also of the chapiter, and these words that follow next after those alleged by you, Vxori vir debitum reddat etc. Let the man yield to his wife the due debt of marriage, it may manifestly appear. To your last question of images, I answer, that such images, as Christian men have, were not forbidden. They were idols, that were forbidden, or images to be worsshipped as God, of which sort we have none. Men do not stoop to insensible blocks or stones, no more than he doth reverence to wax or parchment, that kisseth the queens broad seal, and therefore that reason argueth him, that of men having life or reason so saith or thinketh, to be himself for his wit a block, for his Christian charity a very stone. The honour, that we give to images, is to the things that they represent, not to the matter of the image itself. You have by this time I trust M. Nowell, your request satisfied, not by great leasoure, but all other business set apart with as much speed, as I could. The reason you see, why I may reason as I do, but not you as you would, is other than my bare pleasure. And therefore I will now proceed further. In this leaf and first side you say, first that Christ is the only fo. 68 a. Nowell. head of the catholic church and none but he alone, then that the scriptures are the judge of all controversies, because they shall judge us in the last great day. Christ is only the chief head of his church, and after Dorman. that manner there is no other head thereof, but he. Which as he is also of all the particular churches that be in the world, and yet that no let, but that there be other inferior heads under him, so is his being head over the whole church no more let, that there should be an other inferior head to rule in his corporal absence over the whole church here in earth. When you talk of Scripture, and think it strange, that it should not be the only judge in all controversies, we marvel not, seeing we remember, that you have reason to hold with your forefathers old condemned heretics. But of this, I shall, when I come hereafter to your discourse upon this point, have more occasion to speak. Presently I will note to the reader the wise reason, that you bring, to prove that the only scripture ought to be the judge of all controversies, which is, because it shall judge both you and us in the latter day. So shall our saviour in his visible person M. Nowell. So shall the 12. Apostles: will you prove thereby, that Christ and the twelve Apostles in their visible persons ought to be the judges of all controversies, that arise now in the church? Beside that, these words can not be understand of the text written, (there being then when Christ spoke these words never a word written) and therefore must be taken to be meant as well of his word unwritten, as written: of tradition M. Nowell, even that word of God, that once shall judge you. So good be your reasons, and such wise consequences depend thereon. And yet you end with a check, as though you had given the mate, and say. M. Doman avoid the contempt, th● you may escape the judgement. Now M. Nowell you have proved no contempt, and therefore I fear not the judgement. Let this be neck, till you give a better check. Of certain external furniture of the church, where with M. Nowell chargeth the catholics to have blinded the world. Of the Scriptures being judge in all controversies. The 21. Chapitre. BECAUSE I desired that I might be suffered a little 22. by the reader's patience to open to the world your crafty dealing, and to shake you out off your maskers clouttes etc. Yowe cry, hold not the man for God's sake, Nowell. & cet. No haste but good sir, your fantasy feigneth that reason Dorman. never told you. I call not the holy Scripture your A lie. 56. clouttes, (I refer me to the place for my discharge, and to prove you a liar) but your own clouted gloss are the clouts, the masker's apparel, the glittering shows, the which I speak off, and by the which you blind not only the ignorant, but the wiser sort also. To discharge yourselves hereof, it is a world to see how workmanly you handle the matter, by discoursing shortly upon two points. The first is, that we by copes, vestiments, gilted crosses, candlesticks, dead men's and oft dead beasts bones, by ceremonies, Nowell. fol. 69. a. 13. minstrelfye, bells, banners, and other babbles, have so be witched and strooken blind both the simple and many of the wiser sort also, that neither they can see any thing of Christ their saviour, nor here and understand aught of his most holy word. Yea that we have compelled them in stead of the true worshipping of God, to put all religion in the outward and dumb ceremonies, and not to regard the God off their Father. The second, is a justifying of your religion by the loss which many of your part have sustained in the defence thereof, of lives and liberty. To the first I make answer, that the ceremonies and Dorman. ornaments wherewith you scornefuly twit us, were partly The use of ceremonies. reverent ceremonies to stir up devotion, partly comely ornaments to deck the house of God, that even by such outward means, men might eftsoons be put in remembrance to use no demeanour unseemly for that place. So far was it from this that the people was hindered thereby from the understanding of Christ and his holy word, that dull affections were much whetted, and cold devotion not a little inflamed thereby. Let the manners off men that lived in that age, when these ceremonies and ornaments were most in use, bear witness between you and me, whether they were any hindrance to the knowledge of Christ and his word or no. It is a slanderous lie of yours to say, that we compelled men in the steed off the A l7e. 57 true worship off God, to put all religion in ceremonies, & cet. As it is also till you can prove it, that dead beasts bones were A lie. 58. burnished over with burning gold. But this is M. nowels rhetoric good reader. After that he and his companions have brought us from firm faith to a rash confidence, from the truth itself to signs and tokens, from one faith to a number of contrary schisms and sects, from the fear of God to a dissolute security, from praying and fasting, to playing and banqueting, from repentance and confession, of our sins to laughter and mockery of that holy and most necessary sacrament: after that they have spoiled the church of five holy sacraments (the other two which remain being made but bare signs and tokens, the one a piece of bread, the other a badge or sign of Christianity: after they have rob God of his due honour (the blessed sacrifice of his body and blood) the saints and friends of God of their due worship, the souls departed of all charitable relief: after they have spoiled the realm of most godly foundations, monasteries, colleages, hospitals, alms houses, cometh solemnly this protestant proctor, and reconuenteth us for copes, crosses, candlesticks. etc. As for the second point M. Nowell it is not iwisse the fo. 69. b. 1. imprisonment of heretics, not the death of your stinking martyrs, not all the Acts and monuments of Fox, that can prove one protestant to be a good catholic. Do not Catholics also suffer imprisonment, loss of gods, lack of liberty, wives and children? Are they not in banishment in a straying land out of their own country, (than which there is no worldly thing the lack whereof grieveth them more), not in such wealth M. Nowell as Merchants maintained you, no one penny (which we neither require nor look for, but only note your state and ours herein how different they are) coming from them to us. Have not many of them also suffered bitter death, yea more dreadful (to use also in this respect your own words) then is usual to felons, murderers, or to most savage, noisome wild beasts? Let the drawing, hanging, and quartering, of that number of holy fathers of the Charter house, the cruel execution of that good old man father Forest, and of others: let the death of those two most worthy pearls of England, B. Fisher, and Sir Thomas More: let the death of diverse Abbates, religious men, gentlemen and other, testify, that Catholics when death was offered have not forsaken to die for religion also. But what Death meaketh not the cause good. then M. Nowell, is this a sufficient argument to prove the cause good? No, no, M. Nowell, if it were so, you Sacramentaries and Lutherans should be of all sects lest esteemed. The Anabaptists do in this point go far beyond you. Who to this hour daily suffer in all countries where they be to be found. And that death being tumbled headlong in sacks into the water they suffer secretly. Which manner of execution, if it had been practised upon Lutherans and Sacramentaries, that without the sight of the world, the admiration and applause of the brotherhood, without glory and renown they might have ended in this world their wretched lives, it is thought that many of them had yet lived, either for worse or for better. I might here bring the example of the Donatists, whose excessive desire to die, and to seal with their blood their heresies, S. Augustin in diverse of his epistles and in the later end of his third book against the epistle of Parmenianus doth well declare. But this that hath been said may Tom. 7. suffice to conclude M. Nowell, that if all England should run to morrow next with the blood of heretics (as God of his tender mercy forbidden such hardness of heart in those that profess themselves to be Christians) yet ought not therefore the cause to be judged any whit the better, seeing that we see the cursed sect of Anabaptists, and have heard of the wicked Donatists, and know beside that the devil hath aswell his false witnesses, ready to suffer gladly moste bitter death for their conceived opinions, as Christ hath his true martyrs to do the like for the true catholic faith. Thus much be said to M. nowels impertinent discourse of copes, vestiments, gilted crosses, candelstickes etc. and to his other idle talk of the persecution forsooth, and martyrdom saving your reverences of his dear brethren. Now at the length he cometh to that which he should chiefly have answered in this place, that is of thetrieng of all controversies by the only scripture. To prove that of controversies rising about the true understanding of the scripture, the scripture itself should be the judge, he useth a similitude, wherein he compareth us to the Pharisees, and himself and his companions to the Apostles. And upon that comparison reasoneth in effect as followeth. As in the controversy between the Apostles and the Phariseis, Nowell. fol. 69. a. 1 the question being whether Christ were the true Messiah, the Apostles affirming, the Phariseis denying, if the matter had been referred to the interpretation and determination of the high priest and his consistory, we might yet have looked with the jews for Messiah to come: and as it was no reason that in the controversy between the said high priests and the Apostles, whether they had put Christ justly or unjustly to death, they should be themselves the judges, who were not only accessaries, but the principal parts to the murder: so must we now with the Apostles make the scripture the judge of our controversies, and the pope by all reason must be excluded, as he that is the sink of all the abominations wherewith he that hath but half an eye may see, how shamefully the law of God is, as it was by the Phariseis, corrupted. Your similitude M. Nowell halteth, and is not able Dorman. therefore to go so far as it should. For the better declaration whereof it is to be known, that as soon as john the Baptist Matth. 11. began to preach, the synagogue which had no promise to continue for ever, began to languish, and so was at the length weakened, that after Christ's death it came to nothing, Christ having then established a new church, and made his Apostles the doctors and judges thereof, and Peter the governor of all. Now see I pray you how this similitude of yours holdeth. The Apostles being the true church of Christ, referred not their controversies to the Phariseis which pertained not to the church, yea were enemies and persecutors thereof, but referred the same to the scriptures, and judged by the scriptures themselves, ergo, the church of Christ that is now, may not be the judge of controversies, but we must refer the same to the scriptures. I deny that consequent M. Nowell. You prove it, because the Apostles did not refer their controversies to the high priests and Phariseis. I grant you, for their priesthood, and authority was expired. When you shallbe able to prove us Phariseis, and yourselves the true church, then may you by this similitude reason, that as the Apostles referred not the judgement of the meaning of the scriptures to the Phariseis, which were not the church nor of the church: so you will not being the church, refer the matter to us, but judge of the scripture yourselves as the Apostles The Apostles being the true church of Christ judged of the scriptures. did. In the mean season as the Apostles alleged for themselves the scripture, and said it made for them (wherein they gave judgement of the scripture,) so followeth it that Christ's church which is now, (the same that was then) judgeth in all controversies which is the right and true sense. Neither can it serve you to say to the contrary, as you do sclaunderouslie, that the word of God having been most shamefully by us corrupted, as he that hath but half an eye may well see, it is no reason being parties that we should be judges therein: that thus might the Phariseis have said even of the Apostles themselves, and laid to their charges partiality, because they were Christ's scholars and disciples, and so parties to the cause which they maintained, and also for that you have not as yet proved, nor ever shallbe able to prove, that Christ's church hath ever erred in the faith, or the head thereof at any time delivered to the church any tradition or erroneous opinion, whereby the word of God hath been corrupted. Which assertion of yours being most directly against the scriptures, bearing witness so manifestly Math. 14. 16. joan. 14. & alibi. of the continuance of the church incorrupted, so often avouched by you, and being the only foundation of this plea of yours that we be the Phariseis, and you Christ's true Apostles, me thinketh you should have done well once in so often affirming it, to have proved by one sentence of scripture, or some approved auctor, and not facingly to say, that he that hath but half an eye may see that it is so, or else till you could have proved it, it had been more for your honesty to have abstained from such unmerciful and unchristianlike demeanour, as you use towards both the church of Christ, and the head thereof. Where you say that I will have the scripture rejected, there you report untruely of me. This I say, that scripture (not through any imperfection or insufficiency that is in it, but only by occasion of stubborn, wrangling and contentious natures, who never will give over the opinion that they have once conceived (every one being at appoint to receive no other interpretation thereof them to them shall seem good) is not able to end and determine all controversies moved upon the letter thereof, and that therefore even as in the laws of the realm, which were to decide all controversies sufficient, so that the law being brought every man would furthewithe yield to it, because they will not, there be judges by the prince appointed to cut of all altercations, and to preserve the realm in quiet: who when the councillors both of the one part and the other have contentiouslie disputed the matter, each of them affirming that the law is on his side, shall by opening the meaning thereof end the strife: So is it not to be thought, but that God forcing the innumerable sects of heretics that should trouble his church, of whom there should be no one, no not of them that directly blush not to teach Suencfeldius. that there ought to be no scripture at all, that would not colourably defend the same by scripture, it is not I say to be thought, that he would in this case make less provision for his church, than a temporal king will for the due administration of his laws, and the preserving of unity amongst his subjects. Neither is it any injury to the scripture, or derogation to the majesty thereof, that the malice of men maketh it less sufficient to condemn heresies: especially seeing as Tertullian saith, the scriptures have been Lib. de prescript. heretic. 1. Cor. 11. by the will off God so disposed, as that they might ministre matter to heretics, seeing it is written that there must be heresies, which can not be without the scriptures. To this objection of mine, that the scriptures be so written, that there was never heretic yet, that did not allege scripture for the maintenance of the same, and that thought not by the scriptures himself well able to defend the same, note I beseech the good reader that M. Nowell maketh here no answer at al. Only he maketh against this an other objection, that so the pope may under b. 5. the name of the church maintain and defend all errors and superstitions. Which if it were true, what would follow other of this conclusion, but that there should be no judge at all? Is not this a proper kind of answering trow you? But because the matter shall not remain in that incertainty, I will M. Nowell answer your reason although you would not answer mine. I say therefore, that the pope as head of Christ's church, that is to say, defining or decreeing any thing concerning the affairs and business thereof, never erred yet, nor ever shall. I prove it by authority and by reason. By the authority of our Saviour himself, who praying that Peter's faith might not fail, could Lucae. 22. not but obtain. Which privilege so obtained, seeing that Christ builded his church, not to continue for Peter's life time, but for ever: we may not doubt but that it was given also to his successors. S. Augustine (as I noted before) Epis. 165. applied the words of Christ spoken of the Phariseis sitting in Moses chair: Quae dicunt facite: quae autem faciunt Matth. 23. nolite facere. Look what they bid you do, do it: but do not as they do, to the bishops of Rome succeeding Peter, and addeth, that in so doing our faith shallbe sure and certain, as the which being placed not in man but on God, can never be scattered with any tempest of schism. You have the authority of the Scripture: you have the judgement of S. Augustine, that Peter's faith shall continue in him and in his successors, that to do as they command, is to make our faith sure and defensible against the tempests of all schismatical storms. Now hearken to reason. Christ promised for ever to abide with his church. S. Paul calleth it the Matt. 28. 1. Timo. 3. pillar of truth. If Christ be with it, it can not err: if it be the pillar of truth it admitteth no falsehood, if it can admit no falsehood, the pope which is the head thereof and appointed by God to govern it in earth, can not in the government thereof err. For if the head might err, than might the whole body which is bound to follow the head. And thus both by authority and reason, by experience of these 1500. years it appeareth, that there is great difference between the two likelihoods that you put in the pope, and in other private men, touching the interpretation of the scripture. And therefore upon the overthrow of this, down cometh all that you build thereupon, eitherin this place or else where. Having now taken your pleasure sufficiently at us, comparing us with Annas and Caiphas, calling us thieves, adversaries of the gospel, guilty of many heresies, corruptions of religion and false superstitions, you entre in to a common place of councils, whereof you say as followeth. But the adversaries off the Gospel deal thus with us: Nowell. b. 20. The Pope and all his clergy being guilty off many heresies, etc. and thereof accused, do assemble themselves together in a council, in the which nothing may be moved, much less determined, but such as pleaseth the Pope himself; there is inquiry made of us (who do accuse them thereof and offer to prove it) and there unheard and unseen we are condemned of our adversaries. etc. You here note in the margin (for the proof hereof Dorman. that nothing may be moved in the council but such as pleaseth the pope) Pighius in his 6. book and first chapiter of his Hierarchy. This place you alleged before. As I told you then so do I now, that you have beelied Pighius. Supra. fol. 24. b. For he saith not as you do here, that nothing may be moved in the council but such as pleaseth the pope. He saith: Haud feré fit, almost it is not otherwise, not denying as you say he doth, that it can not be otherwise. The words of Pighius note rather the great diligence of the pope, which is such, that when all the world shall meet together in a general council, they can not for the most part name any thing to be reformed or concluded, that the Bishop of Rome with his learned council about him, hath not before foreseen and handled, then take away liberty from any man to move any doubt to be resolved not considered before by the pope. That the pope moveth ordinarily such doubts to the council, is't that offend you, be angry with S. Peter his predecessor, who practised the same first in the general council mentioned in the Acts of th'apostles. You accuse the pope and his, and Act. 15. offer to prove it. It is in deed the common brag of you all, to say you can prove us Phariseis, corrupters of religion, that the church of Christ hath utterly failed, and so forth. The which if you fear to prove in general councils, yet you might me thinketh give us a taste of your proofs in your poisoned writings. To that that you complain, that you are condemned unheard and unseen, we say as you guessed we would, that you might be heard if you listed, against the which answer of ours you reply. How we are called and how we may be heard, let john hus, Nowell. fo. 70. a. 2 called by the emperor Sigismunde his safe conduct under his great imperial seal, to the council of Constance with Hierom of Prague, (who both were contrary to the faith given them by the greatest christian prince in the world, condemned and burned to ashes) be an eternal witness: yea let their own decree made in the said council, which was: that no faith nor promise is to be kept to any heretic, nor that any man by any promise, standeth bound to an heretic etc. be a perpetual testimony off the same. Behold how many lies in how few lines. john Dorman. Husse being called to the council of Constance, broke the conditions of his safe conduct. For whereas he promised the emperor to continue at the council to the end, and thereupon had the saulfe conduct granted, he not trusting thereto, conveyed himself out of Constance covered in a cart with straw. He abstained not beside being excommunicate, and not having learned so far as you are come now, from saying of mass, contrary to the laws of the church and express commandment of the council. So that seeing in every saulfe conduct the party to whom it is granted, is aswell bound to observe the conditions on his part to be observed, as he that granted it, is to perform semblably his promise, the which hus did not, you have herein slandered the council and made a lie. Lye. 59 If you deny this you may consult the history of Vlrichus Reichentall, who being a citizen of Constance was sum a Teutonic. histor. de Concil. Constant. then present at the council when these things happened, and reporteth thereof as hath been declared. That you join to hus Jerome of Prague, that is an other lie. For as Hierom never would venture so far as to trust A lie. 60. to any saufeconduct, so was he taken against his will and Acts and monuments fo. 243. brought to the council, as witnesseth your fellow Fox. Now followeth the greatest lie of all, and that is of a decree that should be made in the council off Constance, that no faith or promise is to be kept to any heretic, nor that any man by any promise, standeth bound to an heretic. I will here allege the words of the decree, which this falsifier durst not for fear of being betrayed. They are these: Praesens sancta synodus; ex quovis saluoconductu per imperatorem, ●ess. 19 reges, & alios seculi principes, hereticis vel de heresi diffamatis, putantes eosdem sic a suis erroribus revocare quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint concesso, nullum fidei catholicae vel iurisdictioni ecclesiasticae praeiudicium generari, vel impedimentum prestari posse seu debere declarat, quominus dicto saluoconductu non obstante, liceat judici competenti & ecclesiastico de huiusmodi personarum erroribus inquirere, & alias contraeos debite procedere, eosdemque punire quantum justitia suadebit, si suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusaverint, etiamsi de saluo conductu confisi ad locum venerint judicij alias non venturi, nec sic promittentem, quum aliàs fecerit quod in ipso est, ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum. That is to say. This present holy synod declareth, that notwithstanding any saufeconduct granted by the emperor, kings, or other secular princes, to heretics or defamed of heresy, upon hope thereby to call them from their errors, with whatsoever bond they have bound themselves, that yet there shall not or may not, grow thereby any prejudice to the catholic faith or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in such wise that it may not be lawful for the competent and ecclesiastical judge, to inquire of the errors of such persons, and otherwise to proceed duly against them and to punish them, as justice shall require, if obstinately they refuse to revoke their said errors: yea although they trusting upon the saufeconduct came thither, which otherwise they would not have done, and that he that maketh this promise, when otherwise he hath done what is in him to do, remaineth not hereby in any thing bound. These be the words of the council, this is the decree that you pretend to fear. You say the council hath decreed that no faith is to be kept to any heretic: the council hath only, that such faith as is given by temporal princes (in matters of heresy not pertaining to their jurisdiction) is not to be holden, in such wise as it might prejudice the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The clean contrary therefore appeareth by the council to that which you say: that is, that faith given by some men should hold and be good, (otherwise the exception of secular princes had been made in vain, whereas the council might have said as you do, that no faith without exception should be kept). Wherefore I conclude, that all faith given to any heretic by any ecclesiastical person lawfully authorized is good, and to be kept, and The council of Constance falsified by. M. Nowell, by making a triple. lie. 63. that therefore you have falsified this council, in making it to speak generally of all men, of all faith, of all heretics, which speaketh but only of secular princes, who have no authority to make any such promise of that which pertaineth not to their power and jurisdiction. And therefore even as he that promiseth an other man's fact, promiseth his only diligence and is bound no f●rder, so the council declared that secular princes promising to heretics saufeconduct to come and to go, because they promised factum alienum the deed of other men, were having done their diligence to perform their promise, discharged, and no long bound. Now I pray you M. Nowell, because you complain that offering to prove the pope and his clergy guilty of many heresies, corruption of religion etc. you can not be heard, or if audience were granted to you, promise were not like to be kept because of this decree of the council of Constance, let us examine how true this is. The council of Constance, as by the words of the decree evidently appeareth, declared only that promises made by lay princes did not bind the makers. When you were called to the last council of Trent, was the saufeconduct that was offered to you made by the emperor only, or some other secular prince? Was it not made by the body and head of that most holy and learned council one of them, that ever was assembled, with such assurance for your indemnity, as greater by man's wit could not be devised? Why came you not then, why put you not in your accusations, why durst The protestants feign false causes to excuse them, for not appearing at the general council. you not show your faces? Who seeth not that the pretending (for the cause of your refusal) of this forged decree, proceeded of fear to be vanquished in your heresies, not to be harmed in your bodies? Who perceiveth not that in this drawing back of yours, you countrefeited some cowardly yeoman, that fearing to be pressed to the war, causeth his wife to bind a clout about his head, and then his kerchief being sick, he must needs tarry at home forsooth, who if sickness had not let him, would have killed the enemies all of them himself, as you would the pope and all his clergy, had not this decree been. Well your wit showed itself more in tarrying at home, than your honesty hath done here in falsifying this decree. They say we are heretics, we do deny it: if our nay may not Nowell. a. 14. Dorman. defend us why should their yea condemn us? etc. We say not only that you be heretics. Read M. Nowell the. 8. cause in the conclusion of my first book. Read the discourse annexed unto the Apology of Staphilus lately set forth in English. Read the fortress. You shall The first part the last chap. find there a numbered of your assertions holden generally of all protestants, to be old condemned heresies in the first six hundred years: you shall find that the doctrine of john Calvin your Master, both in the doctrine of the blessed sacrament of the altar, and of baptism, is stuffed with a number of old heresies condemned also in the primitive church. Discharge yourselves first of these heresies, and then say that we say only that you be heretics. We say not only that we be the church, but we prove it also, and have made it most evident that you can by no means be the church. As of late hath been proved, answer it when you can. In some countries if the party accused plead not guilty, and say a. 19 Nowell. nay to the crime objected, if he by diverse torments enforced to confess, do still maintain his nay he is discharged and let go. But it can not help us accused as heretics to deny the false accusation etc. I blame you not M. Nowell though for heretics you Dorman. claim the favour that is wont to be showed to murderers, thieves and other malefactors, although this reason of yours that heretics the greatest offenders that are (for no crime is so great as the fault of heresy) should have this favour, because other malefactors less offending have it, would scarcely be found sound, if it should be by the rigorous rules of logic examined. But it needeth not, it hath other faults enough. For although in some countries the parties accused denying the fault in such wise as you say, be upon their denial discharged and let go: yet is there no country, where if the party accused for theft would confess the deed, but say it were no fault, he should be be so discharged (the laws condemning theft by death) and let go. And yet this is your case M. Nowell. For you confess the deed. You deny (for example) sacrifice and prayer for the dead: you stand in defence of it as did A●rius a Epiph. lib. 3. haeresi. 