A PROUFE OF CERTAIN ARTICLES IN RELIGION, DENIED BY M. IVELL, set forth in defence of the catholic belief therein, by Thomas Dorman, bachelor of Divinity WHERE UNTO is added in the end, a conclusion, containing twelve Causes, whereby the Author acknowledgeth himself to have been stayed in his old catholic faith that he was baptised in, wishing the same to be made common to many for the like stay in these perilous times. Augustinus contra literas Petiliani. lib. 2. cap. 16. Si quaeras, quibus fructibus vos esse potius lupos rapaces cognoscamus, obijcio schismatic trime●, quod tu negabis, ego autem statim probabo. Nequé; enim communicas omnibus gentibus, & illis ecclesijs Apostolico labore fundatis. that is to say. If thou demandest (he speaketh to Petilian the Heretic) by what fruits I know you to be rather the ravening wolves, I object to you the fault of schism, which thou wilt deny, but I will out of hand prove. for thou dost not communicate with all Nations, nor with those churches founded by th'apostles labour. Imprinted at Antwerp by john Latius, at the sign of the Rape, with Privilege, Anno, 1564. REgiae Maiestatis Privilegio permissum est Thomae Dormanno sacrae Theologiae Baccalaureo, uti per aliquem Typographorum admissorum impune●e ei liceat imprimi curare, & per omnes suae ditionis Regiones distrahere, Librum inscriptum, A proof of certain articles in religion denied by M. jewel: & omnibus al●s inhibitum, ne eundem absque eiusdem Thomae consensu imprimant, velalibi impressum distrahant, sub poena in Privilegio contenta. Datum Bruxellae. 14. jul. Anno. 1564. Subsig. Facuwez. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL MASTER Thomas Harding Doctor of Divinity, Thomas Dorman Bachelor of the same, sendeth greeting and wisheth health of body and soul. IT pricketh now fast (if my memory fail me not) right worshipful sir, towards the point of seventeen years, when I, being a young novice of Caluyns religion, was first by my friends brought, to that famous school at Wynchester, of bishop Wyckham his foundation. At which time it pleased you of your goodness (being then one of them, who had for that year the right and authority in that behalf) without money, without reward, without commendation of friends, upon the only contemplation and respect of my poor and needy estate, and some little hope (perhaps) conceived hereof, that once the time might come, when I should not be altogether unprofitable, either to my country that brought me forth, either to the place that should nourish me up: to bestow upon me being then a suitor for that purpose, your voice or suffrage, for th' obtaining of a place emon guessed the scholars there. By the benefit whereof, I was the same year made one of that numbered, brought home again to Christ'S church from whence I was strayed: and finally have obtained that knowledge and small understanding (yfyet amongst the learned it may be accounted any) to the which you now see me grown. True yt is, I can not deny it, that other helps God hath sense that time provided for me, to the furnishing and making perfect of that building, the foundation whereof, by your hands he first disposed to be laid. To whom I mind not neither, to show myself in time and place, of so great benefits by them received, either unmindful or unthankful. In the mean season, if, as next after God, of that profit which I have taken in my study, what so ever it be, I account you for the author, and very founder thereof: so I do with the scripture (asking quis plantat vineam et de fructueius non comedit?) 1. Cor. 9 offer to you (such as they are) the first fruits thereof for a taste, who plants a vyn ●ard, an ● tastith not of the fruits thereof? and that (upon the grounds of the law which will that the most ancient debt be first discharges) before all other: none I trust, of my other friendly credytours, will be therewithal offended. This hath been, right worshipful sir, the very cause of my boldness, in offering to you, this rude and simple treatise of mine. Wherein if any offence on my part have been committed, impute it I pray you to the abundance of the great good will that I bear towards you, and the necessity that I thought myself to stand in, for the testifying of my mind, ready in some part to discharge, as I was able, my duty to you. Far you well, at Aquicinctum the seat of my banishment. your mastership's to command. Thom. Dorman. TO THE READERS. I Am not ignorant (good Readers) of the manifold dangers, wherinto (what so ever he be) he willingly, as it were, casteth himself, who publisheth any thing to the world in writing. The which after that I had well weighed, and deeply debated with myself, of what mind I was touching the sending abroad of this little treatyfe of mine, any man may easily judge. For I, besides those saucy snaphaunces, and murmuring momuses, whom no man's doings can please but there own (which fortune I took to be common to me with many) foresaw also myself, not without good cause in appearance, ready to fall in to the just and lawful reprehension, even of those, whose judgements I have always both loved, and feared: the wiser, the learneder and the better sort also. Whilst after so godly, so grave, so exact a work, most amply treating of the same matter: I, of all other most unfit therefore, should seem to take pen in hand to write again. This one cause, appeared to me to be of such importance, that I was even fully resolved to stay my hand, and travel herein no farther. When suddenly (behold) amongst diverse other, it came to my mind to thynck, on the earnest desire, and godly greedy hunger of my poor countrymen: (I mean not the catholics only, but even of those whom simplicity not malice hath caused to stray) whereof I was to my great comfort daily informed, with what labour they fought for, with what diligence they harckened after, with what savoury appetite they received in to their minds, and as it were devoured, such books as brought them any tidings of the truth. Whereapon I discoursed farther with myself, that e●en as in a plague of famine or dearth● he that having in his barns no great store of corn but yet some, being once well minded, and charitably moved, to employ part of that little which he had, to the comfort and relief of his poor hungry neighbours: should in all men's judgement do very ●uell, if afterward upon the liberal almoise of some wealthier man, he should utterly withdraw his, and because his habylytie serveth him not to give as much, give nothing at all: even so me thought it fared with me, who minding these two whole years past, to confer some part of that small provision, that almighty god hath bestowed on me, to public commodity, could not now, (I persuaded myself) suppress and keep in the same, without the manifest offending of his holy spirit, who first moved me thereto, and some injury to him also, whose liberality (to the hindrance perhaps of some) I should by this means abuse. Thus much thought I necessary good Readers, to signify to you concerning this enterprise of mine. Where in if happily I seem to some, over slenderly to have excused myself, them refer I to his judgement, for my meaning herein, who shall once judge both me if I have not gone uprightly but trodden a wry, and them if they have not judged syncerlye, but deemed amiss. Far ye well, at Antwerp, the. 26. of july. Anno ●564. Thom. Dorman. THE articles WHICH THE AUTHOR HATH TAKEN upon HIM TO PROVE, AGAINST M. IVELLES negative. THat the Bishop of Rome, is the head of Christ's universal church here in earth, and that within the first six hundred years after Christ's departure hence, he was so called and taken. That the people was then taught to believe, that Christ's body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally, in the Sacrament. That the communion was then ministered under one kind. That there was Mass said at that time, although there were none to receive with the priest. A PREFACE, OR INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST PROPOSITION. THe blessed Martyr of God S. Cyprian, Lib. 〈◊〉. 3 epis●. 11. writing to one Rogatianus a Bishop of his province hath these words. I●tia hae reticorum, & ortus atque conatus schis●aticorum mal●e cogitantium haec sunt: v● sibi placeant, ut praepositum superbo tu●ore contemnant. Sic de ecclesia receditur, sic altare prophanum foris collocatur: sic contra pa●em Christi, & ordination●m, atque unitatem Dei rebellatur. Which is in english thus much to say: The beginning of heretics, the first springing up, and enterprise of schismatics thinking amiss in matters of faith, groweth of pleasure that they take in themselves, and of that, that being puffed up with pride, they contemn their head, and governor appointed over them. By this means stray they from the church. Thus is a profane altar placed without the doors, and thus rebel they against Christ's peace, god's ordinance and unity. And again in an other place he writeth thus: Lib. 4. epist. 9 Vnd●e enim schismata & haereses obortae sunt, nisi dum episcopus qui v●us est, & ecclesiae praeest, superba quorundam praesumptione contemnitur, & homo dignatione dei honoratus, ab indignis hominibus judicatur? Where of (sayeth he) do heresies and schysm●s spring, but of this, that the bishop which is one, and governeth the church, is through the proud and arrogant presumption of certain, contemned, and set at nought, and being the man by god's approbation allowed, and honoured, is of unworthy men judged. The very same thing, although in other words, doth S. Basile in an epistle written by him, Epistola. 61. ad Episcopos per Italiam & Galliani. to the bishops of Italy and France, bewailing there in the estate of his time, most plainly declare. Whose words, because they do lively represent unto us, the most miserable face of this our age: I have thought good to allege, and set before your eyes. Ambitions eorum qui dominum non timent, praesidentias invadunt, & in propatulo de caetero impietatis praemium proposita est prima sedes. Quare, qui graviores blasphemias protulit ad populi episcopum potior habetur. Periit authoritas sacerdotalis, populi admoneri nolunt, praesides dicendi libertatem non habent. Silent piorum ora, permissum est autem dicere omni blasphemae linguae. Prophanata sunt sacra. that is to say. The pride, and ambition of them which fear not our lord doth invade and set upon their heads, and openly the chiefest place, is proposed as a reward for wickedness. And therefore he that can utter against the bishop of the people, most grievous and slanderous blasphemies, is accounted of greatest price, and had in most estimation. The authority of priesthood is lost. The layte will not be admonished. The rulers be restrained of liberty to speak. The mouths of good men keep silence. Every blasphemous tongue is set at liberty. All holy things are made profane. Hitherto S. Basil. To be short, there was never yet any heretic amongst so many as from time to time, have continually troubled the church of god, that made not his first entry into his heresies, by the proclaiming (as it were) of open war, against the beautiful order of the church (which they have always foreseen to be to them, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata, terrible as is the froont of a battle well set in order) and against the bishop of Rome, appointed by god to be here in earth, the lawful governor and head thereof, not lacking also therein great poli●ie, that by striking the shepherd they might the easilier scatter the flock. Thus did in the time of S. Cyprian, Lib. 6. cap, 30. Novatus that great herety k, who as Nicephorus reporteth of him, holding between his hands, the hands of such as minded to receive of him, the blessed sacrament of th' altar: used to them these words. Adiura mihi per corpus & sanguinem domini jesu Christi nunquam te a me discessurum, & ad Cornelium (Romanus is Episcopus fuit) rediturum esse. Swear to me quoth he, by the body, and blood of our lord jesus Christ, that thou wilt never forsake me, nor return to Cornelius, who was then bishop of Rome. So did in our time the scholars and followers of Martin luther: So did john Calvin with his congregation at Geneva: So do even at this time, in our infortunate country, those wicked men (upon whom I beseech almighty god to extend his mercy) who occupying the places, and 〈◊〉 mes of catholic bishops being themselves indurat heretics, cease not daily most cruelly to practise, that lesson learned of their ancestor Novatus. For what man admit they to any living, of