75. condemned heretic above. 13. hundred years ago. Only your denial is that it is no heresy, which thing if it might be lawful for every heretic to do, and to escape, every one giving to heresy the title of true doctrine, howé many think you would be condemned? Did not Michael servetus put to death by the procurement of john Calvin at Geneva, deny that he was an heretic as you do? Did Calvin any wrong to him in condemning him, who said he could bring as good testimony of his innocency out of God's word, as you say you can for your heresies? Did Cranmer any wrong to joane of kent, because she said she was no heretic? Do not the anabaptists daily say the same? It is toe great an absurdity M. Nowell, and savoureth of your choler over much, that while you labour to bring the catholics in hatred, as though they showed you less favour than they do to thieves, murderers, and other offenders, you forget that in so doing you show your self M. Nowell playeth the proctor for all heretics. a proctor for heretics of all sorts, and that yet you miss of your purpose, the favour of the laws extended to heretics, being greater than is practised upon any other trangressours. For make the comparison aright, and you shall make it between a thief sorry for his theft, or murderer for his offence, and an heretic denying and repenting his heresies. Now who knoweth not in this case who hath the greatest favour, the heretic upon repentance being received to mercy, which favour other offenders have not? To make such false and untrue comparisons as you do, if it proceed not of ignorance M. Nowell, surely it cometh of malice, and that is worse? Where you say A lie. 64. b. 6. that I devise God to be absent, that I say that he is dumb, I said not so. Why do you falsely burden me with that which I never thought? I said that he is In my book. fo. 9 b not present with us in such sort as that we may see him, and speak with him face to face, to be resolved at his mouth of such doubts and questions as should rise amongst us. Say not you the same? Do you call him then dumb, or say that he is absent? If you do not, why I more than you? Nowell. fol. 71. a. unto fol. 74. a. 26. in which compass the testimonies brought to prove that only Scripture is sufficient to determine all controversies are examined. Dorman. S. * Depecca. merit. libr. 1. cap. 22. Ad Cresc. lib. 2. cap. 31. & 32. Augustine contending against those who do attribute God's grace and gifts to the the worthiness of men's merits, concludeth thus. Cedamus & consentiamus auctoritati Scripturae sanctae, quae nescit falli nec fallere. Let us give place to the authority of holy Scripture which can not be deceived nor deceive. We say with S. Austen. Let us give place and agree to the authority of the holy Scripture which can not be deceived nor deceive. Will not two heirs striving about their father's good des say as much as this cometh to of his testament, desire that it may be brought forth, and both of them offer to be tried by it and to stand to it, and yet the words being doubtful require a judge notwithstanding. S. Augustine preferreth the scriptures before the private opinion off Saint Cyprian. So do we toe, and before any other doctor disagreeing from the scripture expounded to us in general councils, and by common consent of all nations, How far this sense which you would wrest out of Saint Augustins' words, that the church may not be judge of the true meaning of the scripture, Contra epist. fundament. Manicheor. cap. 5. is from the mind of S. Augustine, his words in an other place do well witness: where he protesteth that he would not believe the Gospel: if the authority of the church did not move him thereto. How often beside doth Lib. 2. contra julian. & alibi. he in writing against julian the Pelagian, object to him the doctors of the church expounding the scriptures against his opinion? As for that which you bring out of Saint Augustine against councils, it is falsely and untruely applied. For b. 10. Lib. contra Maximinum 3. cap. 14. Saint Augustins' yielding to the adversaries, whom he saw frowardly bend to stand to the heretical council off Ariminum, doth no more prove him to be of the mind to enervate and weaken thereby the authority of general councils, then if I would say to you (disputing with you upon the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, and knowing that you were as wholly bend to maintain the Confession of Augspurg, or perhaps the solemn cup council in Martin Luther's house at Wittenberg, as I am to defend the council of Nice, Ephesus, or Lateranum: Well M. Nowell, neither shall you at this time bring forth your Confession of Augspurg, or the solemn conclusion agreed upon at Martin Luther's house, nor I will allege How S. Austen renounced the authority of the Nicene council. either the council of Nice, Ephesus or Lateranum but the scriptures etc. then I say you could prove hereby, that I, who trusting upon the goodness of the cause, quit for the time the alleging of the councils, were of the mind that the authority of the councils made nothing for the decision of controversies. And that this was the meaning of S. Augustine, to relinquish only for that present time the authority of the council off Nice, that the heretic might forsake his schismatical council, not that he esteemed either the council of Nice or any other lawful general council so lightly as you suppose, both this adverb nunc, now, (whose nature is to limit and restrain) which you fearing lest it would mar all the market, and perceiving that it would be hard to deceive the learnedersorte with this place, alleged truly in A lie by omission 65. the latin but left out in the english, thinking that your part should be well enough played, if you were able to blind the ignorant and unlearned: both doth this I say argue the meaning of S. Austen to be as I say, and not as you pretend, and also that he doth every where against the Donatists allege, Concilium plaenarium totius orbis, the Lib. 1. de baptis. contra Donat. cap. 18. Epist. 118. ad januar. fo. 72. a. 3. S. Austen beelied. ●● How the scripture is judge and how it is not judge of a● controversies. full council of all the world, and saith of councils, quorum est in ecclesia saluberima auctoritas whose authority is in the church most wholesome. It is not to be forgotten in this place, that where S. Austen calleth the scripture by the name of a witness, you conclude that he calleth the scripture judge. Which if he had done might easily have been answered to be true also, when the church hath declared what the scripture ment. As the laws of all countries are the judges of such controversies as rise there but not the judges alone, because they be subject to wrangling interpretations, and therefore require an other judge to judge their meaning. But seeing S. Austen calleth not the scripture judge but witness, you have dealt untruely by concluding more upon his words then is in them. To the places brought here by you out of chrysostom, Fol. 72. ●. I answer, that we say as much in the commendation of holy scripture as he doth. For none of those places make holy scripture the only sufficient trial of all controversies. Therefore where as they say, we must believe scripture rather than men, that if we would believe them we should fall in to no errors: we grant it to be true in scripture as it is delivered by the fathers and expounded by the church. For the first place of S. Hierom, he there rejected an allegation of uncertain authority commonly called Apocriphun, about the person of that Zachary which was slain between Matth. 23. the temple and the altar, which because he knew was not received by universal tradition, there remained no other ground of proving it but by scripture: where sith it was not, he might well say it is as easily contemned as proved. M. nowels ignorance in the writings off the fathers. The last place, non adferamus stateras dolosas etc. is not S. Hieromes, as you trusting over much Gratianus (to whom belike you have recourse for your authorities out of the doctors, to avoid either further pain, either else because you delight not much in such company) report it here Lib. 2. de baptis. cap. 6. to be. It is taken out of S. Austin M. Nowell, a token that many a man speaketh (to use the old English proverb) of Robin hood that never shot in his bow, and maketh nothing against me, who wish you would in deed way things with less deceitful weights of scripture than you do. The places here noted out of S. Austen and Chrisostom B. 14. touching the conference of one place of scripture with an other, of the dark and obscure with the clear and light, are brought to prove conference to be good and profitable, which we deny not. But that which we deny and therefore you should have proved, neither those places nor any other that you have alleged do prove. First that always such conference can assure us of the true meaning of the scripture: secondarily that in this conferring of places there is no difficulty, variety or uncertainty: which we affirm, and prove to be, because to one man (to the Lutheran) it seemeth that hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, and verbum caro factum est, the word is made flesh, are places of like phrase and speech: to you. M. Nowell it seemeth, that Ego sum vitis vera, I am a true vine, is like to this, This is my body. Why you will say I have proved this by chrysostom, who saith: Ad ipsum divinae scripturae scopum accedamus quae Chrisost. in 2. cap. Gen. Homil. 13. seipsam interpretatur: and again, Sacra scriptura seipsam exponit, & auditorem errare non sinit. Let us come to the mark of the holy scripture which expoundeth itself. The holy scripture expoundeth itself and suffereth not the hearer to err. I know that these be Chrisostomes' words: I know that they make nothing for your purpose: I know, and be it known to all men, that they are most shamefully by you abused and mangled. For whereas chrysostom confuting the error of those that grounding themselves upon this place of Genesis: & inspiravit in faciem eius Gen. 2. spiraculum vitae, and he breathed upon his face the breath of life, maintained that the soul of man was off the same essence with God: where I say, chrysostom specially in this point saith that the scripture expoundeth itself, you make him generally to say, that the scripture doth so in all doubts. The which to persuade the better, whereas the last of those two sentences of chrysostom by you alleged, hath thus: quamuis sacra scriptura quum nos tale Chrisostomes' words mangled by M. Nowell. quiddam docere vult seipsam exponit, & auditorem errare non sinit. Although the holy scripture when it will teach us any such thing expoundeth itself, and suffereth not the hearer to err: you mangling the sentence, cut away the middle words, quum nos tale quiddam docere vult, when it will teach us any such thing, lest by those words the reader might understand that chrysostom gave there no general rule, but spoke only of that special point or some other like unto it. If this were not your meaning M. Nowell why cut you of the word quamuis at the beginning, and these other in the midst? Tell us some other cause if you can. Next after these authorities, you allege a treaty of one fo. 73. a. Borrowed of the confession of wittenberg. Tit. de Eccles. that you set forth Rhetorically, calling him an ancient auctor printed with chrysostom and of long time taken for him, to prove that the church must be tried by the scriptures. To this place I answer, that whether it be Chrisostomes' own work from whence it is taken or no, this is a thing most certain, that it is to be warily readen, as the book which hath thrust into it if it be Chrisostomes' own, or any other catholic man's, by some false Arrian heretic many poisoned and pernicious sentences for the maintenance of the Arrians heresy. Amongst other to note to you one or two, even in the. 48. homily, which is the very next before this that you allege here, the Catholics for maintaining the equality of Christ with God the father, are numbered amongst heretics, and in the. 45. they are called heretics, that hold that the blessed trinity is equal of like substance and authority. And therefore in such places as this auctor who so ever it be, dissenteth from the common faith of Christ's church, we have just cause to suspect, that there this heretic (who hath it appeareth overrun the whole,) hath dipped in his fingers, and therefore that we reject. As in this place it is likely that he thought to make a way for his heresies, by challenging to be tried by the scripture only, the common request of the Arrian heretics, because the word they said Homoousion was not to be found in the scriptures. But now if these words were Chrisostomes' own, and not put in by the heretic: yet followeth it not that because the church is to be tried by the scriptures only, that therefore all other questions may be decided by the same alone. For God whose wisdom devised, whose holy spirit breathed, whose finger wrote the scriptures: as for heretics that contemn the authority of the church, he hath so disposed them (as Tertullian writeth) that they might ministre them Lib. de prescript. adverse. haeres. matter: so hath he again for them that shallbe content humbly to rest in the lap of the same, made that matter by the scriptures so clear, that a catholic man may be bold to provoke an heretic, yea all the heretics in the world to dispute by scripture only of that question, which and where is the true church. And surly so was it expedient that it should be, that the church which should judge of the true sense and meaning of the scriptures, should by the scriptures be so evidently proved, that about that their might be no wrangling. As it is not to be marveled therefore, if any catholic man give council to prove the church by the scriptures, (the scriptures speaking of the church as hath S. Austen more plainly than they ●narrat. in psal. 30 do of Christ himself, and thereto being written so evidently that the texts making for the trial thereof need no interpretation) Lib. de unitate ecdes. ca 16 so can you not reason that all other controversies in semblable wise, must be tried by the scripture, because the scripture is more ambiguous in other matters, and because the church is proved so plainly, that it might afterward having the continual assistance of God's holy spirit, and being the pillar of truth, assuer us being in doubt of the true meaning of scripture. And thus much for answer to your long place alleged to so little purpose, out of that ancient auctor printed with chrysostom, and of long time taken for him. By whose authority lest the worekes of S. Clement making so much against your new A sleight of M. nowells. doctrine might get any credit, being here alleged by this ancient auctor printed with chrysostom and of long time taken for him, you took your pen in to your hand, and cut that sentence clean away. Having now spent your store of testimonies brought fo. 74. b. 9 by you to prove that the scripture alone ought to be the judge of all controversies, you return to your old plea so often avouched and never proved, that we be the Pharisees, and therefore can not be the true church of god, that you allege scriptures against us as the Apostles did against the Pharisees, of whom and us you say further as followeth. And I am sure that the high priest with his jewish church, Nowell. b. 29. was able to say as much for the ordinary succession of the high priests his predecessors even from Aaron until his time, for antiquity, for consent, and for universality against Christ and his Apostles (so few in comparison, and as it seemed lately start up): as you are able to say for your church or against us. But yet we do think, that the word of God as it was alleged by Christ and his Apostles against the said high priest and his church, so may it and ought it also to be alleged by us against your high priest and your church, & cet. What so ever the Phariseis had to say against the Apostles Dorman. for themselves, they had not this to say which we have against you, that their church was by the testimonies of the Scriptures promised to continue for ever. The Apostles proved to them the contrary out of the scriptures: if you can do the like to us, and show by evident scriptures that the church of Christ should for the space of fifteen hundred or nine hundred years either be overthrown, and at the length restored by a new Messiah, we renounce the benefit off succession, we give over antiquity, consent, universality and what so ever else. Thus alleged the Apostles the word of God against the Phariseis. Thus must you allege it against us, if you will allege it at all. And whether you be so or no (the true church of god) seeing it Nowell. fol. 75. a. 23. is in question, and a greater doubt and controversy amongst men I am sure, then can be about the sense of any place off the scripture, you shall never be able to make any exception to the scripture as no competent judge in controversies, but we shall be able ten times more to make exception to your Pope and his church, as no indifferent nor meet judge. We make no exception nor ever did, against the scripture Dorman. as of itself an incompetent judge to determine controversies. This we say, that the frowardness of men addicted to maintain their once received opinions, maketh that the scripture is not alone sufficient to decide the same, till the church have given sentence between those that shall thus contend, which is the true meaning of the scripture How the scripture decideth controvet sies. about the which the variance is. The which sentence being given, then doth the Scripture alone decide the matter, as that which contained always the same truth, which is now manifest, being before secret and hidden. Whereas you say that you can make such good exceptions against us that we be not the church, if you had proposed your exceptions, you should have heard mine answer. But to prove the contrary that we be the true church, I refer the Reader to the Fortress of the faith off late set forth. And further those that have the understanding of the Latin tongue, to that short but notable epistle of saint Augustine to Honoratus a Donatist, where this Epist. 161. very question (Honoratus claiming the true church to their side as you do now, Saint Augustine defending the contrary) is attempted to be between them lovingly debated. Vide eundem in psalm. 101. concione. ●. That which served Saint Austen maintaining that the church of Christ must be thorough out all the world, and that therefore he who was of that faith that all the world held had the right church on his side, not Honoratus whose church was only in Africa: why should it not serve for us against you, whose congregation within these few years, was not only not in any whole part of Germany, but in no one known man of Germany, nor of all the world beside neither. Tell us how Christ lost his church and it came to you? Thus much for this present may suffice, for it is not meet that every extravagant proposition of yours, cast in to make your book swell with impertinent matter, because you lacked better stuffing, should be here handled at large, of the which each alone would rise to a just treatise. You rejoice mightily in the prosperous success of your fo. 76. 2. 6. new gospel. Who can let beggars to make much of their rags? yet is it not so far anaunced as was the heresy of Arrius before. Neither have you so much cause to triumph upon the matter all things well considered. What merchandise you make and how your gain riseth in deceiving poor simple craftsmen I know not: your market is thought therein to stand at a stay. But this I know, in other countries, and here credibly that in our own, the wiser and better learned fall daily from you. You would here make men believe that I was wont in times passed to make pastime upon the stage by playing b. 11. the vice. If you speak this of your own devising it cometh of malice: if you speak it upon the report of others, of want of discretion, so lightly to believe every false rumour. How ever it be a lie it is, maliciously feigned to discredit my person and writings. Although if it had been Alye. 67. as you say, both many honest and learned men have occupied that place in exercise of learning in the universities, and you off all other might worst find fault therewith. Whose profession the time hath been was amongst other things to play the master fool, and to frame your scholars to these manners. Of whom some one came sense to such excellency herein, that whether he attained to his masters grace I am not able to pronounce, but of this I am sure, that of all that were in Oxford in his time he bore the bell. You know I dare say Alexander Nowell, that taught Gnato his nurtor to draw his cap overthwart his fellow Parmeno his nose, when he saluted him with plurima salute suum impertit Parmenonem Gnato. And thus much might be said to you had I ever practised that which you so often have taught other to do, as by the lessons which like a master in that faculty you here give, may to any man easily appear. My parable of the fellow is not impertinent, being brought in to disprove the heretics assertion crying for only scripture, and rejecting the visible head of the church, which is the thing that in this first proposition I take on me to prove. You will help you say the surmised fellow. You do well. Why should not one friend help an other. I perceive the old proverb is true, kind will creep where it can not go. For how do you help him I pray you? Forsooth you say. If the fellow appealing for the trial of his innocency to God, Nowell. fo. 77. a. 12 can bring for him so many testimonies of gods own mouth, as we are able for our innocency to bring testimonies of words proceeding from the mouth of God, and of our saviour jesus Christ, and yet it will not serve the seely fellow, nor help him any thing in his plea of not guilty: then I think there can not be a fit law to proceed against him then the pope's canons (which you know well M. Dorman for you have therein spent more time than in the study of the scripture) neither can he have a meeter judge to condemn him then the pope himself: and a handesomer man amongst all men to be, I will not say his hangman but the foreman of a popish quest to pass against the silly soul, shall not any man I believe easily find, nor a fit than is M. Dorman. And thus I let his parable pass. By what name you call me M. Nowell, hangman or Dorman. foreman it forceth not, your tongue is no slander. It may beseem me well enough to be miuried by that tongue by the which Christ suffereth himself and his blessed saints to be blasphemed. But I pray you how help you this poor fellow for all the malice that you bear to me? If he could you say, bring as good testimony of his innocency out off god's word, as you can for yours. etc. If he brought no better, than were he like to stretch a halter. For let us suppose yourself (as meet a man as any that I know) to occupy this felons room at the bar, and see for your only justifying faith what one word off scripture you have? That the sacrament of the altar is only a figure, what testimony of god's mouth could you bring? That the lay princes are appointed by Christ to be the supreme governors in all ecclesiastical things and causes, (no prince being Christened at the writing of the scriptures) that all controversies ought to be tried by only scriptures, where is the scripture? If the fellow could bring as good testimonies as you, were he not now think you like to be much helped by you? But I marvel where your wits were M Nowell, that you be so far overseen, as where as I put the case in a fellow guilty and that had well deserved to die: you would ever make such a supposition, as though such a malefactor might find any testimonies in the scripture to prove him innocent. But I know your meaning well enough. You thought covertly to signify, that there was no fellow that had so grievously offended, but that he might aswell prove his innocency by the scriptures, as you your doctrine thereby. Except you so meant, to wrest my example to your meaning, or to suppose a thing that can not be (as that an offender worthy to die by the laws should find scripture for his defence) either it lacketh (to say no worse) policy or honesty. And thus I let this parable pass. That which followeth of Sardanapalus, Nero, Heliogabalus, fo. 77. b. 4 Ventriloqui, and such like, is but a twang of your harp, which hath now so often sounded upon one string, that you make us believe that you have no more variety in harping, then hath the cuckoo shift of descant in singing. It is a world to see how here you lash out the gospel in B. 26. the margin of your book, against pardons, masses, soul masses, trentals, diriges: how you defend the cause of Math. 21. 23. Marc. 12. the poor widow that had her only cow you wot not where taken away. As though S. matthew and S. Mark had expressly made mention of these things, the widows cow and all: whereas there is no such thing in them to be found, saving that there is mention of such as rob widows housen, and in an other place of the casting of the buyers and cellar's out of the temple, which if you think you may apply to such poor priests amongst us, as were rewarded with a groat after they had said mass for a soul departed this world: what Merchandise is it I pray you that your ministers make, in taking a mark, ten shillings, a noble at the least for every funeral sermon? I will not match with you in Plautus' terms, in whom fo. 78. a. ● it appeareth you have bestowed more time then in S. Austen, or an other good doctor of the church, and perhaps I might add, have better borne away such Plautine periphrases, than out of the scripture good Christian lessons. yet this I must needs marvel at M. Nowell, how you be so suddenly fallen out with poor priests, lashing at them so cruelly with your Plautine periphrases. To the whole order of whom in king Edward's days you pretended, either for fear or flattery, to bear so much good will, that whereas the auctor of the comedy called Andrisca, had feigned a priest to have misused himself with a curriers wife: you exhibiting the same comedy before the reverend father in God, the B. that then was of westminstre, turned the priest (whom now it pleaseth you to call by a plautine periphrasis trifur trifurcifer) in to a soldier, whom you named Trisimachus. At this sudden change I say of mind I can not choose but marvel, and of the same can find no cause, except it be that from a sober and modest schoolmaster, you be transformed into a lewd and Ruffianly soldier, as by the warlike phrases in your book, and gunshot of terrible threatenings and boasting brags so common to you in your sermons, you give men just cause to think. Of this argument of the Protestants: Christ is head of the church Ergo the Pope is not. Ergo there is no other. The 22. Chapitre. FIRST where as you say that I made a wondering before, fo. 73. b. 22. that Christ should be head of the church, I never wondered thereat, but said we found no fault therewith, but confessed the same ourselves. You beely me therefore. As A lie. 68 for your argument surely it shall never be worth a piped nut. Yes say you, the argument is good. Because the Apology taketh the word church for the Universal Nowell. church, which hath not nor can possibly have, any earthly head over it to govern it, as hath been often at large heretofore declared. Wheresoever you have declared any thing before touching Dorman. See the 11. Chapitre before, and the. 12. this impossibility of one head over Christ's church, there have I answered you, thither I refer the reader. You might declare the good affection, that you have to prove it, and therefore you said circunspectly that you had declared, for surely you never proved it hitherto. I said that your argument did not hold, whereby you reasoned that there could be no other head of Christ's universal church because Christ was himself: no more than if one would say, that the priest did not baptize, forgive sins, etc. because Christ do the these things by the means of his ministers. To this you say, that these examples make rather against me then with me. But why M. Nowell I pray you? Your reason followeth. For one chief head hath diverse undreministres in diverse Nowell. fo. 79. a. 1. services, and places usually: but what pertaineth that to prove that there must be one head over all places, and services ecclesiastical through out the whole world which is unpossible to be? These examples were never brought M. Nowell to prove Dorman. that there must be one head over the whole church, but to remove the foolish argument made against that one head: now they make not for one head say you, ergo, they make rather against me. Neither can your scholastical distinction of caput absolutum and Nowell. ministerial help the matter, nor yet Hosius declaration tending to the same end, how bishops be both servants and lords, can in this case any thing further you. For there can not possibly be one only head over all the church, more than there can be one universal civil head absolute in earth, over all the world itself. What a blind harper is this, that harpeth always upon one string, and giveth always one solution to all arguments, and yet never giveth other reason (to fortify that common solution grounded upon Gods, not omnipotency but impotency, and lack of power) than that sorry and silly reason (which needeth as much to be underpropped as the other, and between which two comparisons the difference hath been manifestly showed before already) of governing the whole world by one universal civil head. He never proveth, but ever repeateth: It is impossible, it is impossible there should be one head, thinking that at the least by often repeating, and stout bearing out the matter he shall make it at the length to seem right well proved to the reader. I know M. Dorman doth so qualify this the pope's supremacy Nowell. 22. a. terming him caput ministeriale the ministerial head, for that Christ is the absolute head of all. But yet in respect off the whole church, as being under the Pope, he will have him called caput the head. But I would have him to make that relation of caput, and these words servus servorum to agree, and to be both caput and servus or minister, respectu eiusdem: the head and the servant in one respect, especially claiming such a * M. Nowells term. capitalitye as doth the Pope, which can not agree with the humble ecclesiastical ministery. etc. Belike you would have opposed Christ, if it had been Dorman. your chance to be present, when he said. Qui minor est Lucae. 9 inter vos omnes hic maior est. He that is the least amongst you all is the greatest. Belike you would have asked him how one could be the greater and the less. But do you not yourself confess that every bishop is the head of his diocese? And how then M. Nowell doth that agree (I use your own words) with the humble ecclesiastical ministry? Is your head the bishop a heady servant and a servile head? Kings and Princes are they not the heads of the people whom they govern, and yet in that very respect that they be heads, ministers notwithstanding (as S. Paul witnesseth) Rom. 13. and servants? M. Dorman harpeth to much upon one string out of tune Nowell. b. 16. for his purpose, I mean the example off the jewish high priest. & cet. Who twangeth most upon one string, that let the learned Dorman. reader judge. Once this is sure, that the string that you should strike here, you touch not so much as once. For I bring not in this example of the high priest off the jews, at this time (as because I once did, you dream that I do still) to prove that there ought to be one only head in Christ's church, as there was amongst the jews, but to detect the vanity of this reason of yours. Christ is head of the church and able to rule the same him self alone, ergo, there needeth no other. To this answered I, so was M. Nowell dissembleth my reason, and twangeth upon a false string. he being God head of the jewish synagogue also, and as well able to rule the same without any help or means as he is now to rule his church: yet was his pleasure to appoint a high priest etc. And therefore that aught to be no reason to persuade us that he doth not or may not do the like now. To this because you were not able to reply, you dissembled my meaning, as a little before in this very place you do, when you say, that my examples make rather against me then with me. The which practise you use also hereafter as in place shall be declared. For this matter I have no more to say, but to advise you that you take your harp into your hand, and twang once upon the right string. In prosecuting the confutation of that naughty argument fol. 80. a. 24. 1. Reg. 15. of your Apology, I use the examples of Saul called in the scripture the head over the tribues of Israel, of the husband called by Paul the head of his wife, off the 1. Cor. 11. archbishop head over the other bishops of his province, and conclude thereupon, that as it is no good reason to say: God was head of the tribues of Israel, therefore Saul was not. Christ is head of us all, men and women: therefore the husband is not head of the wife: The Arch bishop is head of the other bishops of his province, Therefore the bishops be not hedes: even so that the argument of your Apology: Christ is head of his church, therefore there is no other head, is a faulty argument, because if it were good, it should exclude also (which it doth not) the other heads that I named, confessed to be true heads in earth. For, quae ratio partis ad partem, eadem totius ad totum: the same proportion that is of the part to the part, the same is the proportion of the whole to the whole: that is, if their may be a head of one diocese in earth which is part of the whole, notwithstanding that God is head of the whole, there is no let by this argument but there may be an other head also under him over the whole. And so I prove the reason of the Apology nought in the whole, quia non valet in partibus, because it is not good in the parts. To this reason of mine you never make answer, but dissembling it as you did the other before, you say, that I bring these examples to prove that there be diverse several b. 13. heads in earth under Christ, So I did in deed. But why would I prove that? To prove that there ought to be one head over the whole. Why say you so for shame M. Nowell? Why dissemble you that which any man that hath his common sense can not but see to be otherwise? I bring it to show how absurd it is for you to grant, that over the tribues off Israel there may be a head, over several churches there may be heads, without derogation to Christ's honour who is the chief, and yet you will not grant so much to the whole church for the impediment of that pretended reason, (because Christ is the head) which letteth not in particular churches. And therefore neither Hosius nor I care, whether Saul were head of the tribue of Levi or no, this example proving how ever it were sufficiently our intent, which is to disprove your foolish reason that because Christ is head of his church there needeth no other. When Hosius or I allege this place to gather thereby that there ought to be one head in earth under Christ over all churches, than we will follow your mind in concluding. In the mean season we take your argument, that because Christ is the only head over the universal church, therefore there needeth no other general head under him, to be by this example sufficiently confuted, as before I showed. yet because your desire is that it may be considered, whether when the scripture saith that Saul was made head of the tribues of Israel, he were appointed head over the tribue of Levi also, that is over the clergy, considre it I pray you and spare not, and when you have all considered and done, you shall perceive how much this exemption of the clergy from the authority of king Saul maketh against you and your companions, that will make kings to rule the clergy in causes ecclesiastical. I doubt not but some of your side that have more stayed heads than you, and that are less passionate, will say that you might have kept this consideration to yourself still. And where you mingle kings and bishops together whose Nowell. b. 30. & fo. 81. a. 1. offices are distinct, and use the examples of the archbishop off Cauntorbury, and the bishop of London: what titles so ever your bishops when they were in those rooms used or abused, I am sure they who be now in place, take it for their chief honour to be and to be called also gods ministers in his church. What a world is this when protestants complain of Dorman. mingling kings and bishops together? As though the world knew not who confoundeth and iumbleth together these two offices, they or we. But the fault is found with me for reasoning from their offices which be distinct. Why you know M. Nowell if you have not forgotten your logic, that it is not necessary that things compared should be one in all points. They agree in this that kings and bishops are both heads and governors, the point where in the comparison was made. Now whereas to this that I say, that the B. of Cauntorbury is head off the bishopric and diocese of London (as he is of all the bishoprics within his province) and that yet a man can not infer upon this that therefore the bishop of London is not head of that his diocese, as you do in saying that because Christ is head of the whole church therefore there is no other under him, whereas I say to this you answer, that your bishops take it for their chief honour to be and to be called gods ministers in his church, so do our bishops to M. Nowell, and used no other titles, than those which your false bishops having falsely usurped use and abuse at this day, but what is that to the matter that we entreat of? Well be bold man and blush not: cough out that tough fleaume that lieth in your throat, and say that the archbishop is of no more power than the bishop. If you had said thus, then had you answered yet some thing, whereas now you have answered nothing. Except this may stand for your answer, when you prove it, that neither archbishop nor bishop may be called heads of the churches fo. 81. a. 6. that they govern, but rather kings and princes. Which opinion because you see that it is contrary to all M. Nowell laboureth to help his own contradiction by a foolish shift. that you said before touching the places of S. Cyprian and S. Jerome, where you confessed so often that every bishop was head of his own diocese, to salve that sore you say. yet I deny not but that bishops may be, and have been Nowell. a. 17. though improprely, named heads even by good writers, as the schoolmaster of a prince, in that the prince is his scholar is his head etc. Surely bishops are much beholden unto you, that Dorman. you grant them so much authority over their flock, as you had over your scholars when you were schoolmaster of Westminstre. But I pray you M. Nowell call to your remembrance, that S. Cyprian saith of the bishop that he is in the diocese where he ruleth the judge in Christ's stead, that S. Hierom calleth him the high priest, that he must he saith have peerless authority above all other, that schisms rise by not obeying him, and judge with yourself what a handsome comparison you have made. But admitting even your own similitude, you shall see how much you have said for the authority of bishops against that unlawful oath which you exact of all men. Even as the scholemaistre is in his school the head of his scholars although they be princes: so be bishops the heads of such as be in their several bishoprics all though they be princes: but the schoolmaster in his school is the supreme governor in all things and causes belonging to the school: his scholars although princes having in those things no power to command. Ergo the bishops are, (every one in his church) the supreme governors in all things ecclesiastical, and princes have no authority to entremedle therein. The which conclusion deduced M. nowell from your comparison, as yourself with honesty can not mislike, so I trust it shall displease no prince, considering that, as S. Ambrose saith, there can be nothing more honourable for Epist. 32. ad Valent. the Emperor then to be called the son of the church. For a good Emperor (saith he,) is within the church not above the church. But because this sentence is become now in England by the means of certain clawbacks to be odioufe, I will in defence of M. Nowell, if any perhaps would quarrel with him for giving to bishops so great authority, add out of chrysostom, of hundreds of places that might be brought to that effect, only one, which is this. Quanquam nobis admirandus videtur thronus regius ob gemmas affixas, Homil. 5. de Esaiae verbis, vidi Dominum The power of the prince and of the priest. & aurum quo obcinctus est: tamen rerum terrenarum administrationem sortitus est, nec ultra potestatem hanc preterea quicquam habet auctoritatis: verum sacerdoti thronus in coelis collocatus est & de coelestibus negotijs pronunciandi habet auctoritatem. That is to say. Although the kings throne seem to us marvelous for the precious stones and gold wherewith it is garnished, yet hath he only the administration of earthly things, and above this power he hath no authority, but the priest hath his throne in heaven, and authority to pronounce of heavenly affairs. And thus much by occasion of the authority that you give to bishops as great over their diocese, as schoolmasters have over their schools. I would further if it were not for troubling you, have desired you to have named some good auctor to justify this saying of yours, that bishops when they be called heads are so called improperly. But I refer that to your good discretion and to your better laisour. Whether Christ need to have one to govern his church under him and how. The 23. Chapitre. IT IS true the Apology and we all likewise say, that neither Nowell. a. 30. &. b. 1. hath Christ need of any such one only head vicar over all his church, which M. Dorman a little before doth confess him self: neither is it Christ's will to have any such head vicar. For though M. Dorman affirm that he so would, yet shall he never by the holy scripture, wherein Christ's will is declared be able to prome it. Thirdly it is impossible for any earthily man to have and to execute any such office etc. For the proof of the first of these three points you Dorman. bring myself for a witness in my book fo. 9 b. Where I have no such thing, but only this, that Christ had as little need to govern his church in the old law by the help of one head, as he hath now. I denied not then but he had need now. Therefore you continue your accustomed wont of beelieng me. If you ask me how he hath need A lie. 69. which is God, I answer, that as he needed the witness of men as appeareth by this: There was a man sent from God joan. 1. whose name was john to bear witness of the light. And again. joan. 15. You shall bear witness of me because you have been with me from the beginning, for the infirmities sake of men, not for himself: so for us which can not commodiously be governed, How God needeth a head to govern his church. nor well kept in orde without one head, (a man as we are ourselves) to whom in all controversies we might have recourse, God hath need of such a head. Thus take I need: now taking it in your sense, for absolute need, I say that he hath no more such need to have any in his place over every particular church, then over the whole. For as well is he present where two or three be gathered together Matth. 18. in his name, and therefore with every particular church or diocese, as with the whole. To the second point that Christ will have no such head vicar, the contrary whereof (you say) I shall never be able to prove by the holy scripture, I answer, that if you will stand to the interpretation of Christ's church, and the learned writers of the same upon such places as I shall bring, I shall be able to prove it. Christ said to Peter. And I say to the that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church. Here is Matth. 16. scripture. chrysostom sayeth that by these words, Homil. 55. in Matth. Christ made Peter the shepherd of his church, and a little after expounding these words: And what so ever thou shalt bind upon earth, that he made him the shepherd and head thereof. And upon that as a most sure ground and confessed truth, he disputeth against the Arrians, and proveth, Note. that Christ who gave such pre-eminence to Peter, was not inferior to his father. He compareth also Hieremias, and S. Peter together. To Hieremias (saith he) God Hierem. 1. the Father said, like an iron pillar, and like a brazen wall have I put the. But Hieremias the father placed but over one nation: Peter Christ placed over all the whole world. Christ joan. vlt. said to the same Peter. Feed my lambs, feed my lambs. Feed my sheep. His sheep were the Apostles. His whole flock consisted of Lambs and sheep. He committed therefore to his charge, young and old, strong and weak. He excepted none not the Apostles themselves. We have here that Christ gave the charge even of his Apostles to Peter: We find else where that he bade him confirm his brethren. Lucae. 22. Show you one place in the scripture where any other had like pre-eminence, or where this was taken away, and then you may say that Christ will have no such head vicar. chrysostom upon this latter place sayeth: Si amas, me fratrum curam suscipias. If thou love me Peter take upon thee, the charge of thy brethren. And in an other place Lib. 2. de sacerdotio. because you shall not wrangle and say that this authority died with Peter, he hath, that he committed the same to his successors also. S. Augustine expounding this place of S. john hath these words, Dicit Dominus Petro in quo uno Sermo. de verb. dom. 49. format ecclesiam, etc. Pasce oves meas. Our Lord saith to Peter in whom alone he fasshioneth and frameth his church, feed my sheep. What other fasshioning or framing can you here understand of Christ's church, then that there should be one head for ever after, as he drew the plat thereof in making Peter head of all? What other fasshioning then that, where of S. Cyprian as you heard before Lib. de unitat. ecclesiae speaketh, when he sayeth that our Lord disposed the beginning of the unity of his church to proceed from one. And thus much for this time may suffice for this second point. Of impoes sibilitie. The third hath been often times answered before. That the grounds whereon the Swenckfeldians lean fol. 82. a. to banish all Scripture, and those that the heretics use to spoil us of one universal head over Christ's church, are like, and that M. Nowell in handling this argument hath used many shameful shifts. The 24. Chapter. IN THE handling of this matter of Swenckfeldius, I have observed that you have divided M. Nowell the whole process in to three parts. In the first you purge yourself and your companions of that which you say I charge you with all, of agreeing with the Swenckfeldians in their opinion: in the second you show wherein I compare you together: in the third you compare us with Suenckfeldius and his. In the prosecuting of these points, you show right well that Nowell will be Nowell, as well as Geta willbe Geta, as if the reader understand not I trust he shall ere it be long. To the first I answer, that I never burdened you with the self same heresy that Suencfeldius held, but only told you that by harping to much on this string: Christ is ever present with his church, therefore there needeth no man to succeed him in the whole, you might come as near his heresy, as he that you charged therewith was far from it. The labour therefore that you took, the ink and paper that you spent, to purge yourself in this point was superfluous, and might well have been spared. And so would you I think also have done, had you not thought that it should help your cause not a little, to persuade the reader off me, that I were an evil tongued man, and that I took no conscience to scalundre and sow untrue reports of such good men as you be. And therefore you conclude thus: Wherefore M. Dorman you have done nothing else but bewrayed Nowell. fol. 82. a. 19 your most malicious blindness, in saying that it is no other thing that the Huguenots and heretics do: and that we do lean and rest upon the self same reasons and grounds as did Swenckfeldius. Lo good reader, mark here I beseech thee, the unhonest Dorman. dealing of M. Nowell. Whereas I say, that the heretics in that argument of theirs: Christ is ever present with his church. etc. do no other thing then lean and rest upon the same grounds for the banishing of the head of Christ's church, on which the Swencfeldians do for the abolishing of the scripture, in steppeth M. Nowell that true dealing M. Mowell altereth my words to save him self from ●heng. man, and here in his conclusion divideth my words, and for this one thing that they do no other than lean upon the same grounds, maketh me to say two things: first that the Huguenots and heretics do no other than the Sweckfeldians: and that they do lean and rest upon the same grounds that Swenckfeldius did. Is it all one M. Nowell to say you do no other than Arrius did, and you lean to the same grounds that Arrius did? Against transubstantiation you use the same ground, that the Arrians did against the word Homoousion: for they believed it not because they said it was not expressed in scripture, and you believe not the doctrine of transubstantiation for the same cause: yet is it not true that you do no other than they in all things, because you do the same that they do in one thing. your railing talk, and slanderous reports in calling my doings doltish, my head foolish, etc. because fo. 83. b. 14 they be the flowers of your rhetoric strewed here to beautify this first point, and also because how true they are I had rather make the world judge then myself, I esteem not, and therefore I pass over in silence. Whereas you liken me to judas, for that you say I have forsaken my master Christ in hope of worldly gain, all though partly the condition and state of my life that I now lead will answer for me in that respect: yet thus much I may say beside, that when I left your pestilent and pernicious opinions being of age between fifteen and sixteen, it is not likely that I cast any great eye after worldly gain. If I had, I would belike having left my house and the hope of so good a fellowship in so famous a colleague as the new colleague in Oxford is known to be, for my conscience sake in king Edward's days, have been afterward when the time served better, a greater prowler, for livings than I was, the greatest and only living that I had or desired to have, being a fellowship in Allsollen colleague. Or if fortune had not favoured me then, if worldly gain had been so much in mine eye, I would in this time have put myself forward, when I saw some of mine own fellows as mean as I, called to be chancellors to bishops, other some to be archdeacon's, many to great and rich benefices, and not contrariwise have abandoned all and sought strange countries, thinking there to find worldly gain. As for D. Harding although he be able to say much more for himself, yet this may I say because it is manifest, that in refusing to join with you in your heresies, he lost as good promotions as you have any, and was a man could he have framed his conscience to your procedings, like to have had as good part of worldly gain as you or a better man than you either. But of this lewd lie I can say no more but A lie. 70. transeat cum coeteris. Now to the second point, in which you proceed thus: Swenckfield (saith M. Dorman) doth say, we must have no Nowell. fo. 84. a. 6 scripture etc. The Huguenotes and heretics say we must have no pope of Rome to be head of Christ's universal church. Lo Sir you see a great likeness between them etc. No great likeness indeed M. Nowell as you have Dorman. handled the matter. But if you had truly and wholly rehearsed my words, and added the cause which the Swenckfeldian bringeth for his opinion (because God can M. Nowell cutteth away the chief part off my words. teach us without) with the reason that you allege why we ought to have no head of the church (because God is the head himself, and can rule it without any other) then yff you had cried, Lo Sir you see a great likeness between them, other men had been like to have soothed that in good earnest, which now you utter so pleasantly in sport. As you cut of here the two reasons, in which both the Swenckfeldians and you agree, they to banish away the scripture, and you to overthrow the head of the church: so to make the conference the more unlike, you change my words by casting in of the name of the pope of Rome, whom I name not here, but entreat only in general words of one head that ought to be in Christ's church. The next point wherein I compare you with the A. 10. Swenckfeldians is, that as they reject the scriptures saying they are but dead letters, so do you the pope being the head of the church, saying that he is but a sinful man as other are, and therefore as unmeet being but a sinful man to govern the whole church, as is the scripture which they call dead letters and to be accounted amongst other creatures, to signify to us the will and pleasure of our Lord God. Thus have I showed the similitude, why do you scornfully mock at it, and show not rather the dissimilitude? Finally I compare you with the Swenckfeldians, because A. 16. as they bar God of such external means as it hath pleased him teach to us by, that is the scripture: so do you of such external governor as it pleaseth him to govern his church by, that is, one general head to govern the whole. Thus I reasoned, and thus you do. Against the which you have nothing to say, but to sing your old song, often said but never proved, that it belongeth to B. 8. only Christ to govern his church, and that it is impossible for one only man to do it, and so conclude with a fit of railing against the pope, and there an end. Whereas M. Dorman proceedeth saying, that we tell Christ that Nowell. fo. 85. a. 7. he is of age, and able to do it himself, and that therefore there is no remedy but he must needs come down and give answer to all our wise demands in his own person: I trust that all men do know that M. Dorman did know, that he lied lewdly when he did write this. I lied not M. Nowell. For although you say not so Dorman. much in words, your deeds speak as much all together, seeing that you allow us not one such head, as may by his authority end and determine all controversies rising in the church, without the which either the church must from time to time be miserably shaken with schisms (which I think you mean not) either Christ come down and give answer in his own person, which is the thing that you be offended with me for saying of you, upon good and just cause as you see. Having now as you think well purged your part, you will match us with Swenckfield, and therefore you say. And M. Dorman and all the adversaries to the truth may be ashamed, Nowell. a. 30. b. 3. to charge us as not allowing Christ means to work his spiritual grace by, but vexing him by calling for his corporal presence: whereas they themselves (as those that think he can do nothing except he be corporal present) would turmoil him every hour, and minute also from place to place, and would imprison him also in narrow and straight rooms, passing little ease in the tower of London manifold. If you allow him such means as you speak of, why Dorman. make you so much ado about this, that he can rule his church alone, that he needeth no other & cet? It is untruly and blasphemously said of you, that we would turmoil Christ every hour and minute (which you mean of his presence in the blessed sacrament) from place to place, that that precious body of his being reserved for the benefit of Christian men is imprisoned. We abhor such gross and local mutation as much as you. We say with chrysostom: O miraculum: O dei benignitatem, qui cum patre sursum sedet, in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur. Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio O miracle, o the benignity of God, which when he sitteth above with his father is in the * Note. same moment of time handled with all men's hands. Thus it appeareth by chrysostom, that Christ is not called out of heaven, but being present there with his father is also truly in the sacrament. We abhor your figurative presence, your tropical eating. We allow not these means, because by the scriptures it is manifest that Christ excludeth such means himself, and of his infinite goodness giveth himself corporally to us. Wherefore there is between us and the Swenckfeldians in this point no conformity at all. The next point that you compare us in to the Swencfeldians, fo. 86. a. 6 Nowell. is, because they forbidden the Scriptures utterly: we forbidden them to be read of the laity, keep them in an unknown tongue, and burn them written in known language. There was never yet any such prohibition that the learneder Dorman. sort of the laity did not, or might not read the scriptures. If to the unlearneder sort it were not permitted, you shall find that it proceeded rather of reverence towards the scriptures, and fear of that which now we see come to pass, lest while every man should follow his own sense, the world might be filled full of errors, and the holy scripture (as it happeneth to things that be common) contemned and set at nought, then of any such mind as with the which those heretics rejected the scripture. We burn Tindalles testament: we burn Mathewes, Coverdale his and Geneva Bibles, not because they are scripture, but because they are by false translations poisoned scripture. If the mother take the poisoned bread our of the child's hand, you can not infer hereupon that she will give it no bread at all. We agree not therefore in this point with Swenckfielde. You proceed in your comparisons and say. Thou must not be perfect in the scriptures, say these false papists Nowell. to all lay men; it is ignorance that is the mother of devotion: it sufficeth a lay man to have fidem implicitam an implicate faith etc. We say not that men must not be perfect in the scriptures. Dorman. The learned lay men that be and in all ages have been of one faith with us, so excellently learned, and much more perfectly traded in them then perhaps you would, do sufficiently A lie. 71. covince this to be a manifest and a gross palpable lie. He that said that ignorance is the mother of devotion (if he so said) meant not to exclude the knowledge of any necessary point of our faith, but only the desire of such curious understanding, the which as being unknown it could not make men the less Christians: so were it likely to bring to pass, that the things which unknown before they reverenced and honoured religiously, they should now first being known begin to dispute upon, from disputing come to doubting, and from doubting if not to denying, yet to less esteeming of them. With whom if you be offended: ask S. Augustine why he taught him to Contra epist. Fundam. Manich. cap. 4 say so before? whose words are these, after that he had spoken of the more learned sort: caeteram quip turbam non intelligendi vivacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit: For the rest of the multitude, it is not the liveliness off understanding, but the simplicity of believing that maketh them most sure. Lo M. Nowell you may hear by S. Augustine, that it is no such absurdity nor cometh not so near to Swenckfeldius heresy as you would have it, to measure the people's knowledge. Our forefathers that contented themselves with the knowledge off the articles off their faith, the ten commandments of almighty god, (although it please you slanderously to say of them that they could no more explicate what they believed then can a Popeniaye) passed yet so far your chattering pies, and jangling jays in all civil honesty and godly devotion, as the speech of a man passeth that of a popinjay. I call all indifferent men to witness. Nowell. 28. a. And the papists speak of the holy Scriptures not only as unreverently and abominably as ever did Swenckfielde, but Borrowed out off the Apology. do far pass him in all outrage, calling the Scriptures most contumeliously and blasphemously a nose off wax, and affirming it to be but an uncertain thing and like a rule of lead, appliable to every wicked sentence and to all purposes, except it have the pope's direct on as a most certain and infallible rule. Dorman. It is easy M. Nowell to be perceived, how you quarrel about nothing, and for lack off better stuff think to stuff your book with such trifflng toys as these are. In the words that you allege out of Pighius what harm is there I pray you? What blasphemy have you found? fol. 87. a. 6 Pighius belied. Is Swenckfielde (you say) calling the scriptures dead letters, more wicked than is Pighius blasphemous, in terming it a nose of wax? Why content yourself M. Nowell, he calleth it not a nose of wax. You beely him deadly. His words are, velut nasus A lie. 72. cereus, like a nose of wax. Is it all one to be, and to be like? So do you also falsify those other words of his, tanquam plumbea quaedam regula as a certain leaden rule, and make the comparison between the heretic calling the scriptures dead letters, and Pighius terming them a rule of lead, a nose of wax, and ask what difference there is between them: whereas if the words had been truly compared, it had been eth for any man to have said that the difference is great, seeing that Pighius spoke but by the way of similitude to signify how ploiable the scriptures were to all purposes, not to condemn them as Swenckfielde did, but to warn men in the interpreting of scriptures to follow that pillar of truth, the common sense and sentence of the catholic church, for those are his words. By this means who can let you to quarrel with the scripture itself, and say that it speaketh unreverently of Christ whom it calleth a stumbling stone: yea you may find fault with 1. Petri. z. Matt. 4. 1. Thess. 