whom they exact not first this oath? Whom suffer they to continue in his living, if he give not this oath? For the only refusal hereof, how many notable men of the clergy, both for life and learning, suffer they to pine away in prison? I remember not hear, the great number of gentlemen, and other mere lay men not included in the statute, of poor young scholars of both th' universities, The ba●ishment of scholars from th' universities for refusing to swear against the Pope. who without all face of law (for, for th' other they pretended a colour) being not so much themselves spoiled of their colleagues, as their colleges, universities, yea their country self (which had of the most part of them been likely to havereceived both help and comfort) spoiled and rob of them: wander now abroad in dispersion, lamenting th' estate of their miserable country. Of the which they may, Epistola 70. and we all justly now say, much more than did S. Basil of the persecution in his time. He only complained that the church doors were shut up, that th' altars lacked that spiritual worship that should have been done upon them, that there were no assembles of Christian men, that learned men bore no sway, that there was no wholesome doctrine taught, that the feasts and holidays were not kept, that the prayers in the night were utterly ceased. A comparison betv●ene the complaint which S. Basile made of his time, and that which we may make of our●●. To that holy father it seemed a great outrage, that the churches were shut up: what would he (think we) then say were he alive in these days, when of our churches he should see, some made the dwelling houses of private men, other some turned into barns, or stables, other clean over thrown, and made even with the ground, and those that remain whole (so much worse than if they had been altogether shut up) left open for heretics to pollute, with schismatical service and devilish doctrine? It grieved S. Basil that th' altars should lack the spiritual service, which was not neither for any mislike that men had therein, but because in that grievous persecution of the Christians, they could not be found that durst do it. And could he have taken it well to have seen them broken, defaced, and quite over thrown: yea, (which is a crime so horrible, that to write it I tremble) in those places in which the altars stood, whereon was wont in that spiritual sacrifice to be offered up, the most precious body, and blood of Christ: Oxen and beasts more unclean, to befedde? He lamented that learned men were not esteemed, that they were not provided of livings: and would he not much more lament, to see them deprived of those which they had, and shoemakers, weavers, tinkers, coweherdes, broom men, Russians forfelonies burned in the hands to be put in their places? Then was no wholesome doctrine taught, now is there nothing else taught but poisoned and unwholesome. Then were there no holidays kept, nor hymns used in the night. Now are they accounted to be superstition. Now as we felt none of all these miseries besides a thousand more, so long as we kept ourselves within the unite of one head: so is every man able to bear me witness, that as soon as the devil the author of all heresies had once obtained, and brought about the banishment in our country of that one bishop, with the which (as you have hard out of S. Cyprian before) he useth always to begin; all these rushed in upon us, as the door that should have kept them out being set wide open. And as this is confessed, by the most ancient fathers that have written sense Christ's time, The way to return to the uni t● of the church. that by this means we first revolt from the church, by contemning, and not acknowledging the head: so mu●t our return thither again be by the contrary, that is by reverencing him, by acknowledging him, by humble submission of ourself to him. So did those that after their fall with Novatus, S. Cyprian received into the church again, upon their submission testified in these words. Epistola ad CornElium papam lib. 3. Nos Cornelium episcopum sanctissmum Catholicae Ecclesiae, erectum à deo omnipotent, & Christo D. nostro scimus. Nos errorem nostrum confitemur. Circumuenti sumus perfidiae loquacitate factiosa amentes: videbamur qua si quandam communicationem cum homine schismatico habuisse: Syncera tamen mens nostra in ecclesia semper fuit. Nec ignoramus unum deum esse, & unum Christum esse dominum, quem confessi ●umus, unum spiritum S, unum Episcopum in ecclesia catholica esse debere. This Cornelius was B. of Rome. We (say they) acknowledge Cornelius to be erected by god almighty, and Christ our lord, to be the holy bishop of the catholic church. We confess our error: we have been circumvented running mad by the factious babbling of treachery: we seemed to have communicated as it were, with that schismatical man Novatus: yet was our sincere mind always in the church. Nor we are not ignorant, One god, One Christ, One holy ghost, One Bishop. that there is one only god, and one Christ our lord, and that in the catholic church there must be one holy ghost, and one bishop. So did Vrsatius and Valens forsaking the heresy of Arrius, offer up their recantation to julius then bishop of Rome. By this means (good Christian readers) returned they to the church, by this must you return that have strayed, what so ever you be, if you will be saved. Seeing now as I have declared, the going out of the church is by the contempt of the head thereof, and the return home again, by th' acknowledging, and reverencing of the same: persuade yourself that it hath not been for nothing, that good men in all ages have been, and at this time are, no less busied in defence thereof, than heretics, myssecreant●, and enemies to our faith, are ready with all their power to assault the same. The consideration whereof hath caused also me, in this enterprise of mine, to begin first with the fortifying of that, whereunto our enemies (as the very foundation of all true religion, the comfort and stay of the catholics, the terror and utter undoing of all heretics) do most direct their battery. In the handling where of I purpose god willing to take this order: First, 1. before I come to the principal point thatlieth in question between us (which is of the bishop of Rome's supremacy) to prove to you by most plain, and evident reasons, that the church of Christ here militant in earth must of necessity for diverse and sundry urgent causes, have one chief head and ruler under Christ, to rule and govern the same. Secondarily, 2. that that one head must needs be a priest. Thirdly and so last of all, 3. that of all priests the bishop of Rome is he, which must supply that place, and that for so (that is head and ruler of the church) he hath been, of th' ancient counsels, and old fathers, with in the first six hundred years after Christ's departure, taken. THAT CHRIST'S CHURCH HERE IN EARTH, must OF NECESSITY HAVE ONE CHIEF HEAD, AND GOVERNOR UNDER CHRIST, TO RULE THE SAME. THe truth of this proposition (good Christian readers) is not only by the whole order, and form of the estate of god's people in th' old law, (which was also the true church of god) long before the coming of our saviour in to this world, but by the daily experience also, of civil and politic gowernenement, most manifestly confirmed. For who is there so blind that he seeth not, that in the whole frame of this world, there is no kingdom so mighty, no realm so puissant, no city so populous, no town so wealthy: yea on the contrary part also, no village so little, no family so small, finally no society of men, no not of those that have wrapped themselves in league, to rob and spoil, that can any while continue without a head to govern them. If therefore to live under the government of a head be a matter of such importance, as without the which neither great nor little, rich nor poor, good nor bad can stand: how much more necessary shall we think it in Christ's church here militant in earth, where the devil in his members, is continually occupied in raising of schisms, in stirring up discord, to vex and molest the people of god, to have this wholesome provision for th' appeasing thereof, and the restoring of the same being troubled to quietness again? And because good Christian readers, you shall well perceive, that this is no now devise, or fantasy imagined by m●: I will here lay before your eyes, the judgement of certain notable men, whom god gave to his church to serve for a wall for the same, against the incursions of the wicked Phylistins his enemies. In whom you shall most plainly perceive, this order in Christ's church to be so necessary, that the only breach or lack thereof, hath been by them taken, to be the high way, and very path that leadeth to all heresies. And first to begin with that blessed martyr of god S. Cyprian, hath he not concerning this matter, in an epistle by him written to Cor●elius then bishop of Rome, these words? Lib. 1. Episto. 3. Neque enim aliunde obortae sunt haereses, aut nat●● sunt schismata, quàm indé qu●●d sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur, necunus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos, et ad tempus judex, vice Christicogitatur that is, neither yet truly do heresies arise, or schisms grow, The high way to heresies to thynck that there is not one judge in earth in the steed of Christ. of any other cause, than thereof, that men obey not the priest of god, neither do think, that there is in the church in the steed and place of Christ, one priest, and one judge for the time. Hitherto S. Cyprian. By the which words good christian readers, it is so evident, that there must be one priest in the church, whom all other must obey, that the same must be taken of us, for judge here in earth, in the stead of Christ: The Apologue of the English church reproved by S. Cyprian. that you see I nothing doubt, great cause to condemn, the gross ignorance of our late apology: Where in the authors, contrary to this doctrine of S. Cyprian, most impudently pronounce, that in his church, Christ our lord useth not, the help of any one man alone to govern the same in his absence, as he that standeth in need of no such help; and that if he did, no mortal man could be found, able alone to do the same: and finally with the same S. Cyprian, who died a holy martyr, and is no doubt a saint in heaven, to whom the belief of both these two articles seemed not only not impossible, but also very necessary; to live and die in th' obedience of this priest, and under such a judge, then with a sort of lewd losels, The definition of the protestants Church. in whose church (being a certain secret scattered congregation unknown to all the world beside, and to their own fellows toe) is neither head, order, obedience, neither yet certain rules or grounds where on to stay, to run headlong ye wots no more than your guides whither. But S. Cyprian, was he trow you of this mind alone? No verily, Contr● L●●iferian●s. for S. Hierom is of the same, as by these his words it is most evident. Ecclesiae salus, in summi sacerdotis pendet dignitate, cui si non exors, & ab omnibus eminens detur pote●tas, tot in eccles●a efficientur schismata quot sacerdotes. The health (saith he) and welfare of the church, dependeth upon the estimation of the chief priest, One chief priest to avoid schismat. who, if he have not authority peerless, and above all other; ye shall have in the church, so many schisms, as there be priests. And again in an other place, speaking of the apostles he writeth thus. Ad 〈◊〉. Quòd unus po●teà electus est qui caeteris praeponere tur, in schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trabens ecclesiane rumperet. that is, That one was afterward chosen to rule the rest, that was done for a remedy against schisms, lest while every man would challenge to himself the church, by such haling and pulling they might br●ake the same. Leo, of whom the whole council of Chalcedon, as one of the greatest for number: so of all men accounted amongst the four general for authority, reported so honourably, that they did not only with one voice all, openly profess themselves to believe as he did, but called him also, by the name of Sanctissimus & beatissimus, that is most holy and blessed of all other, speaking of the mystical body of Christ's church writeth after this sort. Epis●ola ad Anastasi●̄ Episcop●̄ Thess●l. Haec con●exio, totius quidem corporis unanimitatem requirit etc. This combination and joining together, (he speaketh of