5. Apoc. 3. e● 16. Christ himself, that likeneth his own coming to judgement to the coming of a thief. If you think you have any vantage at Pighius or any catholic man else, for saying of scriptures that without the direction off the church they be uncertain and appliable to every wicked sentence, as for this you note us also fol. 86. b. I report me to yourself whether this be true, seeing that for this sentence of his of all other most wicked, Swenckfielde himself alleged scripture. Although this saying also to this effect be not originally the saying of Pighius, but of Tertullian Lib. de prescript. adversus haereset. that ancient writer, who writing a treatise even off purpose to display the manners and nature of heretics, after that he hath warned us that their property is when scripture is brought to them, either utterly to deny it, either else if they admit it to pervert it with false and untrue gloss, concludeth in this wise: Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est, nec in his constituendum certamen, quibus aut nulla, aut incerta, aut parum certa victoria est. Therefore (that is to say) we may not appeal to the scriptures, neither is the strife to be ordered in them, by whom either there is no victory to be gotten, either uncertain, or not very certain. Now that you have done with Pighius, you flee upon Hosius, as fierce as a ramping Lion of Cottes. hold of whom you say as followeth. Nowell. fol. 87. a. 17. Hosius your great estate for learning and virtue etc. in comparing the gospel written in paper and ink, with the church which he calleth the lively gospel (as though the other should be called the dende gospel) goeth as near to Swenckfielde as four pence do to a groat. I think you will not yourself deny if you were well Dorman. opposed M. Nowell, but that the letter of the scripture compared with the sense thereof is dead. From which phrase and manner of speech how far wide are those words joan. 6. of our saviour: The letter slayeth, it is the Spirit that quickeneth? Although you might if you had not made a vow to interpret all things to the worst, have given a more gentle interpretation to these words off Hosius. It is a true proposition that Hosius used, that scripture is A. 27. the word, not of God, but of the devil as heretics do allege it. Why seeing that Hosius took it out of S. Jerome as you confess, do you not refel and confute it, but using your authority barely deny it? Why rehearse you not his M. Nowell allegeth Hosius words falsely. words wholly, but cut away these in the midst of the sentence: cui absit ut quicquam anteponendum esse putemus, before the which scripture God forbidden we should think any thing to be to be preferred? For so hath Hosius: Scriptura quomodo profertur a catholicis est verbum dei, cui absit ut quicquam anteponendum esse putemus: quomodo profertur ab In fine lib. 4. contra Brentium. haereticis est verbum diaboli. The scripture as it is brought forth by the catholics is the word of God, before the which God forbidden we should think any thing to be to be preferred: as it is alleged of the heretics, it is the word of the devil. Yowe saw well enough if you should not have cut away these words, all the grace of the comparison in this point had been marred by Hosius humble and reverent speaking of the scriptures: but so were you blinded with malice that all other you thought would have been as blind as you, and no man have noted so foul a fault. You stay not here, but to bring Hosius utterly out of conceit and to deface him with all men, you charge him with comparing the scriptures (David's psalms) with rhymes only Nowell. fo. 88 b. 11 written by princes in our days, with a blasphemous derision in matching them with fabulous poensies. Hosius compareth not the scriptures with rhymes, but Dorman. Hosius once again misused by M. Nowell. said by M. Nowell. with metres quibus dei laudes celebret, to praise God by. With such meetres what contempt or contumely is it I pray you to compare the scriptures? Are not david's Psalms such meetres? you have therefore once again dealt unhonestly with Hosius, to snatch a part of his words, and to make your vantage thereof, leaving those that most manifestly declare his meaning. He matcheth not at all the scriptures with fabulous poesies, that is an other lie of you A lie. 73. res. He saith that as learned and unlearned writ poêsies every where: so may every king or prince or any other, writ to the honour and praise of God without restraint. The comparison is not between the scriptures and poêsies, but between the liberty that men have to write of the one argument or the other. And thus is this great blasphemous blast God be thanked well overblown. The jews are not suffered by the pope to utter most horrible A lie. 74. b. 27. blasphemies against Christ. It is a horrible lie. We have not given over preaching of god's word. fo. 89. a. 16 Let those countries where Catholic religion flourisheth, convince you to be a liar. Where there are in most mean A lie. 75. towns more sermons in every of them in one day, then are commonly in London in three. They be ordinary also through out the whole year, not bought with money as yours be. We bar not the people from reading and hearing A lie. 76. it. To that I answered before. We say not that the holy ghost useth to come from above into our church without all help of means, as hearing, preaching, or reading. A lie. 77. That is the fistht lie, made within the compass off these few words. Thus you see good readers I trust evidently, that he comparison made by me between the protestants and the Swenckefeldians, is in that point of building upon like grounds, the one part to abolish scripture, the other to overthrow the general head of Christ's church in earth, like, and therefore truly made. The which is confirmed the more, for that, that as I have showed before, the adversary not sustaining to try the comparison by such words as I made it, leaveth out their reasons wherein they meet, and then crieth, Lo Sir you see a great likeness between them fol. 84 a. 9 You see beside how to compare us with Swenckfield he hath wrested, mangled, and falsified the words of Pighius and Hosius, and last of all charged the whole numbered of catholics, with most evident and apparent untruths. That Cardinal Hosius was impudently beelied and slandered by the Apology of the church of England, that M. Nowell continuing the same addeth more matter thereto. The 25. Chapter. ITRUST that who so ever shall read that conformity between Nowell. fol. 90 a. 1. the papists and Swenckfeldius, and both their heresies before declared, and specially by the words of Pighius and Hosius himself, shall understand that Hosius was not without cause charged with some affinity to Swenckfeldius his heresy, etc. Is the matter now come to affirnitie M. Nowell? Well Dorman. let it be so, I nothing doubt the learned reader's judgement even therein also. Although this can not be denied but that your Apology which you take upon you here to defend, in the first edition thereof, charged Hosius with these words: Nos inquit, ipsas scripturas quarum tot iam non diversas modo, sed etiam contrarias interpretationes adferri videmus, facessere iubebimus, etc. We saith Hosius, will bid the scriptures themselves whereof we see so many not diverse only but plain contrary expositions brought, farewell: and will rather here God speaking then turn ourselves to these beggarly elements, and put our salvation in them. We must not be cunning in the law and the scriptures, but be taught of God. The labour is vain which is bestowed upon the scriptures, For the scripture is a creature and a certain weak element. Thus saith Hosius. Your Apology goeth farther, and upon these words triumpheth over Hosius comparing him to Montanus and Martion the heretics. Is this but to burden him with affinity M. Nowell? Fie for shame how long will you halt down right? May you not now be ashamed if shame there remain any in you, to say that the author of the Apology saying this of Hosius beareth witness to the truth? I have heard of certain lewd men in our country, who agreeing amongst themselves to name each thing by a contrary name, have framed a new English speech, wherein they have been able so to utter their minds, as beside their own companions no other should understand them. Except you be of this brotherhood I understand not your English, to make any other sense of it then a plain lie. Whereas I call Hosius one of the greatest states of Christendom for learning and virtue, you without all occasion make an impertinent discourse of Cardinals, of their hats, of their moils, and that forsooth because you think it you say, neither unpleasant nor unprofitable. if fol. 92. 25. a. you like a merry man study to write pleasant things, and if occasion be not offered will take it yourself, rather than that such pleasant matter should perish and be lost: I neither covet to comende and make saleable to the world my doings by such toys, and of all other think it most unmeet for men of our profession, especially one of your years and calling, to trouble the reader with such trifles. If this wandering discourse of yours had had any profit joined with the pleasantness: yet is not every profitable thing to be handled in every place. Unless you think M. Nowell (to use your own words) that you may mingle in lente unguentum, things most impertinent together. And therefore I pass over this as wide from the matter, the whole effect thereof being nothing else, but that the pope called the persons and vicaries of the parishes in Rome to be Cardinals: a great matter forsooth and worthy to be discoursed of at large, and therefore M. Nowell, or else because he knew not how to make his book grow to the bigness that it is of, hath about that only matter bestowed all most three whole leaves. For his learning you make Hosius no body, as he that fo. 92. b. 5. having first borrowed the matter of his books out of other, was not able neither without help to put it in good order together. Which you judge probably you think, by the style and poetical phrases unmeet for Hosius age and vocation. Here first the Apology and you agree not M. Nowell. The Apology and M. Nowell agree not about Hosius learning. For the Apology sayeth of him, certè homo disertus, & non indoctus, & acerrimus ac fortissimus propugnator eius causae: truly an eloquent man, not unlearned, and an earnest and most strong defender of that cause. If he borrowed and stolle all the learning and reasons that are in his books, how appeareth it that he is not unlearned? If he hired clerks and stilewrightes as this cunning lyewrighte saith he did to pen it, where is his eloquence? The Apology judged (the style, poetical phrases or verses notwithstanding) that his books should be of his own penning, otherwise there was no cause to call him eloquent. And surely who so ever he be that penned the Apology, if the matter came to be tried by the country, who were best able of you two to judge in these matters, you were like to have the worse. His virtue you would drown with polonishe pots, fo. 93. 14. 2 and bring for your witness as honest a man as yourself jacobus Andreae, his known adversary. Whereas the contrary is so well known in Polonia, that the greatest fault that some find with him is, that he will neither for any man's pleasure quaff to other, neither answer any other quaffing to him. Which league of Christian sobriety, Martinus Cromerus and he making together being then both canons of the same church, they have so truly kept ever sense, that they have at the length obtained full quietness from being troubled any more in any company, with such sinful civility. And a sobrer man is there not in his diet amongst you all (look who is the sobrest) then Cardinal Hosius is, as a good and a learned man a country man of our own, living nearer to him than jacobus Andreae, even with him and at his own table, and observing diligently his trade of life twelve months together, hath being earnestly required upon his certain knowledge, reported to me. But let this pass as one of the ordinary slanders of heretics. It is not the first time that jacobus Andreae hath deceived you M. Nowell. It was he that made the compilers of your Apology to tell that fowl lie of Hosius, that afterward in the second edition they corrected. You see therefore what cause there is to trust him in his reports of Hosius. And by the way note that to speak truly of a foreign false Polonishe papist, is with M. Dorman accounted sedition, Nowell. b. 3. & cet. And I desire the reader once again to note, that M. Nowell Dorman. will never make an end of belieng me. I call you not seditious for any thing that you speak be it true or false A lie. 78. against Hosius. The words that I call seditious be cloaked with the name of Christ, of whom you make no mention speaking of Hosius. The words that I call seditious and warn men to beware of, are these: Christ is head of the church: therefore there needeth no other. As appeareth by the sentence that followeth next: What other thing did their forefather's Chore, Dathan, and Abiron, etc. What mean you to say here that you have spoken truly of Hosius in your Apology? If you spoke truly, why did the same Apology revoke it in the second edition? That the reason taken from the example of Chore, fol. 94. a. Dathan, and Abiron, against the government of Moses and Aaron, is one with that which the protestants make against the government off one head. The 26. Chapitre. TO THIS reason you begin first to answer in the fol. 95. b. 5 second side of the 95. leaf the 4. line. All that goeth before is impertinent to the reason, and decked with the accustomed flowers of your railing Rhetoric. The objection of Moses and Aaron, whereby you would prove that there were two high priests at once, etc. is answered by me, if it had pleased you to have taken the pains to have looked so far in the 34. and 35. leaf of my first book. Now to the place of Chore, Dathan, and Abiron of the which you say Nowell. B. 5. thus. Concerning the reason made by Chore, Dathan, and Abiron, that the people ought not to obey their governors because they be all holy, * These words and the lord is amongst them left out by M. Nowell. Dorman. and that therefore the magistrates ought not to lift themselves above the lords people, it is not our reason & cet. No in deed M. Nowell as you have alleged it, it is not your reason. But if you had truly reported it, it would have gone as near to your reason as twelve pennies to a shilling. But you do here as you did before with the reasons of Swenckfielde, that is, leave out the chief reason wherein the comparison is made, and then cry out upon me for making such wise comparisons. Who seeth not that I compare you hereto these schismatics refusing to obey Moses and Aaron, not because they said they were all holy, but because they added, & in ipsis est Dominus, and the Lord is present with the multitude, as you refuse that one head of Christ's church, because Christ is present with his church. As for the words that you note here in the margin of your book, multitudo sanctorum, and populus domini papae, as though you could thereby make some show that this place might be applied to canon Chore, Deane Dathan and his fellows, it deserveth to be rather laughed at then answered, seeing that both it is a manifest lie wherewith you slander the clergy, who never called themselves the holy people of the great Lord of Rome, as you here feign, and also it is well known, that what so ever liberties and immunities the clergy had, the same were given as the faith increased by Emperors and kings themselves, and therefore they were most far from the manner of reasoning used by these schismatics. Now whereas M. Dorman allegeth the Apology as thus reasoning, Nowell. B. 25. that the church hath no need of any other ruler, because Christ is with it: truth it is, if M. Dorman do mean one only head of the universal church. For Christ needeth no such general governor, seeing he is both present himself continually by his spirit as he promised, and also for that he hath in every peculiar country and church his Moses and Aaron, that is to say his several deputies in his steed every where here in earth: for that no one mortal man can possibly suffice to the governance of the whole world or church. etc. If he need governors of every peculiar church, where Dorman. he is no less present than with the whole: why needeth he not aswell one chief head to govern the whole? who shall amongst so many heads divided into parts, every one thinking his opinion to be best, strike the stroke and preserve unity? If you say God may so preserve every bishop that he fall not into heresy, you put god to work daily more miracles, than he doth to preserve the chief bishop of all which yet you stagger to grant as a thing impossible. The words following in your Apology, that no one mortal man can suffice to the government of the whole fo. 96. a. 3. world or church, I of my accustomed sincerity omitted you say. And what have you gotten by it, now you have alleged it yourself? Verily this, that you will make all men understand, that god is able with you to do no more, than you list to give him leave: but of this I have entreated before sufficiently. You say that you are far from rebelling Nowell. against your natural sovereign and other gods ministers appointed to govern you etc. But how far M. Nowell, I Dorman. pray you? Who made the book of succession at home? Who sounded the two traitorous blasts against the monstrous regiment of women their Queen being a woman? From whence were they blown but from the lake of Gehenna? Who grudgeth against the prince's ordinance in matters indifferent and of small importance, no greater than of a square cap? Who made war against their prince in Scotland? Who set all France in an uproar against their king? Who but that unhappy vermin the protestants? That which followeth fol. 96. b. and 97. a. b. is answered before. That the way to overthrow Fol. 68 usque ad fol. 106. heresies is not by the only scripture. The 27. chapter. THIS matter hath been sufficiently handled before in the 21. chapter. And although in me it be a great fault and highly laid to my charge, to allege thrice one place of scripture, yet must you good readers bear with M. Nowell, if he allege his absurd and wicked assertions more than six times thrice, and may not in any wise twit him with the proverb Crambe his, that to much of one thing is nought: yea although he never prove any of them once. But may you not be ashamed M. Nowell so unjustly to M. Nowell repre hending other men for unreverent speaking of the scripture, speaketh of all other most unreverently himself. charge Pighius and Hosius with unreverent speaking of the scripture, when yourself in this place, apply your profane prover be to signify that to much of scripture may be nought, that any place thereof may so often be alleged that it should become unsavoury? By what authority claim you (I pray you tell us) such liberty, that you may speak of the scriptures that which is unlawful and plain blasphemy, and other may not use so much as similitudes or comparisons between the scriptures and other profane things? Why is it lawful for you so oftentimes to repeat these heathenish words, that it is impossible for one man (assisted by god's grace for otherwise we affirm it not) to govern the whole church of Christ, that we be like to the Phariseis and high priests of the jews, you to Christ and his apostles, that there ought no more to be one chief head to govern the church than one emperor to govern the whole world, that the pope can not be judge in his own cause (as though god's cause were his own private cause) with such like absurdities a number more, and may not be lawful for me to allege thrice the holy scripture of God, to prove three several points. first that it could not be likely, that God providing for his chosen The place of Deuter. alleged by me thrice, to three several purposes. people the jews a chief and head governor to end and determine all their controversies, would not for his church which he loveth more tenderly, where he knew should be greater need, do the like: next to answer thereby your foolish reason: Christ is head of his church, and present always with it, therefore there needeth no other. By which reason I said, that God should have provided for the jews no chief head neither, because he was present also with them, and no less their head than ours. thirdly, to show that the only conference of scriptures is not sufficient to end all controversies rising upon the doubtful meaning off the letter, seeing that if it so had, almighty God would of all likelihood have bidden the jews do so, and not trouble themselves and the high priest for the matter. Thus you see good readers how I allege thrice this one place off scripture, which argueth M. Nowell saith miserable distress. But I trust such as be off sounder judgement have learned to give that reverence to holy scripture, that what so ever they see confirmed by one only sentence taken out of the same, that they will think as sufficiently proved, as if there had been many brought therefore. If a man should ask of M. Nowell what distress he was in, when to prove that there must be many kings to govern the world, he allegeth so often alone without any other in his whole book, that sentence of Ecclesiasticus some times twice in one leaf as Cap. 17. fol. 32. and. 62. which neither proveth his intent, and is taken beside out of that book which he and his companions In the articles agreed upon in the Convocation anno. 15●2 have noted to be insufficient to establish any doctrine by, I marvel what answer he would make. What should I here mention the council of Africa so many times brought in? What should I tell you of the same texts and gloss so often rehearsed to one purpose? Yourselves good readers in reading this book of his, shall bear me witness that I lie not. You have here repeated again, that the high priest must judge according to the law which no man denieth, for so saith the text that he shall: that S. Paul a 29. b. 28. threatened God's vengeance to the high priest, that S. Peter and S. john asked boldly him and his, whether it were right in the sight of god, to hear them rather than God, to all the which you have my answer before in answering the. 59 b. and the. 68 leaves a. You have beside served in the second time, the places of S. Austen, and chrysostom, to fo. 99 a. b prove that conference of the texts of scripture one with the other, is a good way to attain to the understanding of doubtful places. Thus much was said before in the. 72. leaf b. to the which in the same place I answered as I now do, that it is a very good way in deed, but not such as is able always to assure us of the right sense. Now judge I beseech you good readers, who useth oftenest to repeat the same thing, M. Nowell or I. Where as you say: M. Nowell. And no doubt but the jewish Nowell. b 26. priest appointed to resolve other men of their doubts did himself use the said conference of scripture, etc. To that I answer, that this maketh nothing for your Dorman. purpose if he so did. For although the high priest whose lips were promised to keep knowledge, were for the office Malach. ●. sake which he sustained, so directed in the conference of scripture that he never failed in his judgements: yet hereof followeth it not, that every private man by such conference should be able to do the like. The general councils at this day, the pope's at all times, have used you may be sure this way also of interpreting doubts arising upon the scripture. We mislike it not therefore in them to whom it appertaineth to explicate such doubts, but in such only as being private men use this for a cloak to cover their heresies: in them we mislike it thus far, as either they content not themselves with such sense as the whole church hath already upon the conference of such doubtful places agreed upon, either else taking that office from public authority, will presume themselves to give such sentence (proceeding this way) as may best seem to make for their singular opinions. To this reason of mine, that if laying and conferring together of one text with an other were the surest and readiest way to come to the true understanding of all doubts, God would of all likelihood have commanded it, and not have sent his people to the high priest, now at the length M. Nowell in the end of two leaves and a half, in the which he hath done no other thing but first uttered himself how much this place of Deutero. grieveth him, then vainly repeated that the priest is bound to judge according to God's law, that when he did not S. Paul cursed him, S. Peter and S. john disobeyed him, that conference of the scripture is good and necessary: now I say after that he hath filled up two leaves and a half with this matter denied by no man, and with the which he filled as many before, he maketh a proffer to answer in this wise. But saith M. Dorman God commanded not, any such conference Nowell. fo. 100 a. 29. b. 1. of scriptures, but only to resort to the high priest: yet I trust M. Dorman is not ignorant what it meaneth, that God and our Saviour Christ do so earnestly exhort all men to the diligent reading and study of the scriptures, and do condemn the ignorance or want of knowledge thereof. And where he saith, God hath not commanded such conference of scriptures (which yet in effect he hath commanded) it is happy that he can not show where God hath forbidden it, which if he could he would not have failed to have done. You tell men what I said, which they knew before, Dorman. but your answer to my saying which here they looked to have had, you give them not. I say that if conference of one place of the scripture with an other had been the surest way to resolve all doubts, God would rather have commanded that then going to the priest: you answer, that God and Christ exhort us to the diligent study of scripture, that * The conference here meant, is such as must serve for the final resolution of all doubts. such conference he hath commanded in effect (without showing when, where, or by what words, notwithstanding that herein consisteth the answer to my objection) that it is happy that I can not show where it is forbidden: whereas even in the very place that I bring here, when I show that almighty God commanded the ordinary way of resolving doubts to be the sentence of the high priest, I show withal, that he forbade also conference of scripture in such wise as we here take conference, that is to be the final and last resolution of determining doubtful controversies arising upon the letter. Except any man (you think) may be so desperate hardy, as when God hath appointed one way, to choose any other as not forbidden. That which followeth: But seeing, etc. is one of your extraordinary walckes, and pertaineth not to my objection, but yet serveth well for your purpose to give us the slip, and to wind yourself from the matter. To my demand what heretic was ever vanquished by the scriptures, you say: I answer, the Arrians, anabaptists: and all heretics without Nowell. fol. 101. a. 5 exception were vanquished and overthrown by the scriptures: and that if they were not vanquished by the scriptures, they were not vanquished at all. By your answer it should seem M. Nowell, that either Dorman. you understand not my demand, or you will not understand it. For when I speak of vanquishing of heretics, I mean of overthrowing, and so confuting their heresies, as that they may with the world be brought utterly out of conceit, and the memory of them clean abolished and extinguished, as we see Arius heresy (once more universal than yours) God be praised to be. I mean not you may be sure, that the heretics themselves should confess themselves to be overcomen. Again, when I ask how they were vanquished by the scriptures: I understand, by the scriptures alone, by the scriptures without a judge, who in this doubtful contention (where the Arrian bringeth scripture as well as the catholic, as apparent as the catholic, more plentifully than the catholic: where no other place of scripture can by the catholic be brought to make the matter plain by way of conference, but the adversary will be ready to allege as evident for him) may give sentence whether part hath better right, who allegeth and conferreth the scriptures most sincerely. Thus did the council of Nice overthrow the heresy of Arrius, although not so that he himself could be brought to acknowledge so much: yet in such wise that in process of time the world giving credit to so learned and general a council, fell from his heresy, and now there is not one favourer thereof in the whole world that dare show his face. Thus should your heresies and all other be overthrown, if we would either in such things as the church hath already determined, follow that sense of the scriptures that it hath delivered to us, either else in things ambiguous and not defined, ask and follow the judgement thereof. For that you here cavil, that the pope nor popish Nowell. b. ●. church can be convenient and competent judges in controversies no we risen, for that they are both parties and parties accused therein, no more than the jewish high priest with his church of Scribes and Phariseis, were convenient and competent judges in the controversies between them and Christ's Apostles. The absurdity of this comparison both I have there where Dorman. Cap. 12. fol. 164. before in like manner you made it, sufficiently declared, and the Arrians also might have pleaded this plea against the council of Nice. In the which the father's assembled were as much affected against Arrius heresy, as the late council of Trent, or any that can be holden is against yours. yet do not the histories mention that ever they were so impudent. Touching the conference of Scriptures together, I did so late Nowell. b. 15. before at large entreat thereof, that I need not now to repeat the same again. As largely M. Nowell as you entreated thereof, you said Dorman. never a word how this controversy between the Arrians and the catholics both alleging scripture for their M. Nowell answereth not the force of my reason. defence, might be by only scripture determined. To pretend therefore that it is no need to repeat that which you never touched, it is a pretty figure to excuse silence in that wherein you are able to say nothing. if you feared you should have dwelled to long in that matter, you might have eased that by cutting of many impertinent discourses, that both go before and follow after in this book off yours, namely the next sentence that followeth, wherein you labour to prove yourselves to be no Arrians, with the which heresy neither I, nor any other do charge you. To proceed, whereas I ask how it happeneth that the calvinists and the Lutherans agree not by conferring one place of scripture with an other, to that you say. Nowell. fol. 102. a. 23. This is M. Dormans' usage, when he can say nothing off the present case to entremingle foreign matters, thereby to avert the reader's mind from his principal cause remaining unproved still. The principal cause is, that there must be one visible Dorman. head in Christ's church to appease controversies and determine doubts: the heretic saith it needeth not, the scripture by diligent conference being able to satisfy all men therein. To this I replied, how happeneth it then, that the calvinists and Lutherans agree not & c? Now let all men judge how truly you reprehend me for entremingling foreign matters. But let us here your answer to the question. But how so ever Calvin and Luther agree in the exposition of Nowell. these few words, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body, they agree both in this, that the papists expound them falsely. Who ever heard a more absurd or foolish answer? Or Dorman. what answer rather is this to my question, to tell us that the Lutherans and calvinists agree together against us? So did as the scriptures bear witness the Pharisees and Sad duces: so did Herode and Pilate agree against the precious Lucae. 23. body of Christ at the Cross, as you do against it at the altar. S. Austen saith of heretics, Dissentiunt inter se, contra Lib. siue Homil. de ovibus. unitatem omnes consentiunt, Amongst themselves they are at variance, against unity they all agree. Myself also in the next sentence following confess as much, that although heretics in some point dissent, yet they all join and agree in one cankered hatred against the church. What letteth by this means why you should not easily reconcile together all that huge rabble of heretics mentioned in the table of late set forth by M. Stapleton, who having one common father with you (although in many points dissenting) agree yet all with you against us? But what is this I say to the purpose? Answer if you be able: if scripture can alone end all controversies, how happeneth it that the Lutherans and calvinists end not their strife thereby, which continueth notwithstanding their agreeing against us? It followeth For to use the places by M. Dorman noted out of Hosius, he, Nowell. A. 26. nor all papists with him shall never be able to show cause, why these words, Ego sum vi●is vera, I am the true vine, do not prove aswell a transubstantiation, as Hoc est corpus meum. This is my body. What this (For) should pertain to the answering off Dorman. my question I see not, this I see well, it confirmeth strongly my saying, that by scripture alone all controversies can not be judged. For as Calvin bringeth for his opinion this place: so I trust you are not ignorant that Luther had also his places to allege for himself. When this question off the blessed sacrament shall be the principal matter between you and me, you shall have a cause why these words I am the true vine, prove not so well a transubstantiation, as the other, This is my body, do. In the mean season where as you ask what a rule you should have had, if Christ B. 1. had said likewise: This is my true and very body, as he said I am a true or very vine: truly M. Nowell no highlier should the matter have been taken than it is. For to us Christian men it is enough that Christ hath once said it is his body. We would believe an honest man upon his word if he should tell his name and say that he were such a one, and never put him to say that he were truly such a one: I see no cause but you might if it pleased you, have as good an opinion of Christ. Who notwithstanding to stop the mouths of such Capernaites as you are, hath added also the word (truly) saying: For my flesh is truly (or verily) meat, and my blood is verily drink. The which words joan. 6. Hilarius expounding, saith, that there is no place left to doubt Lib. 8. de Trinit. of the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ, seeing that both by our Lords own words and our faith, it is truly flesh and truly blood. I said, that if because the Apostle or Christ himself useth a figure in one place, we must think that in all other he never spoke otherwise, by that abominable doctrine there were no let if a man would be so wicked, to hold that Christ were not the true and natural son of God, but by adoption only, and bring for the maintenance of that wicked heresy, that text, dedit eis potestatem filios dei joan. 1. fieri, He gave them power to be made the sons of God. An objection left unanswered by M. Nowell. To this you answer nothing at all: I trust it be not (you know the rule since you were prolocutor in the convocation) because, qui tacet consentire videtur, he that holdeth his peace seemeth to consent. Charity would rather interpret your silence to proceed of lack of just matter to answer, and so do I, although you deal not always so frindely with me. What so ever I have said here of the controversy of the B. 9 sacrament out of place, leaving my purposed matter unproved, is (you say) very fond. What so ever I have said here of the sacrament, hath been uttered upon the occasion of Luther and Caluins' disagreement: who because they can not be reconciled by the scriptures, that block laid by you in the way, that the scripture only is the sufficient judge to end all controversies rising upon the doubtful meaning of the letter is removed, and so my purposed matter proved, that there must be an other judge then the scripture. What have you now won, to show you that I am not ashamed of mine own phrase? As before I proved that the Arrians, Lutherans, and calvinists, could by no means by only scripture be overthrown: so now I proved the same by the Anabaptists, alleging in like manner such places of scripture as they bring for their defence. And as you answered before nothing to the objections of the Arrians, Lutherans, and calvinists: so do you here pass over in silence the answer to the Anabaptists, and purge yourself and your companions, that you be no Arrians, no anabaptists, with fo. 103. a. 8 M. Nowell leaveth unanswered that to which he should answer and answereth that, that needeth no answer Nowell. the which Heresies you were never charged by me. You take hold also of those words of mine where I say, that the catholics do repress and overthrow the brutish opinions of the Anabaptists. To the which (being but words incidently cast in) I marvel how any man reading your book can forbear laughing, to hear you slipping from the principal point, make this solemn answer to that which needed none at all. We answer: that it is most certain and well known to the world, that our men have said and written more against them then ever did the papists. Wherefore we be therein, as in all other things in deed, the Catholics and not they. What so ever you have written M. Nowell against them: Dorman. you are notable by the scripture alone to overthrow them, which is the thing that being denied you ought to have proved. But by the way note I pray the that art the learned reader, a clerckly conclusion of M. nowels, whereby he A clerckly conclusion made by M. Nowell. proveth his companions to be the Catholics and not us, because they have said and written more against the Anabaptists, than we have done. Is not this trow you a notable argument to prove that no man is a catholic but he that hath spoken and written against heretics, nor he neither, if an other have said and written more than he. You say that the mention that I made of the Swenckfeldians b. 8. Arrians and anabaptists, was altogether impertinent to my purpose. I have proved the contrary before: now let the learned reader judge thereof. You charge me with declaiming against the scriptures and word of God. That is a lie. You call it a silly similitude and cruel likelihood A lie. 79. Nowell. b. 12. that I make between the jewish high priest and the pope. I marvel not that you so call it, for it cutteth the throat of all your heresies. You use often and gladly I perceive, this word juishe high priest, as though you would thereby insinuat to the simple and unlearned, that my example were nought as taken from the jews, the very name of whom, to those that have more zeal than knowledge you know to be odious, and therefore against that meaning I warn the unlearned, that the jews that were then whereof this jewish priest was head, were god's church and chosen people. You call the pope and papists heretics, and their doctrine heresies. You acknowledge him not to be the supreme head or governor over all the church. As long as you be not able to prove it, it maketh no matter, your tongue is not authentic. Now where M. Dorman would prove the conference of Nowell. fol. 104. a. 1. scriptures a vain or evil thing, because the Arrians and anabaptists used it, and us to be heretics as they be, because we use the same grounds, to wit, conferring of scriptures together: he might as well reject all alleging of scripture because the Devil used it, and conclude that we be of the devil, because we use the same grounds that he doth, that is to say, the alleging of the scriptures. Yea and he may by the same reason▪ find fault with Christ our Saviour and his holy apostles, who do so much use the same alleging of scriptures. I go not about to prove the conference of scriptures a Dorman. vain or evil thing, neither because the Arrians and anabaptists used it, neither for any other cause: you have therefore beelied me once more. I acknowledge it to be both A lie. 80. profitable and necessary: only I say, that to end all controversies it is an insufficient means. Because rejecting the determination of the church, you take upon you as the Arrians did and the Anabaptists do, to maintain your heresies by this pretenced conference of scripture, not regarding that such judgement belongeth to the church, therefore I call you and justly term you heretics. And as I do reject this conference that you talk of, because you use it to that end that these heretics did: so do I refuse all such scripture toe as is falsely wrested, as was that which the devil alleged. In which sense because Christ and his Apostles never alleged any, I can not find fault with them. I can not (you say) devise a way that should satisfy Nowell. a. 20. all heretics without all contradiction or exception on their part. I can devise no way in deed M. Nowell to satisfy all heretics: Dorman. it passeth my power I confess. But God hath devised a way to overthrow all heresies, if such as you are would The way to overthrow heresies. be no let to his working. And that is the thing that ought to suffice us. Will you know what way it is? Forsooth if this principle and ground the which I labour to prove, that Christ's church here in earth being but one and visible, hath also one chief visible head to rule and govern the same, were thoroughly as it ought to be persuaded to all men, than the heretic which now by coloured arguments triumpheth over, not only the meaner sort but also oftentimes many of the wiser and better learned, the thing called into question being either such (as is the question of baptizing of infants) as whereof we have no express scripture, but only a tradition continued in the church from the Apostles time, and delivered from hand to hand to us, either else so perplex and doubtful, as the adversary will for his heresy bring not only as many, but more texts also, that shall seem to make for his purpose then shall the catholic, as did the Arrian: then should I say the heretic in all men's judgement (although never in his own) easily be discomfited and overthrown. For then let the Anabaptiste cry as much as he would, that the baptism of infants hath no ground of scripture, the meanest man in a parish would be able to tell him: Sir, the church which I am bidden to give ear to by the scripture, useth it, and hath done from the beginning, this sufficeth me. Again let the Arrian bring and heap together all the scripture that he hath, let him use all his shifts, distinctions, and gloss: when he hath all done, the true catholic seeketh after the interpretation of the church, that interpretation to wit, that the members agreeing with the head observe and have observed universally thorough out the whole world. Thus if the more part of men would do, (as they ought) neither would heretics have any list to publish heresies, their starting holes being by this wholesome remedy taken away, neither should they being brought forth into the light be able any while to continue. And this call I the overthrowing of heretics and heresies. For to persuade an indurat heretic by any means, I confess it to be a thing impossible: seeing that not every man that is a true Christian, can by conference of the scripture be by and by persuaded in all doubts, as you here untruly say he may. When parts be taken in opinions amongst learned men, each part forcing the scriptures by conference and otherwise to make for that sense which he hath conceived, is no man a true Christian but he that can be satisfied in this case by the scripture? Hath it not been seen that the maintainers of such contrary opinions, being for virtue and learning esteemed of the world, have made also right good Christians to doubt? And what case had Christ left us in, if in this perplexity there were not a church to direct us, if that church had not a head to speak to us, which being in S. Augustine and Prospers time Prosper lib. contra Collator. cap. 10. Zozimus the Pope as you heard before, show us now if you can, why Pius the pope should not be the like? And thus you see M. Nowell (I trust) that you have to much abused both the Readers and me, in labouring, first to persuade that I mislike the Scriptures (which I do in no sense) or the conference thereof (which I do not simply, but in this respect that you contend that that way alone is sufficient to end all controversies): next in this, that you alter my reason, which is, that because by this pretenced conference of yours heresies can never be overthrown, while by the subtility of heretics alleging scripture, conferring scripture, and that so probably that even the best learned may be shaken in their faith, and so heresy maintained, you make the same reason to be, because there can no way possibly be found able to satisfy all froward heretics. Upon this supposal of yours, that I reject this conference of scripture as no sufficient mean to end all controversies because it can not satisfy all men, you ask this question. And thinketh he, that Popes of Rome, men of such life, such Nowell. b. 6. Hold the man a bowl for he will vomit. partiality, such ignorance, such untruth, such falsehood, such bribery, simoniacs, poisonners, murderers, shall satisfy all men, in all judgements of all causes and controversies, yea in their own very causes wherein they be parties, and that without all exception? The devil they shall and that I may say truly. Non loqueris sed latras, you speak not here M. Nowell Dorman. but you bark, you reason not but you rail. If all these faults that you here heap together were in one pope at one time, yet should they not be all any let why the same might not and should not, give true judgement and satisfy all good men. To this I have answered before where Cap. 3. fol. 8. b. & 10 fol. 39 b. you gave me like occasion, thither I remit the reader. yet this I would feign know of you by the way, and desire you when you wright next to resolve me therein, whether if these pope's had the contraries to these vices, that is so many virtues, you think they might give true judgement and satisfy all men. If you say they could not, what needed then this odious rehearsal of so many grievous faults, seeing by no means they could? If you say that being good men they might, then show scripture, or bring reason to prove, that this authority is lost by evil manners? In controversies rising upon the scripture, the pope's cause is not handled but gods, and therefore they be no parties thereto. Whereas you promise so largely on the devils behalf, you may be bold for as much as he is able to do, he is at your commandment. To your conclusion, that the word of God is the true B. 13. judge in all controversies and doubts of religion, I say (as I said before) that when the church hath given sentence of the meaning and right understanding of the scripture, that then in that sense and no otherwise, the scripture is the true judge in all controversies: otherwise I say that the word of God lying yet in the letter as it were in the husk, is an uncertain judge to determine controversies, what so ever Luther, Calvin or their adherentes, the rest of that black guard do say to the contrary, or be M. Nowell never so angry therewith. Whereas I declared before what starting holes the Arrians Fol. 105. a▪ 23. rians, Anabaptistes, Lutherans, calvinists, and other heretics have found out for the maintenance of their religion, and that upon the same grounds and principles, any desperate heretic that is, may maintain any heresy: you take occasion of that word (desperate heretic) to rehearse once again a place of S. Cyprian, where he calleth by the same name (you say) all such as think one bishop inferior to an other (as I and all other papists Cap. 11. sub finem. do) but the contrary to that I have showed before. And surely to think thus if it be to be a desperate heretic M. Nowell contrary to himself, or a desperate heretic and papist by his own confession. or a papist either: I pray you what be you M. Nowell, that in your book fol. 32. a, confess that in every province, there be certain chief prelate's? Doth not the word chief import that there be other inferior prelate's? Which word if you will now revoke again, if your bishop will not, I trust your pretenced archbishop will call you to a count for it. That which followeth fol. 105. b. and. 106. a. because it containeth but vain words, and hath been in diverse other places handled, I will here pass over? Of the place of S. Jerome taken out of his epistle to Damasus, and that it hath been alleged to the purpose, without wresting or falsifying. The 28. chapter. PROSEcuting this controversy, whether the scripture as we have it written, were able alone without other means to determine all controversies, the which the heretic seeth being proved that it can not, it will needs follow that there must be some other judge to supply that office: I said, that S. Jerome notwithstanding his great and excellent knowledge in the tongues, would not take upon him to lean in the discussing of doubts to that rule of theirs, to lay and confer together one text with an other, but referred himself to the see of Rome etc. whose example I exhorted also other to follow. To this M. Nowell answereth as followeth. S. Jerome saith no where that he would enot compare the Nowell. fol. 106. a. 23. scripture together for the discussing of doubts (as M. Dorman would bear us in hand) and S: Austen saith he would do it, and exhorteth other to do the same. Where do I bear you in hand that S. Jerome Dorman. said that he would not not compare the scriptures together A lie. 81. for the discussing of doubts? Why noted you not here the leaf and side? I deny not but that it is a necessary and very profitable way of reading the scriptures to confer the places together. And so doubt I not but that S. Jerome aswell as S. Augustine used to do. The which maketh very much for the Catholic opinion, that all questions can not be discussed by this conference off scripture. For if they could, what needed S. Jerome (so well learned as he was) in this controversy between the Catholics and the Arrians, to write so far out of the wildrenes of Syria to Damasus the pope, a man although singularly well learned, yet not comparable with him for learning, to be resolved at his mouth what part to take, whereas he had with him the scriptures of God, by the which (by your saying) if he had diligently conferred them together, he might have been fully instructed in all points? What meant he else that he used not now his accustomed manner of conference, but that he saw that this was a question that could not so be tried, and therefore he would consult Damasus, who being he persuaded himself the successor of Peter, should be able sufficiently by the grace given to that office, to resolve him in that, which by all his own labour and diligence he were not at all, or not so soon and certainly, able to find out. S. Hieromes' words to Damasus Bishop of Rome make nothing Nowell. against us, nor with M. Dorman. For what marvel is it, if that S. Jerome borne in a coast of Italy, christened at Rome, brought up at Rome, and made priest at Rome, would in the faith of the blessed Trinity, rather join himself in communion with Damasus bishop of Rome a learned and godly man, then with Vitalis and Meletius (whom M. Dorman calleth Miletus) and Paulinus, who were Antiochian bishops, and therefore strangers to him, and also not clear from the Arrian heresy? That you report of S. Jerome that he was borne in a Dorman. The place of S. Hieto me to Damasus Tom. 2. epist. ad Damasum examined Lib. de ecclesiastie. scriptorib. coast of Italy, it is untrue. For he was as he writeth him self, borne in a town called Stridon in the borders of Dalmatia and Pannonia: whereas Italy it is well known never reached so far, or if it had, never did the peculiar province of the bishop of Rome extend thither, for which respect Damasus might be accounted his bishop. But supposing this to be as true as the rest, that he was Christened at Rome etc. yet the causes which S. Jerome addeth why he joined himself to him rather than to any other, may evidently make faith, that neither because he was borne in a coast of Italy, neither because he was christened; brought up, or made priest in Rome, but because he was the successor of Peter, he joined himself to him in communion, rather than to any other. For that meant he by these words Beatitudinituae, id est cathedrae Petri, communione consocior. To your holiness, that is to say, to Peter's chair, am I joined in communion. Tell us if you can what there needed here any mention of Peter's chair to be made, but that he would declare thereby the only respect of his communicating with him to be, because he was the successor of Peter. another cause, which yet might trulier be called a cause or reason of the first cause, why he joined himself to him that sat in Peter's chair, yourself would seem to have found out in these words following. But (will M. Dorman say) S. Jerome addeth a cause (which is Nowell. fol. 107. a 10. the pith of the matter) saying thus. Super illam petram aedificatem ecclesiam scio. I know that upon that rock (Peter's chair) the church is builded, which is the cause why S. Jerome joined with Damasus, will he say. Will you see what a perilous brained man M. Nowell is? Dorman. He hath readen my answer already, and can tell what it shallbe before I utter it the second time. But you must give him leave sometimes to scour his Rhetoric lest it wax rusty, and therefore here upon a bravery he setteth a lusty countenance upon the matter, and that which he knoweth can not be passed over in silence, because it hath been moved already, he will so bring forth the second time, as though such a poor catholic as I am, had not had such an objection in store, without I had first received it by his liberality even as it were in the way of all moise. yet this I can not but mislike, that as soon as he had given it, it seemeth that he wished that he had kept it in his purse still, for it followeth. But he may be ashamed, had he any shame at all thus shamefully Nowell. 14. by a false Parenthesis to intremingle these words (peter's chair) in this sentence of S. Jerome, and so to falsify it, as though S. Jerome had said or meant in this place, that the pope's chair is the rock whereon the church is builded. Well these be but words M. Nowell, how prove you Dorman. that this is a false Parenthesis, that S. Jerome meant not that the pope's chair (as it is S. Peter's chair) is the rock whereon the church is builded. your reasons to prove it follow after that you have charged me with mangling of the sentence of S. Jerome, in this wise. For he did see, that S. Jerome admonishing Damasus of humility, Nowell. b. 20. and withal professing himself to follow no chief or head but Christ, not excepting Damasus case, but rather affirming him not to be primum, the chief, maketh clearly with us, who in this controversy of the pope's usurped supremacy say the same etc. furthermore he did see, that the words of S. Jerome following (upon this rock I know the church to be builded) might and ought to be referred to Christ mentioned fol. 108. a. 1. by S. Jerome so near before, and by Petre confessed to be that rock whereon the church is builded, and therefore M. Dorman left out of S. Hieromes' sentence the mention of Christ, that he might most falsely and blasphemously refer the rock to Peter's chair, as though Peter's rotten chair or ruinous Rome were the rock whereon the church of our saviour Christ is builded. your proofs that this Parenthesis is false contained Dorman. in these words, are two. First because Jerome professed himself to follow no chief or head but Christ, not excepting Damasus: next because these words (Upon this rock I know the church to be builded) ought to be referred to Christ etc. as before. To the first I answer, that you have M. Nowell falsifieth S. Jerome in translating. not dealt honestly and sincerely in translating the words nullum primum, no chief or head: as though S. Jerome had been of that opinion, that he would profess himself to follow no other head in earth under Christ, which if it had been so: how agreeth this with your own He is contrary to himself. words in this place, that Damasus was S. Hieromes own bishop? If he were his bishop, he was his chief or head. If he were his head, you will not I trust make him to mend your own cause, a rebellious member. One of these two will follow, that either S. Jerome (if your translation were true, condemneth all heads in earth but only Christ, or that he will obey them as far as he list him self. Is not this sincere handling trow you of the father's writings? Is not this wholesome doctrine that you would make them to be patrons of? But I pray you that translate this word nullum primum, so diversly, three manner of ways in little more than the compass of one leaf, first interpreting it, no chief or head fol. 107. b. 5. line, then in the same side. 15. no chief head, Last of all fol. 108. b. 21. no head: tell us when you write next, to which of these interpretations you will stand. For the second interpretation a man might grant to you, and without prejudice to us or gain to you. For it is true in deed that in respect of Christ there is no absolute chief head but he: the pope is but chief and supreme head next under Christ. Although this were not in this place the meaning of S. Jerome, but only to signify, that next after Christ he joined himself to Peter's chair, and that he followed nullum primum nisi Christum, none first but Christ, as much to say, as Christ first, and Damasus of all other next after. Your next proof that the word (rock) should be referred to Christ and not to Peter's chair, because Christ is mentioned so near before, and by Petre confessed to be that rock whereon the church is builded, leaneth to a very fickle and weak ground, and maketh me to think, that at the least you nodded M. Nowell if you slept not down right when you wrote this. For if you take the book waking into your hand once again, you shall (I dare M. Nowell over thrown by his own reason. assure you) find, that the word (Peter's chair) is nearer to the word rock than is Christ, so that by your own argument and reason it followeth, that the word (rock) should be referred to Peter's chair placed so near before. Whereas you say that Petre confessed Christ to be that rock whereon the church is builded, where hath Petre those words? Note the place in your next writing, else will it be thought that you make and coin scripture at your pleasure. We deny not notwithstanding but that Christ is the rock whereon the church is builded, although in Saint Petre those words be not so to be found. yet followeth it not that therefore Peter's chair or Petre (for both is here taken for one) is not also the rock whereon it is builded. For Christ is Fundamentum primum & maximum, the chief and greatest foundation (as witnesseth S. Augustine reconciling together these places of the scripture, no man can In psalm. 86. 1. Cor, 3. Ephes. 2. lay an other foundation then that which is laid which is Christ jesus, and this: builded upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets) and Petre is also a foundation, next after Christ. As to make the matter plain by example: if a man would build a house upon a rock, that rock were the How Christ is the rock and how Peter. chief and principal foundation, for it hath solidity and strength of itself not of an other, yet all this notwithstanding, the first stone of this building that should be laid upon the rock, were also the foundation, but not as having solidity or strength of itself, but of that other perfect foundation whereunto it leaneth. To this alluded Saint Ambrose when in a certain place he calleth Petre firmissimam petram, the most strong rock, quae ab illa principali petra Lib. 2. de vocat. gent cap. 9 communionem & virtutis sumsit & nominis, which took from that principal rock (he meaneth Christ) communion both of virtue and name. What can be said more plainly to express that Petre is called a rock as well as Christ? to confirm this distinction of rocks or foundations? Having now detected the vanity of your proofs whereby you labour to prove that this place of S. Hierom should be falsified by me: I will confirm the catholic doctrine in this point, and show that this Parenthesis added by me for the better understanding of the place, was truly added. And because you complain of me for leaving out two lines, I will prove not only by them, but by the preamble of the epistle, that S. Jerome wrote not to Damasus as to his own bishop, but to him as head of the church, and successor to Petre. In the two lines that you say I cut of, are these words: cum successore piscatoris & discipulo crucis loquor, with the successor of the fisher (Peter) and a disciple of the cross I speak. Of these words I make this argument: S. Jerome wrote to Damasus as to the successor of S. Peter. But S. Petre was acknowledged by S. Jerome to be head of the church, therefore S. Jerome wrote unto him as head of the church. The minor proposition is proved by S. Hieron. in Psalm. 13. Jerome writing upon the 13. Psalm, where expounding these words: Non est qui faciat bonum etc. no (saith he) not Petre himself, which is head of the church. Again in an other place where he saith: Coenaculum grand ecclesia magna In cap. Marci. 14. est, in qua narratur nomen domini strata varietate virtutum & linguarum, ut est illud: circumamicta varietate, in qua paratur domino Pascha. Dominus domus Petrus apostolus est: cui dominus domum suam credidit, ut sit una fides sub uno pastore. That is to say: The great parlour is the great church, in the which is preached the name of our Lord, garnished with variety of gifts and tongues, according to the saying: Clothed with change of apparel: in the which is prepared our Psal. 44. Lords passover. The master of the house is Petre the apostle, to whom our Lord committed his house, that Note this reason. there may be one faith under one shepherd. The consequent of this argument is proved to be good by this reason of S. Hieromes, why God appointed S. Petre to be the ruler of the church. For seeing we must now aswell avoid multitudes of faith as the church was bound in S. Petres time to do, there must as necessarily be now one head as there was then, which no man can justly doubt whether S. Jerome meant that Damasus should be, seeing he confesseth that Damasus is Petres successor, who was by his confession that one head. And that it may the better appear that this was in S. Hieromes' time the faith of the church, that as Petre was head thereof so were also his successors: S. Ambrose living with S. Jerome, calleth this very Damasus ruler of god's house the church, whom I would In 1. Timoth. 