the body of Christ's church) requireth an unity of the whole body, but especîally of the priests, amongst whom although there be one dignity common to them all, yet is there not one general order amongst them all. For even amongst the blessed apostles in that similitude of honour, was there yet a difference of power: and whereas in their election, they were all like, yet was it given to one to, be above all the rest. Out of which form is taken our difference of bishops, and by marvelous order and disposition is it provided, that every one should not challenge to himself every thing, Bishops. but that in every province, there should be one, whose judgement amongst the rest of his brethren should be chief, Ar●hebishops. and of most authority. And again certain appointed in greater cities whose care should be greater, Pope. by whom to the only seat of Peter, the charge of the universal church might have recourse, that nothing might at any time descent from the head. Hitherto have you hard good readers, beside th' experience that we have of civil policy, and worldly government, the opinions also of S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and holy Leo, all three agrei●g in one, that there must needs be one judge in Christ's church in his steed, Cyprian. that the health of the church dependeth upon the authority of the chief priest, Hieron. that if his authority be not above all the rest, there will so many schisms break in upon us as there be priests, that for th' avoiding of that mischief, there was one chosen even amongst th' apostles, to govern the rest: Lco. Last of all, that that usage in Christ's church to have one head, is no new invention (as some men falsely report) but taken from th' example of th' apostles themselves. I can not hear stay, to examine curiously every word in these ancient fathers, but leaving that good readers to your discretion, and not doubting but that in these grave witnesses, in a matter of such weight and importance, as whereapon dependeth the health of the whole church: you willbe no less diligent, than you would be in examining the depositions of your own witnesses, or your adversaries in a trial of lands, or other temporal commodity: I shall proceed to the consideration of the second reason, which before I touched, of the people of Israel, if I first warn you to considre but this by the way (that ye may trust those ancient fathers by their word the better an other time) how many schisms, be burst in upon us in our country of England, for one common received truth in the days of our fathers (when we remained in the obedience of one chief priest and judge) which shake now so miserably the same: how quietly in one love, in one truth, in one doctrine, in one church, in one head thereof god almighty, and his ministre under him appointed over the same, we lived then, and other in other places do now. But to proceed. For the estate of the jews, god by his servant moses did so provide, to take away schisms that upon the doubtful words of the law might arise, that he appointed them a place to resort unto, and adjudge to flee unto, in all such ambiguities and doubts. For so is it written in the book of Deuteronomium. Cap. 17 And shall we not by good reason think, that he hath provided as well for his church? except we will say, that he hath been less careful of it, than he was of that. Which must necessarily follow, if he provided for them one chief judge, to have recourse unto in hard and doubtful questions, and to us having no less, yea far much more need than they: he left either at all none, or many to make the matter more doubtful. For I remember a saying of Gregorius Nazianzen●s. Vbi nullum est imperium, nullus ordo; ubi multorum, Lib. 3. de Theologia. ibi seditio; ut & sic nullum imperium nullus ordo existat. Vtrumque ●nimeódem absurditatis perducit. Where is none to rule, there is no order: Where many rule, there is sedition: so that after that manner of government also, there is no government, there is no order for both to have none to rule, and to have many, lead us to like inconvenience. How shall we then say, Diligi● dominus Syon super omni● tabernacula jacob? Our lord loveth Zion above all the tabernacles of jacob? There is no doubt therefore, but that Christ hath provided for his church, which he redeemed so dearly, as with thexpense of his own most precious blood, a judge and chief ruler, to end and determine so many controversies, as he knew should molest and infest the same. They can not say, that a● adversaries, and kick against this truth, that this which I allege, was in the old law, and in a shadow, that these dai●s and this time require other manners. For that argument hath their english apology soluted, and pronounced that so to say, were plusqua● ridiculum, seeing there was then, idem deus, idem spiritus, idem Christus, eadem fides, eadem doctrina, eadem spes, eadem ●aer●ditas, idem f●edus▪ eadem vis verbi dei, the same god, the same holy ghost, the same Christ, the same faith, the same doctrine, the same hope, the same heritage, the same covenant, the same strength of god's word. But yet this I protest, that upon the authority of their apology (which with me is in that conceit, that it is with all honest and learned men, that is to say, taken as in deed it is, for a farthel of lies:) I am no whit the bolder to reason thus. But because I have perceived, that god in that people, in their law and priesthood, shadowed out unto us, like a cunning workman the whole form and proportion of his church, as witnesseth S. Paul. Lex umbram habet futuror●m bonorum non ipsam imaginem rerum, 〈◊〉 10. The law containeth a shadow of the good things to come, but expresseth not manifestly the truth of things: therefore I thought I might well reason from the shadow to the body, from the resemblance and image, to the truth thereto answering. From the which kind of reasoning, S. Paul sometimes abstained not, as when he laboured to prove, 1. Cor. 9 that the law of the gospel would bear, that they which preached the gospel should liu● thereby: he reasoned after this sort. Nunquid secundum hoinem haec dico? Speak I this as a man? that is to say, prove I this by worldly reasons? 〈◊〉 25 a & lex haec non dicit? Saith not the law so toe? and so goeth he forward, and proveth it by this text of the old law. Thou shalt not moosell or bind up the mouth of the labouring Ox. as though he should have said: it was so in the shadow, therefore it must be so in the body and in the truth signified by that shadow. Thus ye see good readers, that I ma●e say with S. Paul, have I proved only by reasons fetched from the doings of men, by examples of all common wealths and societes well governed, that in Christ's common weal there must be also one to rule? have I affirmed this because S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, blessed and holy Leo so said? Who yet were while they lived here but men, although now saints in heaven. Nunquid non & Lex haec d●●it? saith not the law so toe? But here I know our adversaries will say that these proofs needed not, to prove that Ch●istes church must have a head, and a judge to order and determine doubtful questions, which happen ●mongest us, and where of the world is now so full. For that will they say, they know as well as Cyprian, Hierom, Leo, or any of them all; although they will not admit the same judge or the same head that they do. But what head think you good readers appoint they to govern Christ's church here in earth? what judge to determine controversies? Forsooth the head of the church they say (wherein we find no fault but say the same ourselves) is jesus Christ, ●polog. Eccles. Anglic. sol. ●. and the judge of all controversies arising therein, they call the scriptures. Here suffer me a little I beseech you, to shake these m●●●kers ow●e of there clouts, and to make open to the ●orld there great dissimulation and sottelty, whereby under the name of Christ, and his most holy word, so glittering at the first show in the eyes of the simple, yea perhaps of some of the wiser sort also, that it is to be feared lest it strike them blind altogether: they seem to have purchased to themselves a double benefit at once: first, great credit by pretending and using, nay rather abusing, the name of Christ and his word: next great security, both for their own p●●sones, and also for all such devilish doctrine, as they or any other heretics list to utter. Whilst on th'one side, they take themselves to be out of all check of man, and may be controlled of none, as they say, but of god only, (who if he let them alone till that time that they think he will, then bid they us let them shift for themselves, they shall have time enough, in the mean season to preach, and teach without controlment what they lift:) and on the other side, whilst by provoking to the scriptures as their judge, they th●nk themselves to stand apo● a sure ground: seeing they are already with the● selves at a point, to receive no other interpretaty on thereof, then shall make for their purpose, and they also see, that amongst so many heresies as have hitherto troubled the church of god, there was never yet any one so horrible and absurd, that the author thereof hath not by this means, in his own judgement, been right well, able to sustain and defend. But of this I will entreat more largely hereafter. In the mean season, that they will have of Christ's church here in earth, no other head but Christ himself, therein they far me thinketh not much unlike, to a certain ●elon, of whom I have hard, that being areigued 〈◊〉 ●he bar for a felony, when he had pleadid to the 〈◊〉 not guilty, and was (after the manner) demanded how he would be tried, he would (suspecting his own case, and knowing that if he satisfied the law in putting himself upon the trial of the country, there were no more ways with him but one) make thereto no other answer, but only that he would put himself upon god, the righteous judge of all, who although he said truly that god was the chief judge of all, as the protestants do, in calling Christ the head of the church: yet was there in his case an other judge here in this world under god, by whom he must have been tried, as there is in theirs an other head here in the church to order them and keep them under, and in whom Christ the chief head of all, useth in all necessary knowledge to give answer. And as the fellow knew well that there was an other judge beside god, and appealed not to him, as though before him he should have been acquitted, and proved not guilty: but only to gain a longer time of life and liberty: so do (I doubt not) our adversaries the protestants. And truly to both these kind of men being both thieves, th'one sort doing violence to the body, the other to the soul, if such pleas might be allowed, how so ever they be coloured with the name of Christ, between them both, they would freely rob the body, and murder the soul. But let us now examine this reason of theirs whereof they are wont so much to triumph: The common reason of the protestants against the Supremacy of the Pop●. Christ is head of the church, Ergo the pope is not, Ergo it c●a have no other head. That Christ is the head of the church we granted before, and none of our side did ever yet deny it. But as it is most manifest that Christ himself is the worker of all his sacraments (for he baptizeth, he forgiveth sins, he consecrateth his blessed body, and blood, he joineth together in matrimony the man and his wife) and yet, forasmuch as he should needs depart out of this world, and could not always dwell with us, after a corporal manner, he hath chosen ministers, to dispense those his gifts by: And we say, and no fault found therewith, that the priest his ministre baptizeth, that he forgiveth sins, that he consecrate●h his most pre●ious body, and blood: So after the same manner and for the same cause, that is to say because he could not be always present with us, in such sort as we might see him, and speak with him face to face, to be resolved at his mouth of such doubts, and questions as should ar●se amongst us: he left us also one, that in that his absence should govern, and rule his whole church. He remaineth nevertheless head thereof, he ruleth, he reigneth, he exerciseth his power and authority in the same, but yet by man his ministre, whom for that cause, most aptly the Scholastical writers have termed, How Christ is head of the church, and how the Pope. ca●●● min●●●eriale, that is to say a head, but yet by the reason of his service and ministery under an other, that is Christ ●ho is only absolutely, simply, and without all relation to any other, the head thereof. Not, as though he were not able to rule the same, without any such help or instrument (which he could have done also in the old law, where his pleasure was that the people should resort to the chief priest, De●ter. 17 to be resolved in all doubts arising upon the law, and had no more need of help then, than he hath now) but, for that this way it hath pleased him, to 〈◊〉 his ex●eding great love towards mankind, 〈…〉 of amongst men, such as he will execute 〈…〉 world, 〈◊〉 as he will use as his mouth, to 〈◊〉 the secrets of his hol●e pleasure to us, and f●●ally such as should represent to us his own parson. Because Ch●●st●s king of all kings, Apoc●●ip. Cap. 17. and lord of all lord●●, because if it so pleased him, he could rule all this world much better than it is ruled, without the help of any other (whereof he hath his absolute power considered no nede●) shall we therefore say, that there be not, nor need to be, any kings here in ●●●the? 1. Cor. 11. When S. Paul called the man the head of the woman, denied he therefore Christ to be her head? King Saul when he was called by the prophet Samuel caput in tribubus Israel, 1. Reg. 15. the head of the tribues of Israel, was god think you excluded that he should not be their head? To use examples more familiar, th'archbishop of Cauntorbury is the head of the bishopric, and diocese of London (as he is of all the bishoprics within his province) and yet can not a man infer upon this, that therefore the B. of London is not the head of that his diocese. But Christ hath no such need our adversaries cry still, to have any man to be in his stead to succeed him in the whole inheritance. Name & Christum semper adesse eccle siae suae, & vicario homine qui ex asse in integrum ●uccedat non ●gere, these be their very words in their apology. Here would I like a friend advertise them, that for their poor honesties sake they harp not to much on this string, Hosiu● the Cardinal slander by the heretics, left by their so doing they come as near to the heresy of Suenkfeldius, as he whom in their apology they falsely slander therewith, is far both from that and all other. For Suenkfeldius, amongst other his abominable heresies, hath also this, in my opinion the chiefest, that we ought to banish utterly from amongst us all scripture: and (as Hosius writeth of him) this heresy of his, Lib. de Hae resib nostri temporis. to derogate from the scriptures all authority, he went also about to prove by scripture. But how I pray you good readers? By what reason think you would he have proved this devilish, and most absurd doctrine? Believe me, or rather your own judgements, seeing and perceiving most plainly that I lie not, by the self same reasons, that our adversareiss do use to prove, that Christ's church here in earth, can have under him, no head or chief governor to govern the same. Thou must not be perfect in the scriptures, saith this stinking heretic Swenckfield. But why? because forsooth we must be taught at god's mouth, because his word teacheth truly, the scripture is not his word, but dead letters, and no more account to be made of them, then of other creatures, amongst the which they are to be reckoned. We must look to be taught from heaven, not out of books. The holy ghost useth to come from above without the help of means, as hearing, preaching, or reading the scriptures. Thie●e be that wicked heretic his foolish and unsavoury persuasions. And what other thing is it, I pray you good readers (judge indifferently) to say as the Huguenotes and heretics do, then to lean and rest, upon the same grounds for the banishing of the head of Christ's churches, on which the Swenckfeldians do, for th'abolishing of the scripture? For the one sayeth, we must have no scripture because god can teach us without: the other, we must have no head of Christ's church because he is the head himself, and can rule us without any other to be his vicar. The one saith the scriptures are but dead letters, and no more account to be made of them then of other creatures: the other saith that the pope is but a sinful man as other are, and that therefore there is no more account to be made of him, then of other sinful men. Finally the Swenckfeldians bar god of all means to worck his will by, and so do the protestants, while they allow him not a ministre to govern his church in external government, but tell him that 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. And thus whilst most shamefully to the great dishonour of the whole realm (under whose name as it were that farthel of lies, their apology was sent abroad) they have not been ashamed, Hosius Cardinalis. to charge with this heresy of Suenckfeldius, one of the greatest estates, both for learning and virtue that at this day Christendom hath: we may see that they have not only showed themselves to be very wicked, and shameless men, (the truth to their utter and perpetual infamy and shame, had they any, plainly to the contrary, in the worcks of him, whom they so selaundred, bearing witness against them) but are also run, into the same grounds whereon Swenckfilde builded his heresy, their own selves. For god's sake good Christian readers, for your own soul's sake, and the love that you bear thereto, give ear to no such seditious voices, how ever they be cloaked with the name of Christ, which the devil than doth most inculcat, when he would drive us soonest from him. What other thing did their forefathers Ch●●, Dathan, Numer. 1● and Abyron, in rebelling against Moses, and Aaron the ministers of almighty god? what other persuasion used they to the people? what other reason brought they to allure from their obedience to rebellion, from quiet rest to seditious wandering without a head, the flock of god: then the very same, that these miserable men 〈◊〉 our time do? Their apology saith, that there needeth here in the church no head to govern it, The protestants reason as Chore, Dathan and Abyron did. because Christ is always with it. And did not those wicked men in their rebellion against Moses and Aaron use the same reason, when they told them to their face: Sufficiat vobis, quia omnis multitudo sanctorum est, & in ipsis est dominus? let it suffice you that all the multitude is holy, Numer. 16. and they have god present with them, Cur elevamini super populum domim? and why then take you upon yourselves the rule over the people of our lord? As who would say, having no need of any other ruler, god being with them. But as almighty god was then amongst his people and used yet nevertheless the ministry of men: so is Christ (no doubt) our saviour now present always with his church, and chief head and govern or thereof, and yet governeth he the same by man. And as Chore, Dathan, and Abiron, be gone before, swallowed alive by hell, there to taste of those rewards which for such rebellious wretches are prepared: so must our Chore and his companion's follow their trace, unless by their repentance they mollify, and assuage the just wrath of god. But yet let us good readers, that nothing may remain that might in any wise seem to blemish this truth, go one step farther. For as yet will our adversaries I know well say, that I never can where it grew. For our case say they, is far otherwise than you take it: seeing that we utterly deny not, that christ worketh by means, but only serve from you, in that we take those instruments and means, to be other than you do. For the scripture we say which Christ hath left to us, is the true mean, wherebi in all doubts and controversies, we may sufficiently content and satisfy ourselves. This is that judge, which can not deceive, this is that touchstone that can not lie. Thus say our adversaries, with whom in that that they appeal to the scriptures no man is offended, yea we praise them therefore, and do the like, ourselves. But in that that they hold the scripture to be of itself alone, to end and determine all controversies, rising upon, The scripture not able to determine all the controversies that may rise upon the meaning of the letter. the doubtful meaning of the letter, able and sufficient: therein we utterly dissent from them, and as we think, not without great cause. For omitting here, that almighty god commanded in th' old law as before you have hard, that his people the jews, in doubtful questions arising upon the law, should resort to the priests, and to him that was the chief judge for the time, to be resolved therein: and bade them not, for the trial thereof which sense were most true, to lay and confer one text with an other, (which without all doubt had he known it to be the best and surest, Deuter. 17 as it is the readiest and easiest way he would not have let to have done:) experience also hath taught us the contrary thereof. For amongst so many as at all times have disquieted the church, what one heretic are they able to reckon overthrown by the scriptures? was Arrius vanquished by them? Nay, if you brought to convince him this text, Pater & ego unum sumus, my father and I are one: he would tell you again that the same christ that so said, said also pater meus maior me ests, my father is greater than 1 what had you than won at his hands, that would tell you, that one place of scripture must expound an other, and that therefore your place must be expounded by his? And if you would wade farther with him, he would interpret your place (as he did with the catholics) to be understand of unity in will and not in substance, and bring you scripture toe, although wrested from the true sense, that should seem well to prove his distinction. As when our saviour prayed unto his father in this sort, ●●●an. 17. Pater sancte, serva eos in nomine tuo, quos dedisti mihi, ut sint unum sicut & nos, keep them â holy father in thy name whom thou hast given to me, that they may be one, as we two at one. In th' exposition and right understanding of these few words, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body: how happeneth it that the calvinists and the Lutherans agree not, by conferring one place of scripture with an other, if that be so ready a way? Doth not Caluyn with all his, teach us that the sense and true interpretation of these words, must needs be attained by the conference of one place of scripture with an other? and to that end do they not fond allege S. Paul calling christ a rock, ●. Cor. 10. yea christ calling himself a vine, I●●an. 15. when he was in deed, neither the one nor the other, but by a fimilitude? As though because th' apostle, or christ himself useth a figure in one place, we must think that in all other he never spoke other wise. By which abominable doctrine what letteth, if a man would be so wicked, to affirm that christ the son of god, and second parson in trinity, were not the true and natural son of god, but by adoption only: and for that wicked heresy to bring this text, dedit eis potestatem filios dei fieri, I●●an. 1. he gave them power to be made the sons of god. Which words we know being spoken by us men, must be understand by grace and adoption: and frowardly to maintain, that all the places which any good man can bring for the defence of the contrary, should be drawn to this text alleged by them, and expounded and understand thereby. The anabaptists who deny the baptism of infants, lean they not think you to this ground of yours? yea truly, and good reason it is that being all heretics as you are, although in some points dissenting, yet all joining and agreeing in one cankered hatred against the church, you should all use the same rules and principles. For that I may here pass over that reason of the Anabaptists which belongeth to an other place, that therefore infants must not be baptised because it is not expressed in scripture (a principle also of your religion) but delivered unto us by tradition: say they not also, that they have the scripture plain for them against us? Marc. 16. where it hath, Qui erediderit & baptizatus fury, saluus erit, he that believeth and is baptised shallbe saved: and again in an other place, una fides, unum baptisma, one faith, one baptesme. By which places say they it appeareth, that say the must go before, and baptism follow after. And when the catholics to repress, and utterly overthrow this bru●ysh and beastly opinion answer: that for infants thus baptised the faith of the church is sufficient, and accounted for theirs: cry they not as you do, that in this controversy one place of scripture must expound an other? and that therefore, where as the scripture requireth in him that is baptised faith, that they must have it of their own, according to th'apostles saying, Rom. 10. fides ex auditu faith cometh by hearing, which infants can not have, and according to the saying of the prophet, Abacue. 