3. not allege but try out S. Hieromes' meaning by himself, were it not that you might see how uniformly they agree in this point, Jerome calling Petre the master: Ambrose calling Damasus his successor, the ruler of god's house the church. Moreover, that in calling Peter head of the church and Damasus his successor, S. Jerome called Damasus also head of the church, is proved by this, that S. Jerome in this place protesting that he was joined to Damasus in communion, expoundeth himself, id est cathedrae Petri, that is to say to the chair of Petre. Thus did S. Cyprian in his time describing the bishopric of Rome by these words Locus Fabiani, Fabians place, expound by and by his meaning in this wise: id est locus Petri, & gradus cathedrae sacerdotalis, that is to say, Petres place and the degree Lib. 4. epist. 2. of the priestly chair. If therefore the pope's that succeed S. Peter have the same place, the same chair, that is to say the same authority (for this word chair signifieth no thing else) that S. Petre had: who doubteth but that S. Hierom in this place acknowledging himself to speak to Petres successor, did agnize also the same authority in him, that he did in S. Petre? Next after this, weigh I beseech you the preamble of this epistle of S. Jerome to Damasus, uttered in these words. Quoniam vetusto Oriens inter se populorum furore collisus. etc. Because the east being sore bruised and shaken with the old fury of the people amongst themselves, teareth piece meal the whole and seamless coat of our Lord, and the foxes destroy Christ's vineiarde, so that amongst the leaking pits that have no water, it is hard to understand where is that sealed fountain and walled garden: therefore I thought that Petres chair and Rom. 1. the faith praised by the Apostles own mouth, aught to be consulted by me, from thence now ask food for my soul, from whence once I received Christ's lyvory. Thus far S. Jerome. By which words we may understand, that he wrote this epistle to Damasus, as to him that being successor to Petre was head of the church, and therefore in all doubtful cases to be consulted, not as to his own proprebishop. For if he had, why should he then have mentioned Petres chair, which word because S. Peter was head of the whole church (as hath been proved out of S. Jerome) argueth a rule over the whole, not of a particular place alone? If now S. Jerome were not afeard to say, that he joined himself in communion to Petres chair, that in this doubtful case he thought that that chair was to be consulted, why take you the matter so hotly against me, for saying with S. Jerome that the church is builded upon Petres chair? Why call you this more blasphemy than the other, to be joined in communion to Petres chair, to consult Petres chair? Is it unlikely that S. Jerome should say that Petres chair was the rock whereon the church was builded, to the which chair he sought for council, to the which he protested to be joined in the same communion? Or is it likely, that he would have so said of any chair, save that on the which the church was builded? I can not here but note by the way how to make the matter seem odious to the unlearned, you use terms like yourself against this chair of S. Petre, minding as I take it, to persuade that I should draw S. Hieromes' words to such a meaning, as that he should mean that Christ's church were builded upon a material chair. You may be ashamed M. Nowell where you lack just matter, to blot paper and waste ink with such cavilling trifles as every man that hath common sense will as soon as they have passed once your mouth, be able to discover and reprove. Doth not S. Jerome in this place make twice express mention of Petres chair? Why triumph you not over him as you crow against me, with your foolish and unsavoury Rhetoric, and say that he was well occupied to write from Syria to Rome for council from a rotten chair? that he was a wise man to join himself in communion thereto? Who seeth not that you would have taken the matter as hotly with S. Jerome as you do with me (having as good cause altogether) saving that you feared the burning of your lips? I say therefore M. Nowell that What S. Jerome meant by Peter's chair. S. Jerome (to answer you in this point if you were so very a dolt that you understood it not before) by building the church upon Petres chair, meaneth even as he did in those two places before, where you can not deny but that he maketh express mention of that chair. saint Jerome meaneth there no material chair, and therefore no rotten chair, as you like a rotten member and divided from the church blasphemously say. He meaneth as Matt●. 23 Christ doth in the gospel speaking of Moses chair, as the fathers, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Austen, Ambrose, Optatus, and the rest do, as often as they use this word, that is to say by the chair, the power and bishoplike authority which Petre having given to him, committed to his successors. For even as a river though it run many thousands of miles, loseth not yet but retaineth nevertheless the name of the fountain and head spring from whence it came: so fareth it in the succession of bishops, that how many so ever there be that succeed, yet they are all said to possess the chair of him that ruled first: yea although every of them had made for himself a new chair. For the matter consisteth not as I said before in material chairs, no more than doth the opening or shutting of heaven gates depend upon material keys. And as well might you like a Lucianist, or a Porphirian have scoffed at Christ for saying that the scribes and Phariseis sat upon Moses chair (which if they had had amongst them, if ever Moses sat in any, should at that time have been as rotten as is S. Petres now, there being between Moses and S. Petre not many fewer years than are now between S. Petre and our time) or for making keys for heaven, as you do against me. But to let this pass and to exaggerate no further that, for the which at the hands of such as be of the learneder and wiser sort, you are like to sustain punishment enough by incurring the note of this infamy to be no learned reasoner, but a railing wrangler: I will now as compendiously as may be justify the inserting of this Parenthesis (Peter's chair). First these words (upon this rock I know the church to be builded) ought to be referred rather as yourself before confessed (and in this case if in any you ought to be believed, for you have been a schoolmaster and practised better in the grammar rules then in the scriptures and father's writings) to the words that go nearest before: but the words (peter's chair) are placed nearest before. Therefore by your own confession, the building of the church ought to be referred thither. Again, S. Jerome in this place it is to be presumed, alluded in these words (I know the church to be builded on that rock) to the words of the gospel: Tues petrus & super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Thou Matt. 16. art Petre and upon this rock will I build my church. But in that place Christ appointed an other foundation of the church beside himself to wit Peter: It followeth therefore that S. Jerome in this place meant not of Christ but of Peter's chair, that is, Peter's authority or Peter himself. Thirdly it is more than probable, that saint Jerome meant not in this place of building the church upon Christ only, but upon Petre also next after Christ, because to him that with judgement will read the epistle, consider duly the circumstances, especially the beginning, it shall appear that his whole talk is so framed, that whereas of purpose and directly he maketh mention of consulting Peter's chair, off joining himself to Peter's chair, and in that whole discourse of his setteth forth the praises of the church off Rome: he speaketh of Christ but incidently, and as it were by the way of a parenthesis, and that toe, to advance the dignity of the See of Rome, as before the which he would prefer (he said) none but Christ. The which being so, what sound judgement will not rather refer these words about which the controversy is, to that which is principally and directly handled, rather than to that which is mentioned but incidently and indirectly. Last of all, it is to be judged, that S. Jerome agreeth here with his own writings in other places. Now is this evident, that even the third epistle before this, he saith in plain words that the church was builded upon Petre. His words are: Apostolus Petrus super quem Dominus fundavit ecclesiam. Tom. 2. epist add Marcellam. Petre the Apostle upon whom our lord founded his church. Thus you see good Readers I trust, how falsely and without all cause, M. Nowell hath quarreled with me for this parenthesis, added only to make more plain the words of Saint Jerome. It followeth that I show to you how he prosecuteth his purposed malice by the authorities of Erasmus, and S. Augustine, in the 108. 109. and 110. leaves. Erasmus (saith M. Nowell) clean contrary to all papists, Nowell. fol. 108. a. 18. saith in his notes upon these words: Super illam petram, etc. Non super Romam ut arbitror, etc. That is to say. Upon that rock, not upon Rome I trow, etc. From Erasmus thus far we descent not, that we know Dorman. as well as he, that the church was not built upon Rome. For if Rome were sacked (as God forbidden) to morrow next, the church should continue nevertheless, although the bishop went from thence and should sit at the meanest town in all italy, or else where. As for that that he would have the church to be builded by S. Hieromes' meaning upon Peter's faith: that first he affirmeth not confidently, but saith he troweth so: next, it may be said, that in this place Erasmus telleth his own opinion: in the other place off this epistle upon these words Extra hanc domum without this house, he confesseth the mind of S. Jerome, which he saith was utterly that all churches ought to be under the Roman See, or no strangers from it. If Erasmus in his interpretation before, saying that the church was not as he thought builded upon Rome, but upon the faith of Petre, agree with S. Jerome in this point that all churches be subject to the Roman See: how happeneth it that you and your fellows, to withdraw all men from this subjection to that See, make that principle that the church was builded not upon Rome but upon Petres his faith, your chief ground, seeing that in Erasmus judgement both might stand well enough together? Iff on the contrary part this interpretation made by Erasmus can not agree with the mind of Saint Jerome: Why should we rather credit Erasmus not sure off his own opinion, then S. Jerome confidently affirming the contrary? Yea and further the same Erasmus in the beginning of his argument Nowell. fol. 108. b. 1. upon his treaty against the Luciferians, which is next to his two epistles to Damasus, hath these words: Nulla haeresis gravius afflixit, etc. No heresy hath more grievously afflicted the churches of all the world, than the Arrians: in so much that it hath wrapped in the bishops of Rome, and the emperors them selves. It pleaseth M. Dorman sometime to allege Erasmus against us, whose authority if it be good, down goeth the pope and all popery. For if the bishops of Rome have been infected with heresy, then is not there that universal rock. As good men as Erasmus and better to have sustained Dorman. the contrary, that there was never bishop of Rome heretic. But if there had, it followeth not thereof, that there is not that universal rock. Let that be the answer till I come to your question, What if the Pope be an heretic? Now if M. Dorman did not see these notes of Erasmus upon Nowell. b. 16. the place by him alleged out of S. Jerome, I praise his diligence, he may of Dorman be called Dormitantius, as S. Jerome (whom he falsely allegeth) called Vigilantius, and more justly both by nature and sound of name may M. Dorman be so called, then ever was Vigilantius by S. Jerome, etc. I saw them and understood them it appeareth, better Dorman. than you. Read S. Jerome contra Vigilantium ad Exuperium, and then see who is likely by S. Hieromes' mind to be called Dormitantius: you, who with that drowsy sleeping heretic rail against the tapers and lights in the church, the worshipping of saints, the reverent keeping of their blessed relics, or I, who with saint Jerome maintain the contrary. But I think even for that cause a little thing would make you to call S. Jerome Dormitantius to, for it appeareth that it pleased you never a deal, that he should so roughly handle your dear friend, and therefore you prefer your allusion to my name, before that of his to the name of Vigilantius. But I would counsel you M. No-well either to get you some new trim name, such as is Theodore Basile or some such like, or else to leave scoffing at other till this that you have containing nothing well in it, may be mended. Because you perceived that Erasmus either made little for your purpose, or that his authority would not be much set by, you say. But if Erasmus judgement be nothing worth etc. I will yet in Christ's quarrel, that he is the rock and not Petres rotten Nowell. B. 26. chair, bring forth one witness not only greater than Erasmus but also equal with S. Jerome, and above all papists in credit and authority: S. Austen in his 13. sermon upon the gospel off Matthew. You fight with your own shadow M. Nowell, when Dorman. Fol. 109. ●. 1. you imagine to encounter with any match that should offer Christ wrong. No man denieth to Christ that excellency to be the rock of his church: you may therefore put up your dagger, the fray was done before it begun. But yet hereof it followeth not, that therefore Petres chair, that is to say Peter, is not also a foundation in Christ the first and greatest foundation, as a little before I showed. To the authority of S. Austen I answer, that even as your other witness that you brought before, Erasmus, durst in this case affirm nothing boldly, but only showed his mind doubtfully: so is S. Austen in this question as it Lib. 1. Retractat. cap. 21. appeareth in his works, not fully resolved. For in his first book of Retractations (where you say most impudently that he repeateth and maintaineth most earnestly this interpretation An impudent lie. made upon 12. S. Austen B. 18. that Christ and not Petre is the rock) he proposing both the interpretations, that Peter is the rock (as he confessed that the same sense he had both himself given in writing against Donatus, and was song in his time by the mouth of many in the verses of S. Ambrose, where speaking of the cock, he saith: Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae canente, culpam diluit, at the singing of this cock the rock of the church himself, purged his fault): he proposing I say this sense, and also that other, that Christ is that rock, concludeth in this wise: Harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector. Of these two opinions let the reader chose that which he thinketh most probable. Is this M. Nowell to defend most earnestly that Christ and not Petre is the rock, to set men at liberty to believe in this point as they list? Is this the candour, the sincere and upright dealing that you speak so much of? But if you will yet by no means grant that S. Austen doubted of this point, if he were resolved on any part, I will prove by alleging diverse places against this one of yours, that he thought as we do, and not with you. First in a sermon that he made of Petres chair, he hath these words: Petrum itaque fundamentum ecclesiae dominus nominavit, August. Serm. de cathedra. S. Petri & ideo digné fundamentum hoc ecclesia colit, supra quod ecclesiastici aedificij altitudo consurgit. That is to say, Our Lord therefore named Petre the foundation of the church, and for that cause doth the church worthily worship this foundation, upon the which the height of the ecclesiastical building riseth. Again in an other place, speaking of the first miracle Sermon. de Sanct. 26. that S. Petre did in restoring to a lame man the use of his feet, he writeth thus. Audistis frequenter ipsum Petrum a Act. 3. domino petram nuncupatum, sicut ait: Tu es Petrus & super Matth. 16. hanc petram oedificabo ecclesiam meam. Si ergo Petrus petra est supra quam aedificatur ecclesia, recté prius pedes sanat, ut sicut in ecclesia fidei fundamentum continet, ita & in homine membrorum fundamenta confirmet. That is to say. You have heard often times that Petre himself is called by our Lord a rock, as where he saith: Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my church. If therefore Petre be the rock upon the which the church is builded, he did well, first to heal the feet, that as in the church he containeth the foundation of faith: so he should in this man strengthen the foundations of his members. I might here allege diverse other places of S. Austen to this sense, * As in Psalm. 30. & alijs multis locis. but these two here vouched, and that other which he mentioneth him self in his Retractations, to be in his writings against Donatus, may be sufficient to teach, that if he thought not fully of this point as we do, (as by these three places for one brought by you it should seem he did) he was yet indifferent and not against us. But what if S. Austen had been most earnestly against us? yet could you not so press us with his authority M. Nowell, by being greater than Erasmus, equal with S. Jerome, above all papists in credit and authority, that he should be above, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Basile, Hilarius, Ambrose, Jerome, ciril, Leo: who all with one voice agree in this interpretation that the church was founded upon Petre. a Epist. 1. ad jacob. fratr. domini. Clement saith of him, that by the merit of true faith, he was determined to be the foundation of the church. b Lib. de praescrip. haeret. Tertullian afketh whether any thing could be hidden from Petre, called the rock of the church to be builded. saint Cyprian libro. 1. epist. 12. libro. 4. epist. 9 Lib. de habit. virgin. Lib. de bono pat. epist. ad jubaian. and epist. ad Quintum: in all these places affirmeth, that the church was builded upon Petre. d Lib. 2. adverse. Eunoni. S. Basile because that Petre excelled in faith took therefore (he saith) the building of the church upon him. e In cap. Math. 16. Hilary the B. of Poitiers in France calleth Petre Felix ecclesiae fundamentum, the happy foundation of the church f Sermon 47. . S. Ambrose hath that Petre was called of Christ, ecclesiarum petra the rock of churches. S. Jerome amongst many other places, expounding the very words of Christ. Thou art Petre, etc. Math. 16. giveth this sense: Aedificabo ecclesiam meam super te. I will build my church upon the. g Lib. 2. in joannem cap. 12. Serm. 3. in Anniversario assumptionis suae ad ponificatum. Ciril saith that Christ in the giving to Petre his new name, signified thereby that in him as in a rock and most strong stone he would build his church. Leo (to make an end) bringeth in Christ speaking of Petre after this sort. Ego tibi dico: hoc est, sicut pater meus tibi manifestavit divinitatem meam, ita & ego tibi notam facio excellentiam tuam. Quia tu es Petrus: id est, quum ego sim inviolabilis petra, ego lapis angularis qui facio utraque unum: tamen & tu quoque petra es, quia mea virtute solidaris, ut quae mihi potestate sunt propria, tibi sint mecum participatione communia, & super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam etc. that is to say: I tell thee, as my father hath made manifest to the his divinity, so do I declare to the thy excellency, that thou art Petre: that is Note how Christ is the rock, and how Petre. to say, whereas I am the inviolable rock and corner stone which make both one, the foundation beside the which no man can lay any other: yet art thou also a rock because by my strength thou art made sound and massiff, that those things which are proper to myself by power, may be common between us by participation, and upon this rock will I build my church. You have heard M. Nowell for one place brought by you out of S. Austen to confirm your purpose, three other even taken from the same man to the contrary. You In his books of Retractations. have heard that in that very book where with better judgement he overloketh and correcteth all his former doings, he maketh it a matter indifferent to think either the one way, or the other. Last of all you have heard the judgement of nine of the most learned fathers in Christ's church agreeing all in one sentence against you. Go your ways now and boast of S. Austen being against all these fathers and himself to if he should be of the mind that you would have him to be. I trust you shall never be able to bring the wise or learned in to such a fools paradise, as to make them leaving the whole consent of so many learned doctors, to follow your interpretation grounded upon one, not much liking the same himself. You gather of this place of S. Austen an argument against fol. 110. ●. 17. religious men. You moved it before, and there the reader shall find it answered. yet this to say of the Augustinians (of whom warily you forbore to make any mention before) the reason that you make here why they should not be of S. Augustine's institution, is false and untrue. For neither the Dominicanes bearing the name of S. Dominike, nor the franciscans of saint Francis, neither yet these Augustinians of saint Augustine, do bear these names in such sort, as the Corinthians did claim to hold of such as baptized them. How they did it appeareth by these words of saint Austen here in this place by you alleged: Apostolus autem Paulus ubi cognovit se eligi & Christum contemni, divisus est inquit Christus? The Apostle Paul when he perceived that he was chosen and Christ contemned: why saith he is Christ divided? In this wise M. Nowell because the Augustinians neither build upon saint Austen, nor are called after his name, there is no cause yet showed why they may not be well enough of his institution, as that they are, Richardus Cenomanus in his learned censure upon saint Austin's rule, hath against Erasmus most evidently proved. As for your other witnesses that you can join to Erasmus, that pope's have been heretics, if that could be proved A. 24. by a hundred witnesses, yet till you be able to prove that they had erred in defining any matter judicially, and delivering the same to the whole church of Christ, you have proved nothing against this See that there is not the rock. With like fraud did M. Dorman leave also that, which next Nowell. b. 17. followeth in S. Jerome of the house, without the which he that eateth the paschal lamb is a profane or unholy man: and the ark of Noah, without the which all that be, perish by the flood. For though in that place it might seem to make for M. Dormans' purpose concerning the supremacy of the B. of Rome (as Erasmus hath noted) yet he knowing or some man warning him, that the house without the which the paschal lamb may not be eaten, the ark, etc. by all doctors is interpret to be the one universal church of Christ, and by none to be the church of Rome, therefore like a wise man, or else a false fox, he let that following alone also, as he cut of Christ the head going and joined next before, and so he hath told you a tale both without head and tail, thereby to prove the pope who is Antichrist, to be the head of Christ's church. Is not this M. Nowell more than intolerable impudency, Dorman. to charge me with fraud for the leaving out of that sentence, than which there is none either in the works of S. Jerome himself, or any of the other learned doctors, that more maketh for the dignity of the see of Rome, for the omitting whereof in my book, I deserved rather to be noted at the catholics hands of overmuch simplicity, then at yours of fraud and subtlety? But how truly here let the place itself judge. Omitting Erasmus whose judgement now you condemn (which yet in me might have been counted some point of levity, if I had ever praised him as you did before, to be no unskilful or negligent viewer of the old father's writings) I will come to the place itself, which I doubt not but by construing (for I trust although you care not much for the rules of the church you own yet for old acquaintance your reverence to the rules of Grammar) to make both you and other men to understand also how much this place maketh for me, and how little cause I had to suppress it, and how much yet less you had to make any mention of it. Saint Hieromes' words therefore concerning this matter are these. Ego nullum primum, nisi Christum sequens, beatit udini tuae, id est, cathedrae Petri, communione consocior. Super illam petram aedificatam ecclesiam scio. Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, prophanus est. Now let us construe M. Nowell. Ego I, sequens following, nullum primum, none first, nisi Christum but Christ, consocior am joined communione in communion, beatitudini tuae, to thy holiness, id est, that is to say, cathedrae Petri to the chair of Petre. Super illam petram, upon that rock (what rock M. Nowell, but the same chair of Peter to the which he professed himself to be joined in communion going next before these words:) scio I know, ecclesiam the church, aedificatam to be builded. Quicunque who so ever, comederit shall eat, agnum the lamb, extra hanc domú out of this house, prophanus est is profane. Now these words being truly by me thus construed, every man learned and unlearned may see, that S. Jerome by the house which he here mentioneth, meant Christ's universal church, but builded Super illam petram, upon that rock, which rock in the words next before he called Petres chair, to say Petres authority. If you can construe them otherwise, and make them to have any other relation than this and prove it by the rulers of Grammar, you may vaunt that you have showed us a schoolmasters trick that never was hard of yet. But I am half in despair that you shall ever be able, seeing that your friend Erasmus as good a Grammarian as you, and as evil in a manner affected to the See of Rome, as appeareth in diverse places by his notes and censures, could find no such shift, and therefore was feign as you must at the length, to confess the truth, that S. Jerome was of the mind that all churches should be subject to the church of Rome, or at the lest no strangers from it. Now whereas you say that this house that S. Jerome mentioneth, is of none interpret to be the church of Rome: what were that to our purpose if it were so, seeing it is interpret of the universal church, which is of all the ancient fathers acknowledged to be builded upon Peter's chair as S. Jerome saith here, and (as hath been declared before) S. Cyprian, who calleth the church of Rome for that cause catholicae fidei Lib. 4. epist. 8. radicem & matricem, the rock and mother church of the catholic church. yet lack there not also fathers that in a sense, that is, as in the church of Rome all other churches are contained, call it also by the name of the catholic church. As in effect S. Ambrose did, when he called Damasus the pope, ruler of the whole church, which he could by no means be, but as he was bishop of Rome. Thus In comment. in cap. 3. 1. Tim. much may serve for my purgation that I have not dealt fraudulently in leaving out this part of S. Hieromes' sentence. Now let us proceed. You make much ado about Vitalis and Meletius, and say, that I say untruely that S. Jerome saith he knoweth not Nowell. fo. 111. a. 1. them because they were adversaries to the seat of Rome, the cause being, because they were adversaries to the true doctrine of the most blessed Trinity, which Damasus did defend. I report me to the learned, whether I had cause to say Dorman. so or no, not because of these words (who so ever gathereth not with the scattreth) alone, which might perhaps be truly spoken to any other catholic bishop: but because of the circumstances that go before joined to these, as the consulting of Petres chair, the joining of himself thereto in communion. To the which because they did not join themselves as he did, he refused them. If you had spoken no more untruely than I, you would not to colour the matter the better, have imagined, that amongst other causes why S. Jerome kept not these schismatics company, one was, because they were foreigners and not his own bishops: an other, for that they were of a strange language. Ah M. Nowell did you nod here, that you could not see that S. Jerome affirmeth, that the followed the Egyptian confessors the bishop of Rome's fellow bishops? Were not they as much foreigners to him as were Vitalis and Meletius? was not their language as strange? yet you upon this, desire the reader to note, that S. Jerome would B. 25. not know Vitalis and Meletius because they were foreigners not his own bishops, etc. And so make a comparison between your refusal of the pope, and S. Hieromes' refusal of these schismatics, laying for a ground without any proof, that the pope is a foreigner and hath nothing to do with you. Of the place of S. Austen taken out of the 110. question of his questions upon the old and new testament. The 29. chapter. HERE M. Nowell upon the censure of Erasmus of this work of S. Austin's, maketh this short but sharp conclusion against me. So that it were to much impudence for Nowell. fo. 112. a. 30. Dorman. any man but only M. Dorman, to allege it for S. Augustine's. Behold I pray the good Reader in what credit Erasmus is now suddenly with M. Nowell, whom before noting S. Jerome to be of the mind that all churches should be subject to the See of Rome, he esteemed so little. Then he was no body, now having won M. nowels favour again, he is so extolled, that to deny that which he shall affirm, or contrariwise, is extreme impudence, so great a matter is it to be in his good grace. But I pray you M. Nowell in what case then are those shameful, shamefast and modest masters I would have said, the compilers of your Apology, who notwithstanding his judgement upon S. Austin's libri Hypognosticon, have yet with to much impudence for any man but only for them, alleged them against purgatory? What case are you in yourself, who notwithstanding Erasmus judgement upon that work taken for Chrisostomes' upon the gospel of S. matthew, were not ashamed as modest as you would seem Opus imperfectum. to be, to allege it against us? I will not be so malapert as to compare with your Apology, but surely me thinketh of reason, I might as well use any thing in this work of S. Austin's as you in that of chrysostom. If the difference between our two cases be, that you handle the matter rhetorically, calling the auctor an ancient auctor printed with chrysostom, and of long time taken for him, whereas I giving no such credit nor reverence neither, to Erasmus judgement of the true or counterfeit writings of the old doctors, like a plain blunt fellow allege the place as I find it: I will soon mend that fault if it be one, and by imitation say as you do, an ancient auctor printed with S. Augustin and of long time taken for him. And now what say you to this ancient auctor? First you say, that the greatest part of these words alleged Nowell. by me, be not to be found in the place by me noted. I grant, nor it is not necessary: for I do not so allege Dorman. the place as though every word should be there. I do allude only to S. Austin's words. It is enough that there is there sufficient to prove your chair, a chair of pestilence, and your body, a body without a head. Make of it then a tronck, or what you list else. For the better declaration hereof, I will report here the words of S. Austen, or rather this ancient auctor (that I miss not my terms) printed with S. Austen and of long time taken for him: which are these: Quoniam cathedram pestilentiae non esse de August. in quest. veter. & novi test. q. 110. dei ordinatione asseuer avimus, etiam eorum qui extra ecclesiam, vel contra ecclesiam sedes sibi instituerunt, cathedram pestilentiae esse dicimus. Qui enim inconcessa praesumit, reus est, quanto magis si & corrumpat traditionem eius cuius sedem usurpat? Name & ordinem ab Apostolo Petro coeptum, & usque ad hoc tempus per traducem succedentium episcoporum seruatum perturbant, ordinem sibi sine origine vendicantes, hoc est corpus sine capite profitentes: unde congruit etiam eorum sedem cathedram pestilentiae appellare. That is to say: for as much as we affirmed that the chair of pestilence was not of god's ordinance, even their chair also we call the chair of pestilence, who have made themselves sees without or against the church. For he that presumeth upon that which he ought not, is guilty: how much more if he also corrupt the tradition of him whose seat he usurpeth? For they trouble the order begun of Petre the Apostle, and kept to this time by the continuance of bishops succeeding, challenging to themselves order without beginning, that is to say, professing a body without a head. * These words M. Nowell translated falsely thus: wherefore it is agreeable their seat also to appear to be the chair of pestilence. Wherefore it is agreeable to call their seat also the chair of pestilence. Hitherto S. Austen or & c? Of whose words I reason thus: who so ever make themselves sees against the church or out of the church which hath continual succession of bishops from S. Peter, sit in the chair of pestilence: But our counterfeit bishops of England do so: ergo, their chair is the chair of pestilence. The mayor is proved by this ancient auctor: the minor also by him, because they trouble the order begun of Petre, and continued by the succession of bishops to their time. They trouble this order, because they challenge to them selves order without beginning, as they who derive it not from S. Petre the chief rock after Christ, and are a body without a head. The which thing if you deny, M. Nowell then let us look to the order begun of Petre. what was that? Let S. Cyprian tell you, who in his book de simplicitate praelatorum or rather De unitate ecclesiae, witnesseth, that God by his authority disposed the beginning of unity to begin of one, that was Petre. If this were the order begun of Petre, who seeth not who be the troublers of this order? We, that for unities sake admit but one chief head bishop under Christ, and no other but such as be derived from him, or you that will have many heads without such ordinary derivation? Hath not this order been kept in the church ever since by the continuance of bishops without interruption till your unhappy time? Peruse if you list the order in our church of England of the bishops of Cauntorburie for example, beginning at william Warham, the last catholic bishop (before heresy found first entreteinement there) and so ascend by degrees till you come to saint Austen our English Apostle. In all this succession (the space of almost a thousand years) this order hath been continued in England: so that you are not able to show for your lives, any one of all those bishops that continued not this order begun of S. Petre. Now stay not here, but from S. Austen the first bishop of Cauntorburie, go to him from whence he received that order, to Gregory the bishop of Rome, from Gregory to Pelagius, from him to Benedictus, and so in order to S. Petre: and name if you can one of them in whom this order was not kept? This being most true, where began now your order? Who was the auctor thereof but friar Luther? From whom conveyed he this order but from Satan the father of all disordre, and lord of all misrule? If it be not so prove the contrary. If you do not disturb the order begun of S. Petre, then acknowledge one head bishop over the rest, and kick not against God's ordonance, who hath so disposed, that the unity of the church should begin of one, that is of Petre. Confess that the cause during still, why (as saith saint Jerome) saint In cap. Marci. 