2. justus ex fide sua victurus est, the just man shall live by his own faith I am sorry that in answering to this fond reason, I have been compelled to make any mention of such horrible heresies as these are, which I had much rather, were with their first authors buried in hell, from whence they came, where neither they, nor their name might ever hereafter offend, the conscience of any good christian man. But as I have necessarily laid before your eyes these, that by a part you may judge of the whole: so have I willingly stayed myself from rehercing whole swarms of such opinions, as being of all men taken for confessed heresies, only depend upon this one false ground, that we need here in earth no other judge, to decide and determine doubts arising upon the scripture, than the scripture itself: which being (they say) laid and conferred together one text with an other, will not fail to bring us to the right understanding thereof. If your hearts good readers be moved with these heresies in the reading, as truly god I take to witness mine was in the writing, abhor those that teach them, shun and avoid such principles and grounds, as have been the foundation not of these only, but of all that now reign in the world, and may be of any other hereafter, that any desperate heretic lysteth to invent. Stick to those by which all heretics have been and these shallbe, to their utter confusion vanquished. Shrink not rashly from that foundation, whereon your elders and forefathers fastening themselves, have passed over so many hundred years, in the true confession of one god, one faith, one truth, to them that having yet scarce forty on their backs, have notwithstanding amongst them (creeping all out of the filthy nest of one Martin Luther) so many faiths and yet no faith, so many truths, and yet no truth, never a one agreeing with the other, as there be mad frantic heads amongst them. Give no ear to that subtle generation walcking in the dark like blind bats, without a head, without a judge, and all to th'end their juggling might not be espied. Tell them that you have seen them thrive so evil upon that presumption of theirs, so many heresies, so many schisms and lewd opinions, brought in thereby, that you are at a point with yourselves to leave them, and take that way that S. Hierom in the like case hath done before you: who although his knowledge in the tongues were such, as by the report of most men, it passed any others in his time: yet would not he take upon him, in the discussing of doubts, to lean to that rule of theirs, to lay and confer together one text with an other, S. Hieron in doubts referred himself to Peter's Seat but referring himself to the see of Rome he always protested, that by that seat and faith praised by th'apostles own mouth would he be counseled and ruled, Beatitudini tuae id est cathedrae Petri communione consocior, Tom. 2. epist. ad Damasum. To your holiness (saith he writing to Damasus then the bishop of Rome) that is to say to Peter's chair am I joined in communion: and he addeth a cause why, The church builded on S. Peter's chair. Super illam Petram aedificatam ecclesiam scio. I know that on that rock (Peter's chair) the church is builded. Say unto them (as, S. Hierom, said unto the the heretics, Vitalis and Miletus) because they are adversaries to this seat that you know them not, ibid. that they scatter and are schismatics altogether out of the church, that gather not with Peter's successor. In quaest. veteris & novi testament. q. 110 Tell them boldly with S. Austen that you will owe neither suit nor service to their chair of pestilence, nor be a member of that body, that either lacketh a head, The heretics church a dead tronck, or a live monster. and is a dead tronck, or hath many and is a live monster. Ask of them with what face they could so many years together, call king Henry the eight supreme head of the church of England immediately under god, and now our gracious sovereign lady his daughter, supreme governor in all ecclesiastical things and causes over the same (which how so ever they please themselves with fine fetches and coloured devices, is with th'other title in effect all one) if this reason of theirs were good: Christ is head of the church, therefore there is no other head thereof under him? And how was king Henry then? if they say that their meaning is, that no man can, because Christ is head of the universal church; be under him head of the whole, but may well be of some particular church, as King Henry was, and the queens majesty now is: then demand of them what reason they have to lead them to say, that a particular member of the church (as the church of England can be no more) may have an other head beside Christ, and the whole body may not? and why one member may have two heads, more than one body? Finally, if at that time they flattered the king and gave him that which neither they could give, nor he receive, and abused his good nature to the destruction of so many notable men, as for th' only refusal to say as they said, by most exquisite and painful torments, lost their lives: say unto them, that they yet at length acknowledge their fault, and admonish that good lady our masters that she consent not to use that title, which because it belongeth to Christ, she may not have, or if they think and will stand in it that she may without offence, that they do yet at the least confess, that reason of theirs to be very weak and of no strength: Christ is head of the church therefore it may have no other. Except they will perhaps say, that he is head of all other churches, and hath only lest ours headless, so that because he is not head thereof, we are out of the fear of falling into that inconvenience of having many, and may therefore choose some one amongst ourselves whom we list. Thus I trust good readers you see sufficiently proved, that Christ's pleasure is for the repressing of heresies, and calming of tempestuous schisms, that there be one head of his church here in earth, supplying his corporal absence for the time: his honour in the mean season nothing thereby the more diminished, than it is in other things wherein he also useth the ministery and service of men. It followeth now that I show to you who is and of right aught to be that head: if first I do you to understand, that it must necessarily be a priest, and that so by just consequence neither lay man, woman nor child, can be capable of that office. THAT THE HEAD OF CHRIST'S CHURCH HERE IN EARTH must NEEDS BE A PRIEST. GRegorius Nazianzenus, In oratione de modestia in disceptat. tenenda. that ancient father and master to S. Hierom, in a certain oration that he made, of the family order that aught to be in Christ's church, hath these words. Nemo delphinum vidit terram sulcantem neque bovem in unda laborantem, quemadmodum nec solem in nocte crescentem, aut decrescentem, sive lunam interdiu, ignis flammam emittentem, which is in english to say thus much. There is no man that ever saw the dolphin, forsaking the sea plough the land, or the ox leave the earth to swim and labour in the water, no more than the son in the night rising or falling, or the moon in the day shining. And as these keep the order and course to them by god and nature appointed, the dolphin the water, the ox the land, the son the day, the moon the night, without entremedling themselves either in others function: so is there (saith he) in Christ's church an order taken, that one shallbe a head to rule and give council, some other in place of feet to go, some hands to work, other some ears to hear and eyes to see, some shepherds to feed, other some sheep to be fed, some in one office, some in an other. This most beautiful order in Christ's church, is on our behalfs (as many as willbe accounted members thereof) inviolably to be observed, unless in obedience towards our creator, we will by brute beasts suffer ourselves to be vanquished and overcome. This is that order, whereapon dependeth the welfare or illfare, of the whole world. This is that order which so long as it remaineth whole and not broken, so long common wealths flourish, so long unity and peace are nourished, so long Christ's true religion triumpheth: as contrary wise, the breach thereof, (when the feet that should go, will usurping th'office of the head presume to give council, the eyes will hear, the ears willbe eyes, the head will go, the sheep feed their sheppherds, the scholar teach his master) is in very deed, the breakeneck of all good order and common quiet. This is that orderly conjunction of one member with an other, and every one in his own place, which although it be, and ever hath been, a great mote in Satan's eye: yet never durst he or any of his directly impugn it. And therefore hath he by those his ministers, whom in these our days he hath stirred up against Christ and his truth, found out such a buy way, as whereby he may both remove this let which hindereth so much his course, and seem yet nevertheless, to stand stoutly in the defence thereof. For what? do our adversaries trow you, expressly maintain that order is nought, that the scholar should teach the master, the sheep feed their shepherd, that things should be so jumbled together, and such a hochepot made of all estates, that it should be lawful for every man to control, one an other in his of fice? No no, they be wiser than so I warrant you. For although in deed all their drifts tend to that end, yet covet they to make men believe, that they mind nothing less. For if they should openly pretend so much, than were the matter at an end, and there credit utterly lost, And therefore for the safeguard thereof, they would cast before our eyes such a mist, that we should believe, those that be in very deed scholars to be masters, sheep to be shepherds, the feet to be the head and the head to be the feet, and that under such government, there were of order no breach at all. This is no new or strange practice good christian readers, but used even from the beginning, and continued daily, by that old enemy to mankind, and wily serpent the Devil, to set up vice and overthrow virtue. Thus cloaketh he pride with the name of cleanliness, covetousness he termeth frugality, prodigality liberality, adultery in other men solace, in priests and such as have vowed the contrary, he covereth it with the honourable title of matrimony: although the ancient fathers of Christ's church, have not doubted, some of them to call it, not as do the devils ministers marriage, but adultery: as doth S. Ambrose a ad virg. lapsam Cap. 5. S. Basil b in orat. de virginitate. and Theophilactus: c in cap. 7 1. Cor. some of them, as S. Hierom, d lib. 1. contra jovinian. S. Austen, e lib. de bono vid. cap 10. and Chrisostom, f epist. ad Theododor. lapsum. not adultery only, as do th' other, but sacrilege and incest. This practice I say of the devil their fathers, do those his ministers most diligently imitate those clawebacks and princes parasites, whose favour when they labour to win, that under the shadow thereof, their heresy may find the better entreteinement, and to the poisoning of the world the freer passage, they use to them these pernicious persuasions, that they be here in earth by almighty god placed in his church, to be the heads thereof, and not members, to be fathers and not children, to rule in causes of religion, and not to be ruled, that to them it belongeth in the right of their crowune, to approve doctrine or to condemn it, to alter at their pleasure the state of religion by acts of parliament without the consent of their clergy, to depose bishops and put other in their places, in their styles and titles boldly to write themselves governors in their realms in all things and causes, aswell ecclesiastical as temporal: and yet no order all this while broken, because forsooth they be such as they bear them in hand they are, that is to say the heads, the rulers, the shepherds, the fathers, masters and guides in religion. these be they therefore good readers that as the prophet saith, call bonum malum, & malum bonum, tenebras lucem, & lucem ●enebras, good evil and evil good, darkness light and light darkness. these be they that as their Idol of Geneva (in this point truly) giveth answer, calvinus bro. 4. instit. capit. 