14. Peter was made ruler of the church: ut sub uno pastore sit una fides, that under one shepherd there may be one faith: that the same remedy ought to continue also, that is, that there be one head. But to this will you by no means be brought, and therefore I may justly conclude that you are those headless bishops, that sit in these pestilent chairs, making to yourselves seats out of the church and against the church by troubling the order begun by saint Petre, as both this ancient auctor saith here, and Optatus most evidently in his works against the Donatists Lib. 2. doing the like. But against this you reason and say, that we must first Nowell. fol. 112. prove ourselves to be the true church of Christ, which we shall never be able to do, being in deed the synagogue of Antichrist. We will not prove it M. Nowell, but will make you and Dorman. your companions to prove it for us in spite of your beards, be you never so loath. For when being asked where your church in the which you make your ministers and bishops was but fifty years ago, you shall not be able to answer, your very silence shall speak for us, seeing that a church Christ must have always, which because it could not be yours that was no where, it must be that of which we are, that was always and every where. Your next refuge is to this, that these words (whose seat Nowell. fol. 113. a. 1. he usurpeth), seem to prove that the auctor here, noted some Antipope, which hath been no novelty for these 3. or 4. hundred years to have two or three pope's at once: And so some writer in favour of him by like, that was chosen and kept residence at Rome, hath written this against some other that usurped Petres seat etc. It is happy M. Nowell, that this is but a bare surmise of Dorman. yours leaning to no sure foundation, but confirmed by a poor by Like. As for the words (whose seat he usurpeth) they make nothing for your Antipope, but have relation to such false bishops as being heretics or schismatics, corrupt the tradition of catholic bishops whose seats they usurp, by making war with the church, and challenging to be of the order of bishops, and of the body of Christ's church, whereas of their bishops they can show no beginning, and of their body they will have no head. You can not here say, that because they were out of the church this ancient auctor called them a body without Christ their head. For although that be true. yet the words that go next before: They trouble the order begun of Peter, etc. challenging to themselves an order without beginning, that is to say, professing a body without a head, argue an other head than Christ, whose authority of being head of his church, depended not upon Petre you wot well, but contraryewise peter's upon his. Whereas you restrain this place to be meant, against some false pope intruding himself into the bishopric of Rome, you do the auctor great wrong, who as the learned will easily espy, speaketh here generally of all such bishops, as make themselves sees out off the church or against the church. You might if it had pleased you have guessed nearer, if you had said that he had noted the false Donatist bishops, who making them selves Sees against the church, professed a body without a head as you do. As appeareth by Optatus living in the same time and writing of their bishops in this wise. Igitur Optatus lib. 2. de Schismat. Donatist. quia Claudianus Luciano, Lucianus Macrobio, Macrobius Encolpio, Encolpius Bonifacio, Bonifacius Victori successisse videntur: si Victori diceretur, ubi sederit, nec ante se aliquem illic fuisse monstraret, nec cathedram aliquam nist pestilentiae ostenderet, that is to say. Therefore because Claudianus seemeth to have succeeded Lucianus, Lucianus Macrobius, Macrobius Encolpius, Encolpius Bonifacius, Bonifacius Victor: if one should ask Victor to whom he succeeded, neither could he name any before him, nor show any other chair than the chair of pestilence. That to colour the better this fond fantasy of yours, you say it hath been no novelty for these 3. or 400. years, to have 2. or 3. pope's at once, as though some late writer were the auctor of this work, it is a most miserable shift, seeing that both there be store of old written copies not unwritten these 500 years, where this work is to be found in the name of S. Augustine, and therefore can this place by no means (except you would have it written by prophecy before the thing were done) be understand of any such schismatical pope: and again, if it be not S. Augustins, it is yet more ancient, for as much as the auctor thereof, counteth but 300. Quaestio. 44. years from the coming of Christ, to his time. How so ever it be, the matter can not be applied to us, who Nowell. a. 10. do not usurp Peter's chair. Further what word is there here to prove the chair of Rome, to be the head of the universal church, etc. You trouble the order begun of Petre, which is enough Dorman. to prove your chair the chair of pestilence. For that I noted you of, although by taking upon you that which belongeth to that chair, you usurp his chair also. These words (the order begun of Petre) include the authority of the See of Rome, that order being first begun in Peter that he was the head of the rest, as hath been declared, and so are you answered to your demand, what word there is here to prove the chair of Rome to be the head of the universal church. To proceed, we having Christ to be our head, our church Nowell. is no dead trunk, as lacking an head: and having him our head only, and other his ministers our governors under him, our church is no live monster as having many heads: no more than our common wealth having God the only head in heaven, our prince his servant our head governor in earth, is therefore a live monster: or the whole world having God to his head is therefore a dead trunk, because it hath no one only earthly head, nor can have any such: no more can the universal church through out the whole world, have any such one earthly head, etc. and so may he conclude that God and Christ the authors of life be no heads or no such heads as can save the bodies whereof they be heads, from being dead tronckes, except the said bodies have a false usurper from Rome to be their head beside, and to give them life. You twang here M. Nowell upon that old false string Dorman. that ever jarreth and never is in tune. For as I have ever told you so often as you made mention of this comparison between the state of the world and the church (which hath been in this Repronfe of yours very often) that between the governemet of the church and the whole world there is great o●●es, so do I now answer you again. But you will say, that I am the auctor of this comparison myself, who reason, that the church must have one head, because kingdoms, countries, cities, be so best governed. It is my reason (I confess) that every thing that is one is best governed by one. And therefore the world it self, were for us that live in the same best governed by one chief head under Christ, if for the pain of our sins God had not disposed the same to be governed by many. Which when you say to be a thing impossible both in the church and in the world, you speak as you are wont without any proof, much to the derogation of god's omnipotency. Now to come to your comparison: see I pray you whether if God had appointed all the kingdoms in the world to be one, as he hath all the churches to be one (for he came into the world, ut dispersos congregaret in unum, Psal. 146. to gather the dispersed together) it should not be also a dead trunk if it lacked a visible head to make it one. Your similitude between the church and our common wealth, is made between Christ head of the church only, a multitude of ministers governors of the same under him, and the common wealth having God the head in heaven, and one prince, his servant and head governor in earth. This comparison maketh not only not with you, but very much also against you. First it maketh not with you, because you supposing the church to be one body and Christ the only head thereof, allow to the church many undreheades, whereas in the common wealth being also one body and the other part of the comparison, there is mention but of one head under Christ, the prince himself. So that thereupon to infer, that the church having an infinite no more of heads being but one body, is no monster, because the common wealth having but one visible head like to itself is no monster: it is a monstrous conclusion, more meet to proceed from a block that hath no sense, or a monster that hath many heads but wit in none of them, then from a creature endowed with reason. It maketh against you thus: the common wealth where be many heads and every one will govern, is a monstrous body: but the church is Christ's common wealth, and hath as you say, many heads to govern it: therefore it is a monster. Again: The common wealth that because Christ is the only head thereof in heaven will admit no other chief head in earth, is a block. But so doth your church: therefore it is a block or dead trunk. As for the conclusions that you say I may make, that God and Christ be no heads or no such heads, etc. and again, that aswell all kingdoms, and common wealths in Christendom be live monsters as having many heads etc. In deed I must needs confess a truth, God hath given me free will, and I may abuse it if I list, and make as many foolish conclusions as you have done. But I trust you will not deal with me as you ruffled before with the poor franciscans and those of the company of jesus, to conclude that I will say so because I may say so if I list to play the fool. Now to these conclusions I say, that truly I can not so conclude, the first of them following no better, then if you M. Nowell would conclude, that God and Christ the authors of all true doctrine can not instruct men (if it so pleased them) in all wholesome knowledge without the external help of man, because they do this by men. For even as God useth the ministry of men to teach and preach, not as though he could not so do without, for our infirmities sake, and because it pleased the divine wisdom that Christ the second person in Trinity should not be always visibly present with us: for the same cause hath it pleased all mighty God, to govern the members of his church, by the means of one visible head the B. of Rome. The folly of your second conclusion appeareth I doubt not, by the difference that is between all the churches of the world, which make all but one, and the kingdoms which be diverse and were never appointed to be one. And had M. Dorman had so much leisure from his divinity Nowell. matters, as to have looked better upon his notes of the canon law, his peculiar study, he would have been better advised then to have called us Acephalos headless, and therefore dead trunks, who do obey our own prelate's, seeing Acephali (as is there noted) are those who be subject to no prelate. And had M. Nowell had so much wit to have looked Dorman first upon the text and then upon the gloze from whence he borrowed this note, he would have been better advised then to have alleged it of all other for their defence. For by the text it appeareth, that those whom the gloze there calleth Acephali, had heads, quos ministros seu custodes vel gardianos aut nominibus alijs appellant, whom they call ministers, keepers, wardens or by other names. Why doth the gloze then call then headless? quia sub nullius veri praelati obedientia existunt, because they are under the obedience of no true prelate. This is the reason of the gloze. But yet let us ask an other question: why were they under the obedience of no true prelate? Because their heads were not allowed by the pope. This is the reason of the text. You must not be angry with me M. Nowell for charging you as I do with the canon law. For you bog me in my peculiar study (as you say), and you seem to have conceived great trust upon this place, which maketh me the bolder and earnester to. With the text and the gloze agreeth reason: for if your head that standeth now upon your shoulders, should suddenly be turned in to the head of an Ass, he should not say amiss that for all the long ears, should say you were headless, not for that that you had no head at all such a one as it were, but in this respect that you had no such head as you should have, no such head as a preacher should look out of a pulpit withal. To come now nearer to the common case of you all, and to exemplify it by some of your lineage that have gone before you: were the subjects of Novatus trow you that false bishop, Acephali without a head, when forsaking Cornelius the B. of Rome, they obeyed him? If they were, you are. For your case is like, your bishops being no more truly bishops than Novatus was, nor altogether so truly neither. For he was made bishop by two bishops lawfully made by the pope, whereas you were made by the commission, currebant & ego non mittebam. Now seeing the canon law helpeth Hier. cap. 23. you not, yea seeing it maketh directly against you, as the which accounteth them headless that appoint heads to themself without the pope's approbation, seeing at the laws of the realm you find as I hear say as little grace: seeing that by the scriptures you are condemned for running not being sent, what remaineth but to say, that the obeying of your Idol bishops can not excuse you from being headless? All this a do hath M. Dorman made now by the space of more Nowell. fol. 114. a. 1. Clem. li. 3. Tit. 13. de censib. & exact. cap. cum sit & lib. 5. de verb. sig. Tit. 10. ca 1. Ex frequentib. Dorman. than three leaves to deface scripture as no fit judge in controversies, and to persuade us that the pope like an other Pythagoras, by his only bare word may and ought to satisfy all men, heretics, and others, and that it shallbe sufficient for him only to say, without reason of scripture why he so saith, saving this reason only, papae est pro ratione voluntas with the pope will standeth for reason, as is mentioned in the book of his own canon law etc. Not to deface the scripture M. Nowell have I made all this a do (there you belie me) but to deface heretics, while by this means it shall not be lawful for them to pervert and corrupt it with their false and untrue expositions. The places that you bring out of the canon law, to prove that it is sufficient for the pope to say without reason of scripture why he so saith, are two: but in neither of those places is that which you say. The first place speaketh of certain privileges which the pope for causes and considerations will not have extendid to monasteries and churches after a certain time. Here saith the gloze upon this place, that the pope's will in this case standeth for reason. Again in the second place which is not there where you falsely note it here in the margin to be, but in the title de sententia excommunicate. cap. si summus pontifex, of the pope absolving one excommunicate it saith as much, but no where in the pope's law is this odious saying of yours found. Look therefore better both upon the text and the gloze, and learn to understand them before you bring them next. An answer to. 8. demands made by M. Nowell touching the pope. The 30. Chapitre. THE FIRST: what if there be two or three pope's at once? Is it not to be doubted which of them shall be this certain judge in controversies? Nowell. And is not the popish church in this case, in danger to be a live monster as having many heads? If there should be so many pope's at once, as truly pope's, Dorman. as you profess to have of your church many heads at once, then should the church be, not only in danger but in deed, a live monster, as your schismatical church is. But whereas in truth there is but one lawful pope, it is in no such danger as you fantasy, not if there were ten that pretended every of them right to the papacy. If any such chance happen, we know it chanceth by God's permission, who as he hath hitherto so guided his church, that when the like hath happened, it never sustained thereby any detriment in faith: so are we by his promise assured who promised never to forsake his church, that he will in no wise permit in this doubtful time any such controversy to be moved, as that may not without the detriment of his church, remain in suspense until such time as God have revealed the right judge and true pope. What if there be never a pope at all? Shall all our doubts lie Nowell. b. 25. therewhile undiscussed for lack of a judge, and your popish church so long (two or three years together) lie as a dead trunk for lack of an head? If your doubts be such as the usage of the church, the Dorman. consent of all nations, be not able to explicate, then is there no other remedy but by prayer to desire almighty God, to keep from us no long this necessary mean appointed by him in earth to signify to us his holy will and pleasure. The church is not in the mean season a dead trunk, no more than one of your particular churches is when the bishop dieth. For even as there (although not in all things) the Chapitre supplieth the lack of the bishop in many: so the See of Rome being void by death, hath a grave Senate, that supplieth, although not in defining of controversies, yet in many things, that want of the head. I trust when the general head of the church of England in earth dieth, you will not call your church a dead trunk. What if the pope sit not at Rome in Italy? May we not doubt Nowell. of the certainty of the judge, not sitting in the chair whereof he hath all his certainty? The pope hath not his certainty of Peter's material Dorman. chair, but of the authority and power given to Petre, the sign whereof the chair is. And therefore you need not to trouble yourself with that care: whether he sit in the very same chair that Petre did or in some other, whether he sit at Avignon in France, or Toletum in Spain, he is always bishop of Rome, and successor to Petre. And as we say, where the king is there is the court: so where the pope sitteth there is Peter's chair, to say Petres authority. What if he do err? What if he be an heretic? Nowell. The pope may have his private and personal errors, Dorman. it can not be denied. God only and not man is privileged that he can not so err. But in determining any matter of faith, or delivering any doctrine to the whole church, he that is the chief head of his church, will never suffer him so to err. And therefore I say with S. Augustine that August. epist. 165. his misdoings do not prejudice the church. If it would please you M. Nowell to become scholar to those that you call my masters (as for any great learning that you have shown in this reproof of yours it might beseem you well enough) Pighius and Hosius, in them should you learn, Lib. 4. eccles. hierarch. cap. 8. Lib. 2. contra Brent. folio. 83. & sequent. that all your companions be not able to convince so much as one pope amongst so many as have been, to be an heretic. But let that be as doubtful, as this is most certain, that there was never yet any pope that gave in any matter of faith an heretical sentence. And therefore you are much to blame to conceive of God's providence for his church any such despair, not being able for all the time past to show so much as one example of that which you captiously demand. What if his election be uncertain or unlawful? Must he yet Nowell. fol. 115. a. 2 be the most certain and only judge? If the election be not lawful, it giveth to the elected person Dorman. no right. What if we have a she pope, such as was pope joane otherwise Nowell. john the eight? What though that be a lie, and to be found in no story Dorman. of worthy credit? Iff such a chance should yet happen, than were there no pope, but for the time the See vacant. What if the pope's successors do disannul, their praedecessours' Nowell. pope's decrees, & c? In matters pertaining to things indifferent it may so Dorman. chance, time and place so requiring: but in faith and doctrine delivered to the whole church, that any such change or alteration hath happened you are not able to show, nor ever shall, and therefore you might have kept this what if with the rest in your purse. Thus are these doubts of yours answered M. Nowell, and so shall I trust the other great many more that you threaten me withal, which you looked for belike at the writing hereof to come shortly from Franckeforde mart. The pope is not judge in his own cause. The cause is A. 19 gods and the churches. So I told you before. You make much a do to prove that the scriptures are the way of truth, judgements: yea and judgements off truth, which no man denieth. For it hath been always granted unto you, that the scriptures contain all truth in them sufficient to confirm all true doctrine, and to overthrow the contrary, when by the voice of the church they are interpreted and made manifest. When we harcken to the pope's interpretation of scripture, we acknowledge and so ought all true catholics that we hear the holy ghost speaking by his mouth, in which case we say that the credit which we give to his sentence, is not given to him as he is a man but to god's word, whereby we are taught that the thing which man's nature could not obtain, Christ God and man obtained for Peter the first pope of Rome, Lucae. 22. that is that his faith should not fail, and so consequently for all that should after him succeed in the government of the church. And so is your text answered: God is true but every man is a liar. Or else we could not be assured of that which the prophets and Apostles teach us. Of the title, head of the church of England, given to our late sovereign King Henry the 8. The 31. Chapter. I ASKED here, by occasion of that foolish reason of fo. 116. a. 1. your Apology: Christ is head of the church: Ergo, it hath or needeth no other, how it happened then, that your companions gave to king Henry the 8. the title of head of the church of England, and you yourselves to our most gracious lady his daughter, the same also in effect? To this you say: If it will please you to resort to the records of the 22. and 24. Nowell. 1. b. 7. years of King Henry the 8. there shall you find who they were, that first offered this title to the said King: there shall you find that all abbots, and other religious, all the bishops, Deans, archdeacon's and clergy of both the houses of the convocation then living gave him that title. To the latter question of the queens majesty, to that you will shortly answer you say, but presently you do not. When you have ransacked all the records, and said all Dorman. that you can, to make the Catholics our forefathers partakers with you of this fact: yet is this most surely recorded in all men's remembrance, that all Catholics joined not with you, and those that did, were followers and no leaders, consented to that title which was required, and offered it not of their own motion. The first authors that put that wicked devise in to the kings most noble head, were not the catholics but heretics, and the scholars of Luther, such as were Cromwell, Cranmere, and other. I speak not this notwithstanding to excuse them who confess their own faults, and are most sorry and penitent therefore. This was a case wherein we may say with our forefathers: peccavimus, iniusté egimus, iniquitatem fecimus: We have sinned, we have done unjustly, we have committed iniquity. But what is all this to the purpose? What if the catholics did amiss with you as they did, how can you answer this, standing in your wicked opinion still, that a particular church may have one head, governor under Christ in earth, and the whole may not? To that you say. I trust the reason is not to seek in the good reader's memory, Nowell. fo. 117. a. 22. seeing it hath been so oft declared before: yet will I answer M. Dormans' question by an other question. You burden very sore the reader's memory to remember Dorman. that which hitherto you never uttered. You are not wont to be so dangerous (I report me to the reader) to repeat one thing diverse times, but there was good cause that you should here do as you did, to wit, because you are not able (standing in strength the argument of your Apology) to give any reason, why the church of one particular realm, having two provinces, two archbishops, and under them above 20. bishops, whereof Christ is as much the head as of the whole church, should more have an other head beside Christ over all these particular heads, than all the particular heads of Christ's universal church should have an other head beside Christ over them. yet I know you mean that reason of yours, which being so foolish, so wicked and blasphemous, that one man is not able to rule and govern (under Christ) the whole church alone, you have so often repeated, having no other shift of descant, that even very shame compelleth you now at the last, to wrap and involve it in silence. As for the answer that you make by a question: Why one kingdom may have in earth under God one head, and the whole world can not: to that I say, that it is a false proposition, that the whole world can not have one only head in earth under God, often in this your reproof stoutly affirmed, but never as yet proved. To this answer I join also the second, that the questions be not like. But than you say: If M. Dorman say the questions be not like, I ask with what Nowell. b. 1. face he can so say, seeing that in the beginning of this his treaty, he brought the example of civil government, in the which every kingdom hath his king, every country, city, and company have their several governors etc. to prove that the church ought likewise to have one head. I acknowledge this example, and dare further make Dorman. you M. Nowell yourself the judge, whether these questions of yours and mine be like. I compare one kingdom to the whole church which is also one, and therein resteth the strength and force of my example: I make no comparison between all kingdoms of the world which be many, and all churches which are but one, as you do here deceiving yourself and other toe. For if I should so have done, then had not the comparison been good. Now if it were as true that God had ordained all the kingdoms of the world to make one kingdom and not many, as he hath all the churches to be one and not many: then if you denied to all these kingdoms joined in one, a visible king to be above all the rest, and to govern the whole, because god is the Monarch and ruler of all, as you do to the universal church for the same cause: I would say that you offended as much therein, not allowing to all these kingdoms being but one, one head and chief governor, as you should do if you would grant to particular kingdoms no particular king: the reason being as great why the whole should have one ruler over it, as why any particular member should. But now I can not so say, because God hath appointed no such order in the world, as he hath in his kingdom the church, and therefore the questions be not like. From this you run as one that feared to tarry to long, to guess what we would say if the time served us, and here on God's name you tell us a long tale of the pope's rule over all the world in temporalities, and of king john, as much to the purpose as if you had told us of Robin hood, and therefore I pass it over, with your other reasons that follow, fo. 118. b. made to bolster up, the rotten reason of your Apology, because they have been so often answered by showing the difference between the two states of the world and the church. The answer to the conclusion. The 32. chapter. NOW followeth M. nowels conclusion, wherein drawing near to the end, and knowing how weakly the matter hath been handled by him in the whole process of his book before, he thinketh by a certain lusty bravery of words to make amends, and so to bear away the garland. But now let us here how he bestirreth him. Thus I trust good Readers you see the insufficiency, or more Nowell. fo. 119. a. 7. truly the lewdness of M. Dormans' proofs of the necessity of one only head over Christ's whole church here in earth: you see where he saith he hath sufficiently proved it to be Christ's pleasure, that there should be such an one head, that he hath not nor could not (for if he could he would) allege out of the new testament (where Christ's will and pleasure is written, and declared most largely and manifestly) as much as one word founding to that purpose so far of is it, that it is, as he saith sufficiently proved. Thus I trust you see good Readers how M. Nowell Dorman. having begun with a lie in the very title of his book, calling it a reproof of my book, which reproveth but only. 15. leaves, hath continued and now endeth the same in such wise as the middle and end may appear in all men's judgement to answer to the beginning. You see where he saith, that I have not sufficiently proved it to be Christ's pleasure that there should be one head in his steed in the whole church, because I alleged no testimony out of the new testament, that in restraining my proofs to the only new testament and calling the testimonies brought out of the old law (as he doth hereafter) old shadows, while he reproveth my proofs for this cause, he seemeth not to be far from the heresy of the Manichees, who condemned the old testament. It was not M. Nowell because I could not, that I alleged no proof out of the new testament. But the cause (if you will needs know it) was for this, that I thought it best to use such testimonies as consisting in fact, and having been already put in execution, you should be less able to cavil against: especially making my count, that the appointing of one chief priest in the old law being for the benefit of God's people. you would easily admit that Christ would be as beneficial to his church in the new law. Otherwise I could have brought to you out of the gospel of S. Matthew the words of our Saviour Matth. 16. to S. Petre, where he using these words: And I tell the that thou art Petre, and upon this rock I will build my church: and again, what so ever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven, etc. made Peter, as Chrisostom witnesseth, Shepherd of the church, head of the church, ruler over the whole Homi. 55. lu Matth. world. I could have alleged lhe place of S. john where Christ committing to Peter the charge of all his flock joan. vlt. excepting none, made by that means one ruler of the whole, Homil. in cap. joan. vlt. and committed curam orbis terrarum, the charge of the universal world to Peter, as saith the same chrysostom. These places could I have alleged and other also, had it not been to avoid wrangling, and for that, that I persuaded myself that this example taken from the government of God's people the jews, should be to all indifferent men sufficient enough to confirm my purpose, as till M. Nowell confute it, it is. You see that schisms and controversies by S. Cyprians judgement Nowell. and S. Augustins, with 217. bishops more assembled in the African council with him, and by good reason and experience also, may be best quieted in the countries where they arise. You see that neither S. Cyprian, neither S. Augustine Dorman. neither the 217. bishops (amongst whom M. Nowell before numbered Orosius being no bishop but a priest only, and Prosper a bishop of Rhegium in Italy and therefore not like to be at any council in Africa) neither yet reason or experience which teach the contrary, do say Supra cap. 11. that schisms and controversies may be best quieted and decided in the countries where they arise. That which they say, is meant of criminal causes, not of schisms about doctrine, as those words of S. Cyprian containing the reason why he would have such causes heard in the countries where they happen being these: but ought there to make answer to their causes where they may have accusers and witnesses of their crimes, do well declare. And thus you see that this is a manifold lie. You see that it becometh man, unable well to govern a Nowell. very little thing, to humble himself and to yield up the honour and glory of governing the whole world and church to God, etc. You see by the example of Peter refusing of humility Dorman. the service that Christ offered to him in washing his feet, joan, 13. that true humility is to do that which Christ biddeth to be done. You see withal M. Nowells honesty, that to deceive the simple, useth here these words, yield up the honour and glory of governing the whole world and church to god, as though any man so claimed the government of the church as that he would displace Christ thereof. Also you see that in this treaty hitherto, as M. Dorman hath Nowell. not one word out of the new testament, so hath he alleged but only two texts out of the old testament, one out of Deuteron. cap. 17. etc. an other of Numeri. 16. which both make directly against him. etc. You see and know I doubt not, that one text of holy Dorman. scripture is as good as a hundred. You see that M. Nowell goeth guilefully about to abuse the simple by this term (nation) as though because the jews which were but one nation had their chief priest and high bishop, therefore there should follow thereof nought else, but that every nation country, diocese or church, should have also their chief bishop, without any one head over the whole: whereas the jews although they were but one nation, were yet the chosen people and church of God, and amongst diverse heads of several tribues there was over all those heads one chief head. You have seen that of S. Cyprians applying of this text to inferior magistrates, can be gathered no necessary argument that it may not be otherwise applied, that is to the higher. You have seen as many as have readen my first book. fol. 33. 34. 35. that Moses was a priest, that yet there followeth no absurdity of being two high priests at once, because as S. Augustine Lu quaest. super. Levitic. lib. 3. cap. 23. saith, they were both high priests in diverse respects, the one in commanding to be done, the other in executing things commanded. And withal you see, that we are here by M. Nowell untruly burdened of disobedience to our Sovereign as not acknowledging such authority in the same over spiritual matters, as was in Moses and Aaron. Wherefore you may well understand that were it either Nowell. profitable or necessary etc. to have such an one head, God would have certified us of a thing so profitable and necessary, more plainly and exprossely then by two old shadows of the jewish church, which do teach us also the contrary. God hath certified us by building his church upon one, Dorman. by making one general pastor over all the rest, that his Matth 16. joan. vlt. pleasure was to appoint this manner of government in his church. But what mean you to find fault with the testimonies of the old testament, calling them shadows, and to demand other of the new, having brought for your opinion not so much as one piece of a sentence, out of either the old testament or the new? You see how blindly he going about to prove that there Nowell. fo. 120. a. 1 ought to be one only head over all the church, bringeth in for proof thereof the regiment of several countries, kingdoms, cities etc. by several princes, several magistrates and heads, which maketh most directly with us, that several churches, should in likewise have their several heads. You see that our question being whether the catholic Dorman. church of Christ which is but one, aught to be ruled by one head or many: M. Nowell here like the blind bayard that he speaketh of, saith that my example proveth for them that it ought to be ruled by many, because many kingdoms have many kings: wherein you see that dividing the church which is but one, he goeth against the faith of the church. You see that he dissembleth my reason, which is, that as a kingdom because it is one is best ruled by one head: so the church which is but one is best ruled by one head. You see that to this reason hitherto he never answered. You see how often S. Cyprian is by him alleged for the pope Nowell. of Rome his supremacy, in those places where he speaketh of Rogatian and, of himself being both bishops etc. You see how the places of S. Cyprian and S. Hierom Dormna. expressly maintaining the superiority of one above the rest in every diocese, with the cause added, for the avoiding of schisms, brought by me to prove by more forcible reason the necessity of one head over the whole, M. Nowell wresteth to the direct proving of the B. of Rome his supremacy: whereof in that place as it was not my purpose to entreat, so if I had, I had done preposterously and confounded my appointed order of writing. You see how the place of S. Basile brought to declare the manner off heretics in contemning the authority of their bishops, he layeth to my charge untruly, to have been brought as spoken of the pope of Rome. You see that the comparison made between Novatus and our protestants of England holdeth in this, that either of them laboureth to withdraw the subjects from their lawful obedience. You have heard good Readers the sorry melody of M. nowels harp, whereupon twanging on a false string he made a shameful lie, in saying that Vrsitius and Valens offered up their recantation as well to Athanasius as to julius the pope. You see that he hath oftentimes beelied. S. Cyprian and S. Jerome, feigning them to make all bishops equal in authority, and no one to be above the other. Yowe see his own inconstancy and disagreement with himself, one while affirming all bishops to be equal and none to be above the other, an other while denying, and making chief prelate's in every province: you see him rejecting pope Leo as witness in his own cause, and bringing in the African to esbeare witness to themselves. You see to deface pope Leo how shamefully he slandereth Zosimus, of whom the whole African council wrote so reverently. You see how he burdeneth without all manner of proof, Celestinus (of whom Prosper writeth so honourably) with other his successors, to have forged a great many of the epistles now abroad in the names of Clement, Anacletus etc. you see how he spareth no injurious words to Leo calling him thief, noting him of ambition whom the council of Chalcedon called thrice blessed, and God honoured with miracles. You see that he challengeth untruely the copies of Leo to be contrary one to an other. You see that he is a plain makebate, and to mend his cause by setting the doctors at variance between themselves, how he heweth, mangleth, and cutteth away from the authors that he allegeth, words, yea sentences to serve his purpose. You see in defence of schisms how he laboureth to find unquietness amongst the Apostles and disciples of Christ: you see that to deface unity, as he taketh it from the Apostles, so he attributeth it to the Phariseis and enemies of Christ. You see for lack of weightier matter he chargeth us with the disputable opinions of schoolmen and logiciners, with diversity of apparel, of diet and meats, which manners as you have heard, were yet amongst the religious in the primitive church. You see how often he repeateth and never proveth, that it is impossible for one man to govern the whole church. You see that nazianzens' words were not alleged by me as spoken of one pope, and that therefore therein as in many other things he hath also beelied me. You see the words of an ancient auctor printed with S. Austen, and of long time taken for him alleged: why not as boldly M. Nowell as you without blushing allege a work by the title of being printed with chrysostom, and of long time taken for him? And universally you see M. nowels falsehood in translating, or fraud in corrupting, mangling, or adding to such authors as he doth allege: you see his lies as thick as leaves. You see myself discharged of such false translating, corrupting, mangling, as here untruly he reproveth me of. 5. times in the margin. Neither is his deceit and fol. 120. b. 30. guile comparable to his impudence, as being not abashed to allege the epistle of the African council sent to Celestinus, for the proof of a decree pretended to be made in the council against appealing from thence to Rome, and sending legates from Rome thither, whereas there is no such decree specified there. And thus you see good Readers, while M. Nowell in this long reproof of his, hath answered nothing to the scripture alleged but most vainly and fond this, that God hath provided better for his church then for the synagogue by appointing over it many heads, where as the synagogue had but one, and also that the jews were but one nation etc. which answers have been confuted before: while the argument taken from S. Cyprian and S. Hierom concluding that seeing schisms be raised by not obeying the particular heads of every diocese, that then by greater reason schisms are like to grow in the universal church, if amongst so many heads there be not one chief head to rule the rest, is not yet soluted: while the reason that every several company that is one, aught to have a several head to rule the same, applied to the church, hath not hitherto been answered, the only reason that M. Nowell leaneth to to the contrary, that it is impossible for one man to govern the whole church being directed by the spirit of God (for otherwise we affirm it not) never being proved: it followeth, that my proofs by the scripture, by the minds of the ancient fathers, by good and probable reason, stand upright against your wrangling reproof M. Nowell. your charging of me with impertinent discourses I answered before: let the judgement of that matter be referred to the learned reader. But behold now followeth M. nowels conclusion. Seeing therefore this first and most principal point of one head of the church is not proved &c. all the pope's supremacy Nowell. cometh down upon their heads. If I had proved this first point as weakly as you would Dorman. make men believe I have, or not proved it all, yet cometh not down the pope's supremacy, as before in the beginning of the. 11. cbapitre I showed. And therefore for the council that you give me here out of time, to recoil from this Thesis of one head of the church, to the Hypothesis of the pope head of the church, as there is no need to admit it, so there is no cause to thank you for it. You say that I have placed in the residue of my book as in the rearward, bag and baggage, with such pages, drudges Nowell. and slaves to attend upon the same, as are more ready to run away then to abide any brunt of battle. The which (say you) I have not as yet assailed, for that I saw the B. of Sarisbury his band bend upon them, whose hands if any of that cowardly company escape etc. I promise to have them shortly in the chase, until I have left of all M. dorman's bragging but most cowardly army of lewd popish reasons and allegations, not as much as one soldier untaken or put to shameful flight. Take head what you do and ask council of your wife. Dorman. It is possible that the favourable aspect of Venus may moderate your Martial fury. In any case, if this great bishops band that you speak of, encounter not with this cowardly company (as I hear say he hath enough to do already and will cumber himself with no more) venture not your own person so good a man's body against such drudges and slaves: Against whom as it is possible that you may take some hurt, so are you sure never to get honour. What should so valiant a captain as full often times you have at Paul's cross showed yourself to be, when that coragiouse stomach of yours hath provoked the papists to meet with you when they durst, whose daggers were as sharp as theirs you told them: when you offer yourself with a small company, but yet so that they were of the same spirit that you are, to keep Newehaven against all the power of France: when it would you said do your heart good to raze your buckler upon a papists face: What should I save, so singular a captain match himself with such a sort of pages, drudges, and slaves as were those mecock and dastardly bishops assembled in the councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon: as were Behold what pages drudges and slaves. M. Nowell hath found out. Ignatius, Policarpus, Irinaeus, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, chrysostom, Athanasius, Theodoret, Leo, Innocentius, whom I placed as it were in the rearward, more likelier as you say to run away, or to bide by it and lay their heads upon the block, then to play the toss buckler, to keep a hold with you, or to die in the field armed with your master Swinglius. But thanked be God this is but your opinion, and a few other such Bulliners as you are: amongst the learned they have been always taken to be as they are, triarij milites, of the very best soldiers M. Nowell. Of this question, whether a lay man, a woman or a child may be head of the church. The last chapiter. THIS being the second point of my purposed order, to prove that the party that should govern in spiritual matters ought to be a priest, no lay man, etc. it is a world to see how M. Nowell bestyrreth himself about it: and whereas he dareth not come near to it, how yet he reacheth at it a far of, as it were with a long pole or a morispike, and so laboureth to save his honour as well as may be. For he saith that I prove those things which no man doth deny, to wit, that no prince, man, woman nor child, may ministre the sacraments, preach, excommunicate and absolute, etc. And lo this is the jolly pretence that M. Nowell maketh to shift his hands of this second point, as that wherein for excuse of his silence he saith, that there is no need to write or say any thing, because I have no enemy at all. And therefore he addeth. For M. Dorman can not be ignorant, that we in all our Sermons Nowell. fol. 123. a. 25. and writings of such matters, do make a most clear and evident difference between the functions and offices of princes civil magistrates, and priests ecclesiastical ministers: and neither did we ever teach that princes ought, neither did they ever desire to execute, the offices ecclesiastical off ministering the Sacraments, preaching excommunicating, absolving and such like. I am not ignorant in deed of this qualification of yours, Dorman. invented the rather to entice some silly souls to the taking of your oath. Whom in deed I may well call silly that will thereby any thing the sooner be moved. For yourself are not ignorant I trow M. Nowell, that the causes why we stand with you in this matter, are not only for ministering the Sacraments, for preaching, excommunicating, absolving, but as I told you, and you here guilefully conceal, this power extendeth farther, to the giving and making of laws for the church, to authority to judge of doctrine wherewith the membres must be fed, whether it be sound or otherwise: for these be offices that belong to the head not to the members, except you will say that the sheep ought to judge what meat is convenient for them, not the shepherd. Again to appease schisms, is the office not of inferior membres but of the head itself, and yet belongeth as yourself have granted, to the chief prelaces of every province. Finally to be head of the church is to have the government of so many souls as be in that church, which because no lay man etc. can have in Note this reason. particular bishoprics, it followeth that none can have over the whole churches of a realm united. Of the which matter chrysostom saith. At quum de ecclesiae praefectura, Lib. 2. de Sacerdotio. de credenda huit vel illi tam multarum animarum cura agitur, universa quidem muliebris natura functionis istius moli ac magnitudini coedat oportet, itemque & bona virorum pars. But when the question is of the government of the church, of the committing to this man or that the charge of so many souls, then must all the kind of women give place to the burden and greatness of this office, yea and a great part of men also. You bring the examples of king David, Solomon, etc. who you say had authority in governing of the clergy and church matters, though they might not execute all ecclesiastical functions and offices. This matter is answered in my first book fol. 31. & sequ. Thither I refer the Reader. What though our most gracious sovereign lady being a Nowell. woman, have not so great skill in feats of war as have her captains, have not so good knowledge in the laws of her realm as her justices, and other learned men in the laws have, (though she have in all good learning and in the scriptures toe, more knowledge than had any of your pope's these seven hundred years I believe, and therefore no let in that point, but she may be head of the whole church aswell and rather than the pope. What if she fit not in public judgement, nor determine controversies as do her justices, etc. what I say if she can not execute all civil offices in her own person: would you therefore take from her, her civil principality, & c? Surely you may with as good reason do it, as you would take away her superiority over her clergy from her, for that she can not, may not, nor will not execute ecclesiastical functions. Your comparison is false M. Nowell. For there is no law Dorman. neither of gods nor man's, that forbiddeth a Queen although a woman, to sit in judgement, or to be present with her army in battle, as Delbora did both. So that the not judic. cap. 5. doing hereof proceedeth not of lack of ability or power, as contrariwise it doth that the prince meddleth not with ecclesiastical matters, whose condition in that, that he is a lay man maketh him unable for that function. Whereas M. Nowell noteth the queens majesty to have more knowledge in all good learning and in the scriptures toe, than had any pope these seven hundred years, as I am not he that would abase those her majesties rare gifts of excellent learning and princely qualities, far more plentifully by the goodness of God bestowed upon her, than any other so noble prince, man or woman, that this day liveth, but as my bounden duty is, render most humble thanks to almighty God therefore: so can I in no wise but abhor this most impudent parasite good Reader, who upon his beelefe (as though he had made never a lie in all this book before) A lie. 82. addeth this of all other the most shameful. Which I nothing doubt but her graces most rare modesty can so evil abide to here, that long ere this she hath judged him in her princely heart to be as he is, a vain liar and shameless parasite. Whom if her grace should command to An emperors reward for a flatterer. be rewarded for his labour, as Sigismunde the emperor rewarded one of the same profession, whom praising him above measure he buffeted as fast, answering him when he asked: why beatest thou me Emperor, why bitest thou me flatterer: as the reward were princely for such a gift, so were the fact worthy so mighty a prince. But now AEneas Silvius li. 2. Com. de reb. gest. Alphonsi. to the good Reader, what cause hast though to trust hereafter this man's belief in any matter touching the pope, the learning considered of Innocentius the third, Aeneas Silvius called Pius the 2. Adrianus 6. Marcellus 2. Paulus 4. and Pius. 4. that now is, and diverse other within that compass, as to the Learned is not unknown? This parasite stayeth not here but going farther sayeth. Though the queens majesty have not that understanding of Nowell. fol. 124. a. 1. all the affairs of her realm, that experience in all things, that activity in executing them, that hath the whole body of her most honourable council, yet doth the whole body of her council though most honourable, humbly acknowledge her to be their head, only proud priests because some things are incident to their office, which the prince may not * What if the prince listed? nor list not to do, refuse their Sovereign to be their supreme governor. You beely all priests M. Nowell, and may be ashamed to make the bishops only councillors in religion, whom Dorman. before you confessed by S. Cyprians mind to be judges in earth in Christ's steed, whereas you would here make them no judges, or judges in the prince's steed. You deal untruly to slander the clergy as you do. In whose defence I will say as S. Ambrose did to those that objected to Lib. 5. ep. 32. him the emperors authority in matters of religion. Soluimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, & quae sunt dei, deo. Tributu● Caesaris est, non negatur. Ecclesia dei est, Caesari utique non debet addici, quia ius Caesaris esse non potest templum dei. Quod cum honorificenti● Imperatoris nemo dictum potest negare. Quid enim honorificentius quam ut imperator ecclesiae filius esse dicatur? Quod sine peccato dicitur, cum gratia dicitur: Imperator enim bonus in●ra ecclesiam, non supra eccl●siam est. We pay to Cesar that which is his, and to God that which belongeth to God. Tribute is due to Cesar, it is not denied him. The church is gods it may not appertain to Cesar, because the temple of God, can not be Caesar's right. The which no man can deny to be said but with the emperors honour. For what is more honourable then for the Emperor to be called the son of the church? The which when it is said, it is spoken with favour, without offence. For a good Emperor is within the church not above the church. Thus much S. Ambrose, a proud priest by your judgement, because he acknowledged not the Emperor to be his supreme governor in causes ecclesiastical. But because you think M. Nowell and say also, that I have lewdly abused myself in confuting that which no man holdeth, I will make it appear that you have lewdly done in so saying, and that I went not about to prove that the head is not the head because it can not, or list not do all offices of all the principal membres of the body, which you say untruly is the effect of all my second long treaty, but that temporal princes can not be the heads because they can not do the office of the head. The which to prove I will allege your own words, wherein the part of a head you say consisteth. They are these. To command things aswell ecclesiastical as civil to be done, Nowell. to see them done, to commend and reward all well doers of them, to correct and punish all evil doers of them, or negligent in their office, is the part of a head or supreme governor, to do things commanded is the office of inferior members and obedient subjects. We have now good Reader M. nowel's own limitation Dorman. wherein the office of the head of the church consisteth. I pray the consider when I alleged scripture, that the government Act. 20. of the church was committed to bishops and priests, that they must be obeyed which watch for our souls, spoken also of priests: Hebr. 13. when I alleged the blessed martyr Ignatus bidding us Epist. ad Smirnē●es first to honour God, next the bishop as bearing his image, and then after that the king, willing all the people to obey Epist. ad Piladelphenses. Lib. 10. cap. 2 eccl. histor. Ambros. lib. 5. epi. 32. the Emperor, the Emperor to obey the bishop, the bishop Christ etc. when I alleged the example of Constantine the first Christian Emperor, refusing to judge over bishops, because God had given them power to judge him: when I alleged these words of S. Ambrose to the Emperor: Quando audisti clementissime imperator in causa fidei laicos de episcopo iudicasse? Ita ergo quadam adulatione curuamur ut sacerdotalis juris simus immemores, & quod deus donavit mihi, hoc ipse putem alijs esse credendum? Si docendus est episcopus a laico quid sequitur? Laicus ergo disputet & episcopus audiat, episcopus discat a laico. At certe si velscripturarū seriem divinarum, vel vetera tempora retractemus, quis est qui abnuat in causa fidei, in causa inquam fidei episcopos solerede imperatoribus, non imperatores de episcopis judicare? Eris deo favente, etiam senectutis maturitate provectior, & tunc de hoc censebis qualis ille episcopus sit qui laicis ius sacerdotale substernit. That is to say, when have you heard most gentle Emperor, that lay men have judged of the bishop? Be we therefore so crookened with flattery, that we should forget the priestly right, and that which God gave to me I should think to be to be committed to other? If the bishop be to be taught of the Say man, what will follow? Let the lay man then dispute and the bishop be a hearer: let the bishop learn off the lay man. But truly if we will look to the course of the Note. holy scripture, or call to memory the times past, who can deny that in a cause of faith, a matter I say of faith, the bishops were wont to judge of Christian. Emperors, not Emperors of bishops. You shall be God willing yourself one day of more ripe age, and then you shall judge what manner of bishop he is, which bringeth the right of priesthood in subjection to lay men. Thus far the words of saint Ambrose to Valentinian the Emperor, taking upon him by evil council to entremedle in ecclesiastical jurisdiction. When to these places I added the notable testimonies out of Athanasius, where the Emperor In epist. ad Solitar. vitam agent. is bidden not to intermeddle nor command in ecclesiastical matters: He is called antichrist for making himself chief of the bishops, for ruling in ecclesiastical judgements, for making his palace the consistory of ecclesiastical matters: Finally when I brought Calvin himself against this opinion of making temporal princes the heads in ecclesiastical matters, did I fight with mine own shadow? Did I labour in confuting that which no man holdeth? Are not these authorities directly against the commanding of princes in ecclesiastical things, against the taking upon them to correct or judge bishops in matters of faith, wherein the office M. Nowell saith of the head doth consist? You may therefore now perceive good Readers that it was but a pretended cause of M. nowels part that he here allegeth, to shift of that to M. jewel, at the least from himself, which he was sure he should never be able to answer. Wherefore now to conclude with you M. Nowell, I will give you this friendly council for a farewell, to strive no long against priests, lest it happen to you that the blessed Martyr S. Cyprian saith was revealed to him. Qui Lib. 4. epist. 9 Christo non credit sacerdotem facienti, postea credere in ipiet sacerdotem vindicanti. He that believeth not Christ appointing the priest, shall after begin to believe him revenging the priest. Struggle no longer against the See of Rome, of the A singular testimony ●or the church of Rome. It may be added before. fol. 192. b. Psal. contra pa●em Donati. which S. Augustine saith: Ipsa est sedes Petri quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae. That See is the rock which the proud gates of hell shall not overcome. For if you do, you are like to lose your labour as you see, except a limb you think be able to do more than the wide gates off the devils palace. (? ¿?) Deo Gratias. Quandoquidem Liber iste perlectus & approbatus est a viris Sacrae Theologiae & linguae Anglicanae peritissimis, judico eum suto posse imprimi & ewlgari. Ita testor & judico Cunerus Petri, pastor Sancti Petri Lovaniensis. 16. Octobris Anno. 1561.