20. go about to make princes justle with god. Finally these are those lousy brokers, that leading as it were by the hand, their good and virtuous princes, after this sweet poisoned bait, from the most pleasant and fertile valeis of humility, to the top of the high barren, and craggy mountains of pride and arrogancy, showing them when they have them there, the riches and ornaments of the church, the lands and revenues thereof (by good and virtuous princes their predecessors and ancestors, The cause of endowing the church with lands. long time before for this intent especially thereto given, that the ministers of Christ's most holy word and blessed sacraments being by having of their own, delivered from that cumbrous care of provision for themselves, that afterward the holy ghost who was the procuror of such almoise, and stirred from time to time the devotion of good men thereto, foresaw through the decay of piety, and coldness of charity towards the latter end of the world, they were likely to fall into: might thereby the more quietly follow their vocation:) promise of all the same to make them the lords and masters, if they will do them homage, and fall down and worship them, that is to say, harcken to their doctrine, submit themselves thereto, and grant to it within their realms and dominions, favourable entreteinement. And that this is true good readers, that they have thus shamefully abused and deceived their princes, and not surmised or imagined by me to bring them in to hatred, whom god I take to record I pity much and hate nothing: I hope by his assistance who is the giver of all good things, ●o plainly to prove, that you yourselves shall at the eye see it, and they (if there remain yet in them any sparkle of grace) shall not be able to deny it. The which that I may the better perform, I shall truly bring forth, as it were into the face of the open court, all such evidence, of importance, as either part hath to allege for them self: so truly Itrust, that the council of th'other side shall have no cause to complain, that either I have suppressed and concealed, their necessary proofs one way, or obscured their beauty in the bringing of them forth on th' other. But because an indifferent and upright judge, must always have an earnest eye to the issue, (which is between us who should govern in ecclesiastical causes, the prince or the priest) it shall not be amiss (because to be chief governor in things and causes ecclesiastical, is nothing else but to have the supreme jurisdiction thereto belonging) to examine first, in what points that consisteth, that so by conferring our evidence with the same, whether it agree with every part, with none, with some, and with which: we may at the length by good scanning come to the knowledge of every man's own. jurisdiction therefore ecclesiastical, Ecclesiastical iuri diction ●●here in it consists. consisteth especially in three points: in authority to judge over doctrine which is sound and which is other, in the power of the keys, that is to say as our saviour himself hath expounded it, in losing and binding, excommunicating and absolving, Matth. 16. in making rules and laws for the government of the church and in the ministry of the word and the sacraments. To the first of these three what title Kings and princes have, it shall if they have any, be seen hereafter. But for priests you shall see to begin withal, an ancient commission out of the scriptures: where almighty god speaking to Aaron used these words: Levitici. Cap. 10. Praeceptum sempiternum e●t in gener ationes vestra; ut habeatis scientiam discernendi inter sanctum & prophanum, inter pollutum & mundum, doc●atisqué filios Israel omnia ●egitima mea: that is to say, it is a precept that shall ever endure through all your generations to have the knowledge to discern and put difference, between holy things and profane, between clean and polluted: and that you teach the children of Israel all my commandments. To whom gave almighty god here the power to judge of doctrine? whom commanded he to teach? any other then Aaron and his race which were priests? In the book of Deuteron. Cap. 17. saith he not also that if there arise any hard or doubtful question, the priest must be consulted, that he that of pride will spurn against his ordinance shall suffer death therefore? cap. 21. and again in the same book in an other place, that upon the priests word all causes shall hang. Ezechiel the prophet doth he not witness the same▪ Cap. 44. and when there is any controversy (saith he) they shall stay in my judgements and give judgement. Aggeus and Malachias, prophets both, bid they us inquire for the law of god, at the priests hands, or at the kings? No assuredly, they send us not to kings (which had they been the chief governors in those matters without fail they would have done) but to the priests: whose lips they promise, shall not miss to keep the true knowledge, Aggeus. 2. because they are our lords angels. Malac●. 2. Have we any such warrant of worldly princes? No truly. And were it not more than necessary that we should if princess should rule them in matters of religion, of whom these words be spoken? But to proceed, is this authority give to them only in the old testament●ar they not put trow you, in as great trust in the new? Or are they think you excluded, and kings admitted the●e●●●? If it had been so never would S. Paul t●at blessed apostle, ●. Cor. 12. have made his accopte, that god had placed in his church, first apostles, next to them prophets, than doctors, and so forth. Amongst all the which, although that frantic fool that preaching not many yea●e● sense at Paul's cross, went about with his railing Rhetoric, to make his audience as foolish as he was ma●de, in believing that this place should make against the authority of the pope, because forsooth he could he said, find no room for him there: and therefore of his charity 〈◊〉 that if any good fellow amongst his audience were we●rie of his room he might be placed there: as verily ● both think and know there were many, that wished both themselves away, and him in Bedlam amongst his companions never to come more in pulpit, especially in that place, to dishonour the university his mother from whence he came, by such unreasonable not reasoning but railing: although he I say, could find there no place for the pope, he might yet have with his young sight found at the least that, Lib. 4. I●● sti. cap. 3. sect. 4. which john Calvin could before with his old and dim eyes espy out, that is, that the chiefest place of government in Christ's church, belonged to the apostles, and so to the bishops and priests their successors. Except his brain would serve him to say, that Christ's church died with his apostles. But if a man should ask this great clerk that hath so narowely scanned the text, what room he found there for Kings. I marvel what his wisdom would answer. There is but one word in all the text that should seem to make place for any temporal magistrate, and that hath Calvin watered with such a gloze, that it can in no wise serve his purpose. The word is gubernationes, governments placed beside so far from the chiefest and first place, (if it were to be understand of temporal magistrates) that it occupieth the seventh. But Calvin saith it may not so be understand, but that the apostle meant by that word such spiritual men, as were joined to the preachers for the better order in spiritual government. And he addeth a reason, why it may not be understand of civil magistrates: because (saith he) there were at that time none of them christians. By which words this merry man may see, that if he will needs dance after his master Calvin his pipe, he must say that there is not, not only no room in this place for civil magistrates, but that he is excluded also from the hope of finding for them any, That civil magistrates should govern in the church, it can not be proved by the new testament by Caluins' ●eason. (I mean in the government in ecclesiastical causes) in any other place of the new testament. But not in this place only was S. Paul of that mind, that priests should govern the church of christ, but in that notable sermon of his also, that he made to the priests of Ephesus at his departure from thence, where he giveth them this exhortation, Attendite vobis & universo gregi, Actuum. 10. in quo vos spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos, regere ecclesiam dei. Look saith he to yourselves, and to your flock in the which the holy ghost hath placed you to rule, and govern the church of god. Can there be any plainer evidence than is this? Let them therefore either rule (as S. Paul saith they are appointed thereto, and that by the holy ghost) or if princes must, let us deny saint Paul his authority, and say that the spirit failed him, for surely both may not. And thus for the scriptures (good readers) ye see, to whom of right that part of ecclesiastical government, which standeth in the allowing and condemning of doctrine doth appertain. For that do the authorities by me out of the old testament alleged, expressly prove: as also do those brought out of the new, by a necessary consequence, in that they give to them the whole government and chief sovereignty, of which this is, as is before said, a part. The next member of spiritual government, is thepower as Christ himself calleth it of binding and losing. Which power to excommunicate and to absolve our saviour gave to his apostles, Matth. 19 when he said to them: what so ever you bind in earth shallbe bound in heaven, and what so ever you lose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven. Wherein and in the last which is to preach and minister the sacraments, because these peevish proctors pretend not as yet any great title for princes, but seem rather to ground their action in the first: I will leaving them both as either by the scriptures in all men's judgements sufficiently defended, or by our adversaries themselves not assaulted, examine of what mind touching this controversy, the holy doctors of Christ's church from time to time have been. Not as though man's word should have with us more authority than gods, or that it needeth to be bolstered up there with, but for this causeonelie, that if it happen them to wrangle, as their manner is, about the true interpretation thereof, all men may perceive that we give no other, than the fathers of Christ's church before us have given. And here to begin with Ignatius that holy martyr, Ignatius. who for the faith of Christ was with the teeth of wild beasts torn, and as he writeth himself, saw our saviour in flesh: consider I beseech you in the prescribing of such order for obedience in Christ's church as whereby unity might be preserved, Epist. ad Philadelphe●. what place of pre-eminence he giveth to Emperors (who are of the laity the greatest estates) and what to bishops. his words are these, Principes obedite Caesari, milites principibus, diaconi praesbiteris sacrorum prefectis: praesbiteri, diaconi & reliquus clerus, unâ cum omni populo & militibus & principibus & Caesa re, episcopo: episcopus Christo, sicut Christus patri, ut ita unitas per omnia servetur. Princes (saith he) obey your emperor, soldiers your princes, deacons the priests which have the charge of religion: priests, deacons, all the rest of the clergy with the people what so ever they are, soldiers, princes, yea the emperor himself, be you obedient to your bishop: the bishop to Christ, as Christ is obedient to his father, that so unity may in all points be observed. Here may we see good readers, that even in the days of this holy martyr Ignati●s, it was then thought necessary and expedient, that for the better observing of unity, the emperor himself should obey the bishop. well I wots our adversaries will not restrain this obedience to temporal government, and therefore it must needs be understand of spiritual and in causes ecclesiastical. But if th'observing of this obedience be the way to conserve unity, what shall we alas think of them that labour to violate and break the same? as do all they that travail to make princes in matters of religion to rule, and bishops to obey. The same worthy bishop and constant mart● Ignatius, Epist. ad Smyrnens. writing in an other place add Smirnenses, biddeth he them not to honour first god, next the bishop as bearing his image, and then after the king. Policarpus, Epist. ad Philippens. disciple to saint john th'evangelist, of priests and deacons writeth thus, Subiecti estote praesbiteris, & diaconis sicut deo & Christo. Be ye subject to the priests and deacons as to god and Christ. Is this any other to say then as th'apostle said before him, Obedite ijs qui vigilant pro animabus vestris. Obey you them which keep the watch for your souls? Here consider I beseech you, ●. Cor. 12. that S. Paul's placing of th'apostles, and in them the bishops and priests their successors, in the first and chiefest place in Christ's church, Actor. 20 his calling of them the rulers thereof, and appointed so to be not by man, but by the holy ghost, was not to deceive us. Remember, that if in matters of religion the bishops, and priests should have followed the civil magistrates ordinances, it had been in vain that Ignatius and Policarpus bade the people, emperors and kings none excepted, to be obedient and subject to them. For wherein should they be subject, or in what thing should they obey, if not in religion and matters thereunto appertaining? Read over the ancient histories aswell of the Griekes as of the Latins: peruse the doings of jews and Gentiles, pagans, heathen, or what so ever people or nation you list, and you shall never find any to have been so barbarous or far out of order, that first they had not their religion, and next their bishops, and priests to whom they wholly referred th'order and disposition thereof. But to proceed, Homel. 38 in ca Mat. 21. Chrisostom calleth the priests the heart and stomach of the church. his reason is, The priests chief governors in spiritual matters. quia in rebus Spiritualibus per eos totus pop●lus gubernatur. because in spiritual government all the people is governed by them. Lo good readers here may you see that in Chrisostomes' time, in that pure state of the primitive church, all the people was in matters spiritual governed by (not the kings or other civil magistrates) but the bishops and priests. Then were the priests in those matters judges; and emperors themselves subjects. Then had emperors and kings this persuasion that they could garnish their style with none more excellent title, or name more honourable, then to be called the children of the church. constantines. Thus thought Constantinus the great, the first emp●rour that is reported to have openly professed Christ. who as Ruffinus witnesseth of him, Lib. 10. ●ap. 2. eccles. ●ist. being present at the first general council of Nice which was assembled above twelve hundred years ago, had there delivered unto him certain libels and bills of complaints, that the bishops had one of them put up against an other. The which all as he received and put up into his bosom: so after that he had refused to be judge in their causes, Con●tan●ine the emperor refused to be judge in the bishop's causes. Only god the judge of bishop's causes. affirming that it became not him to judge them, to whom god had given power to judge him, and that therefore their quarrels (what so ever they were) they should refer to the judgement of almighty god, as having no other judge amongst men: he caused without once opening them to see the contents, to be thrown into the fire, that the brawl and discord he said of priests, might never go farther into the knowledge of men. But here our adversaries (as blame them I can not seeing they will needs be patrons to desperate causes, if they be glad to catch hold of a little) will perhaps ●ay that I have undiscreetly behaved myself in alleging this authority, which fardereth me not so much one way, as it hindereth me an other, in that by the history it appears that th'emperor sat in the council with the bishops. Well, of th' alleging of this place who is like to get shame, and who honesty, who to win and who to lose thereby (for our adversaries also I am not ignorant thereof are wont to bring this example for them:) the trial thereof I leave till such time as it shallbe laid more hotly to my charge, which shallbe hereafter in bringing to light such simple store, as they have gathered together for the confirmation of their part, from th' examples of such emperors, as sense Christ's time have reigned. yet this may I be bold to say in the mean season, that as Constantinus sat in the council with the bishops, there was never yet emperor nor king for bidden I dare well say to sit, nor never I trow shall. And over this, that in there being it is not very likely that he encroached any thing upon the spiritual jurisdiction, both by that which you have hard before, and also for this, Epist. 166 that being on a time as S. Austen reporteth of him, required by the Donatists to take upon him the hearing of the cause, which depended between them and Cecilian, th'archbishop of Carthage: he refused to meddle there with all, because (saith he) non est ausus de causaeepiscopi judicare, because he durst not be judge in a bishops cause. But leaving this for the while, let us examine, the doings of other good and catholic emperors. Valentinianus th'emperor, Valentinianus. was from that desire of governing in church matters and ecclesiastical causes so far, Tripart. histor. lib. 7. cap. 12. that as Sozomenus writeth of him, being required on the behalf of the bishops that inhabited the parts of Hellespontus and Bithynia, that he would vouchsafe to be present with them to entreat of certain points in religion to be reformed: he made them this asnwer. To me, Valentinian his answer being required to enter. meddle in matters of religion. being one of the people, it is not lawful to search out such things. But the priests, to whom the charge thereof belongeth, let them assemble them selves where they list. This is the same Valentinian, who willing the bishops to choose a meet man to the see of Milan being by the death of Auxentius then void, T●eodorit. lib. 7. hist. eccl. cap. 8. used to the● these words. Talem in pontificali constituite sede, cui & nos qui guber●amus imperium sincer● nostra capita submittamus, & cuius ●onita dum tanquam homines deliquerimus, necessariò velut curantis medicamenta suscipiamus, that is to say. Choose you such a bishop, as to whom even we which govern the empire may sincerely submit ourselves; and whose monitions, while like men we fall, as patients do the physicians receipts, Nicol●us papa in epistola ad Faustu●●. we may necessarily receive. This to be short is he, which would not so much as be present when Sixtus the B. of Rome was charged with certain accusations, To. 1. council. de expurg. Sixti. Valentinian the son but rising from the council left him to be judged of himself. His son also Valentinian succeeding his father in th'empire, proclaimed he himself chief governor in causes ecclesiastical? True it is, that being yet a child, and seduced by his wicked mother justina, to favour the horrible heresy of the Arrians: he began to affect that title. Lib. 5. epis●ol. 33. But after S. Ambrose like a true bishop, and faithful counselor, had told him that it appertained not to him, to pretend any authority or right to meddle with the oversight of gods matters, that to him belonged his palaces, and to the priests the churches, that he should not advance himself but be subject to god, and give to him that which was his, Lib. 5. epi●t●l. 32. reserving to Cesar that which was Caesar's: after that he had proposed to him the example of his father, who not only in words said, that it was not his part to judge amongst the bishops, but established also a law, that in causes of faith and religion, yea in th'examination of the manners of bishops and priests, only bishops should be judges: after that he had willed him to search the scriptures, where he should find that bishops ought in matters of faith to be judges over Emperors, not they contrariwise ou●r bishops: After that he had bidden him call to his remembrance, if ever he so much as hard, that in a matter of faith thelay men weriudges over the bishops, and finally told him that if he should give him such council, or being unminderfull of that right which belongeth to priesthood, Our cou●trefeit bishops proused true flatteres by S. Ambrose. commit that to other which god had given to him, that he should not then tread in the upright paths of tr●th and simplicity, but walck in the crooked way of adulation and flattery, and that at the length he should (he doubted not) himself, as he grew to more ripeness in years, well understand what manner of bishop that were, that would submit the authority of priests to the judgement oflay men. After I say all these persuasions, he found that good emperor so well ●eclaimed, that himself reporteth of 〈◊〉 an epistle which he wrote to Theodosius, Epist. 34. lib. 5. that where before he persecuted him, now he loved him, where before he took him for his mortal enemy, now he reverenced him as his father. Which (S. Ambrose never yielding in his or 〈◊〉 gods right) the emperor would neue● undoubtedly have done, had he not well known that S. Ambrose was in the right and he in the wrong. What should I here allege the words of Basilius the emperor, who being present at the eight synod, the fourth of Constant●nople, made there a notable oration in the which to the 〈◊〉 he used these words: De vobis autem 〈◊〉 etc. ● of you that are lay men whether you besuch as have dignities in the common weal or none: I have no more to say, but that in no wise it is lawful for you to dispute or reason of causes ecclesiastical. For to search out those things it belongeth to the patriarchs, the bishops and the priests, who have received the office to rule, who have the power to sanctify, to lose and to bind, in whose hands are the ecclesiastical and heavenly keys: not unto us who must be fed, who have need to be sanctified, to be bound and to be released fr●̄ our bands. For the lay man, of how great devotion and wisdom so ever he be, yea although he have all the virtue that is possible to be in a man: yet whilst he is a lay man, he is in the place of a sheep. Hitherto Basilius the emperor, to whom I might join both the doings and sayings of many other, were it not that even of those earthily rulers who have been tyrants and persecutors of the christians, we want not yet examples to beat down these beastly flatterers with all. Amongst a number of the which that might be here brought, I shall for this time be contented to allege only three: Gallio the proconsul of Achaia, Theodoricus king of the Goths, and Aurelianus th'emperor of Rome. Act. ca 18. Of whom the first although he were an infidel, yet refused he to he●re the accusations laid in at Corinthum against S. Paul, and said in plain words: Ego judex horūes●e nolo, I will not take on me to judge in these matters, because th'accusation concerned religion where with he had nothing to do●. The second although an Arrian, yet would not presume to be present at a certain council of bishops whereunto he was called, In. 4. s●nod Rom. sub Simacho papa. but modestly excusing himself, made this answer: that in matters of the church he had nothing to do, In church matters what the prince hath to do. but only to bear towards them his reverence The third being an ethnic and of the Christians a cruel persecutor, when the catholic bishops who had excommunicated the heretic Paulus Samosatenus, and deprived him of his bishopric, Aurelianus resorted to him for his help touching the removing of the said Paulus out of the mansion house belonging thereto, the possession whereof he then kept: Eusebius lib. eccle. hist. 7. cap. 26. would not take upon him the knowledge of this matter where bishops were parties, but referred the judgement thereof to the bishops of Italy and Rome. If heretics good Readers, tyrants and ethnics, were yet so modest that they would not, Psalm. 2. or of the wrath of god (which bruiseth into fitters the proudest of the all like the sherdes of a potter's pot, as continually was represented unto their eyes, by the terrible examples of the two kings Ozias and oza) so fearful, that they durst not with Saul cut any part of samuel's coat, with Oziasinuade the priests office, and stray out of the limits of that jurisdiction which god had given to them: what may then the kings and princes of our age say, who by these ●urious fire brands have been so far abused, that they have not doubted to take on them that, which heretics and miscreants of conscience have refused? For this by the way is well to be noted, that as these being heretics and ethnics refused to intrude themselves in to ecclesiastical jurisdiction: so was there never emperor sense first they became Christened, unless he were himself an heretic or by heretics set on, that attempted to do otherwise: and that immediately in so doing, what so ever he were, as he was by heretics maintained: so by good and catholic bishops, such as of whose both virtue and learning no ma doubteth, was he both earnestly and sharply reproved. And here to begin with that inconstant Constantius, Constā●ius. who of a catholic emperor became a wicked Arrian: Lib. 2. cap. 41. in whose time as Socrates reporteth, there were no ●ewer them nine faiths. When he began to take upon him the part of Ozias, a. paralip. cap. 26. the priests office in deciding questions and matters of religion, in deposing the catholic bishops and placing Arrians in their rooms, in prisoning some in banishing more, in vexing and disquieting all: had not god think you his Azarias ready to match with him? Was not there first ●iberius the pope, Liberius. of whom when he (meddeling in matters of religion,) most earnestly required, that he would subscribe against A thanasius, (promising on the one side great rewards if he did, and threatening on the other exquisite torments if he refused) he received this answer. At●anas. in epist. ad solitariam vitam agē●es. Non ita ●e habet ecclesiasticus canon, neque unquam accepimus talem a patribus traditionem. Quod si omnino Imperator curam suam pro ecclesiastica pace ininterponere quaerit, aut scripta à nobis pro Athanasio deleri jubet: deleantur quoqué ea quae contra eum scriptasunt, fiatquè deinde ecclesiaflicasynodus ubi nec Imperator praestò sit, nec Comes se ingerat, nec judex minetur. The rules of the church quoth he teach us no such thing, nor we never received of our fathers any such tradition. But if the emperor will needs be careful in procuring the peace of the church, or command that I retract those things which I have written in the behalf of Athanasius: let them also be called in that have been written against him, and let there be after that, an ecclesiastical synod assembled, far from his palace, where neither the emperor shallbe present, neither his lieutenant intrude himself, nor judge threaten. Thus was the emperor answered by that great good old man, Hosius. and true confessor Hosius the bishop of Corduba in spain, Histor. eccles. lib. 5. cap. 16. to whom as Theodoretus writeth, Athanasius was wont to say that no man came sick and wounded, that went not away hole and cured. This notable and ancient father, this true confessor of Christ's faith (for so did also Athanasius call him) when he saw that the emperor Constantius would needs take upon him the government of the church which belonged not to him: first he proposed to him th' example of his brother Constans, who living like a virtuous prince within his bounds never attempted the like, and after he writeth thus. Ne te misceas ecclesiasticis, Athanas. in epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes. nequè nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed potius à nobis ea disce. Tibi deus imperium commisit, nobis quae sunt ecclesiae concredidit. Et quemadmodum qui tuum imperium malignis oculis carpit contradicit ordinationi divina: ita & tucave ne quae sunt ecclesiae ad te retrahens, magno crimini fias obnoxius. Date (scriptum est) quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, & quae Dei deo: that is to say. intermeddle not yourself (o emperor) in ecclesiastical causes, nor take not upon you to command us in those matters, but the things that belong thereto learn you them rather of us. To you hath god committed th' empire, A necessary admonition for princes that entre meddle in matters of the church. and to us the business and affairs of the church. And even as he that will with controlling eye check your government resisteth the ordinance of god: so take you also good heed, lest in drawing to you those things which appertain to the church, you incur a great and a heinous fault. Give (it is written) to Cesar that which is his duty, and to god that which is gods. Athanasius speaking to this purpose sayeth, Athanasius In epist. ad solitar. vi●am agentes. Siistud est judicium episcoporum, etc. If this judgement belong to bishops, what hath th' emperor to do therewith? or if on the contrary part these matters be wrought by the threatenings of Cesar, what need is there of any men beside to bear the bare title of bishops? when from the beginning of the world hath it been hard of, that the judgement of the church hath taken authority of the emperor? A question to be answered by the Huguenotes. Or when hath this been agnized for any judgement? Many synods have there been before this time, many counsels hath the church holden, but the time is yet to come that ever either the fathers went about to persuade the prince any such matter, or that the prince showed himself to be curious in matters of the church. Arrius heresy first brought in that princes should meddle in matters of the church. But now have we a spectacle never seen before brought in by Arrius heresy. And towards the end of the same epistle, of Constantius attempting to meddle in causes ecclesiastical he writeth thus. Quid igitur hic quod Antichristi est omistt? aut quid ille ubi venerit plus committere poterit? aut quomodo ille in adventu suo non repererit sibi expeditam viam ad dolos abisto praeparatam? Siquidemiam denuò in locum ecclesiasticae cognitionis, palatium tribunal earum causarum constituit, sesequè earum litium summum principem & authorem facit. What is therefore saith he, to be done by Antichrist, that Constantius hath omitted? or what can Antichrist do more at his coming then he hath done already? Or how can it be that he shall not find the way ready made by him when he cometh for all his deceitful wiles. For even now again in the place of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, A poinct● of Antichrist for a lay man to entremeddle in spiritual jurisdiction. he hath placed and appointed his own palace, to be the consistory of those causes that should have been determined thereby, and he maketh himself the chief judge and arbitre thereof. And a little after he addeth: Quis enim videns eum in decernendo principe se facere episcoporum, & praesidere judicijs ecclesiasticis: non meritò eam ipsam abominationem de solationis dicat esse que a Daniel praedicta est? Daniel capit. 9 for who seeing him in judgement make himself the chief of the bishops, and rule in causes ecclesiastical, may not worthily say that he is that abomination of desolation that Daniel prophesied of. Thus have you hard good Readers, how these ancient fathers, Liberius, Hosius, and Athanasius, reproved the doings of Constantius th' emperor, the first (that we read of and yet himself an Arrian and provoked thereto by that wicked brood) that took upon him to meddle in ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Next after him succeeded in the empire julian, julianus. of the historiographers called apostata, for that that being once a professed Christian, he afterward renied his faith and became a wicked infidel. He rob churches, he plucked priests from the altars, Lib. ●. histor. eccles. cap. 50. and sent them to the wars. he did sacrifice and called himself as Sozomenus writeth of him by the name of bishop: and finally by contempt termed the Christians Galilei, and was to them a more cruel scourge then any that went before him. Of him it is likely that Gregorius Nazianzenus who lived in his time would say no less, Oration. ad subdit ●i●ore perculs. & Imper. irasc●̄●em. then of Valens the emperor playing not much unlike part he did. whom in the midst of that ruffle which he made in the church he told to his face, that his power was subject to his consistory and himself a sheep of his flock. I can not here pass over in silence the answer (I wots not whether I may call it more pleasant, more witty, or more godly) that Theodoretus in his ecclesiastical history writeth to be made by one Eulogius, Lib. 4. ca 18. a man for his virtues amongst his neighbours highly esteemed (the history calleth him primarium inter suos, the chief of the place where he dwelled) to an officer of Valens th' emperor touching this matter. This Valens favouring the heresy of Arrius, encroached so far upon ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that he fell to the depriving of bishops, and the placing of other in their rooms, besides many other sundry enormities, and outrages. It happened so, that coming on a time to a certain town in Mesopotamia called Edessa, where this Eulogius was then governor, and thinking to do there as else where he had (that was to place there a chaplain of his to be bishop) he was by this good man and certain other withstand. The officer that had to do under the emperor, travailed earnestly to get his consent, and amongst other persuasions that he used to induce him thereto, A pleasant witty and godly an swear, to stop their mouths withal, who in matters of religion object always the princess' authority. it chanced him to cast out these words. Coniungere cum imperatore, Be contented man to join with the emperor. Set your heart at rest he will have it so. Tumille (faith the history) placidè & festiuê Numquid unà cum imperio etiam ille pontificatum est consecutus? why, answered he coldly and pleasantly, was he made a bishop that day that he was crowned emperor? as who would say, what although he be emperor, yet hath he not thereby gotten authority to depose bishops and ordain new▪ which only bishops must do. So strange a thing seemed it then good readers in Christ's church which now we see so commonly done. Long after these emperors start up Leo Isaurus, emperor of Constantinople (he that made war with images.) against him god raised up also his Azarias, one to warn him of his duty, and that was that notable learned man john Damascenus. Sermon. 1. Give (saith he) the apostle Paul crieth, to every one his due, honour, fear, pension, tribute, to each one that which they ought to have. The charge that kings have, is to see well to their common weals, the ordering of the churches appertaineth to the pastors and teachers. This manner of invading other men's offices, I can term it no better my brethren then robbery and plain violence. And a little after he hath these words: Tibi ô rex in ijs quae pertinent ad presentis vitae negocia etc. As for those things o king which concern only this present life, in those we willingly obey the. In ordering th● state of the church, we have shepherds which have spoken to us the word of god that is to say taught it us, and have left us rites and ordres therefore. And in the same place he addeth. Non recipio regem qui per tyrannidem sibi sacerdotium usurpat. I acknowledge him for no king, that usurpeth by tyranny the priests office. And last of all to knit up the knot in plain words he saith. Non assentior ut regum legibus gubernetur ecclesia, sed patrum potius traditionibus, sive scriptae hae sint sive non scriptae I consent not saith he that the church of god shallbe governed by the laws of kings, but by the traditions rather of our fathers be they written or unwritten. And thus much hitherto good readers have I thought good to rehearse, that you may the better understand how the ancient fathers of Christ's church, have not ceased continually from time to time, to resist the unlawful attempt of such princes, as being heretics or inveigled thereto by heretics (for of other pardie it was never gone about, nor of all them neither) would contrary to the express word of god, the custom of Christ's church from the beginning continued, the allowed examples of all ages, of all common weals Christian and heathen hitherto practised, mingle heaven and earth, holy and profane together, by unlawful usurping to themselves, the supreme and chief government in causes ecclesiastical. To come nearer home to our own time and days, if in it any prince have attempted the like, there hath not lacked also store of diverse men, singular both for their virtuous life and exquisite learning, which have rather chosen to withstand the same with the expense of their blood, and loss of this present life, then to the utter destruction of both body and soul, and loss of that which must continue for ever, to consent thereto. But if these examples please not the dainty taste of the adversaries as being over stolen: I shall set before them their own dear darling, the pillar while he lived of their religion, the very head of their church (if they be not all together headless) their Idol and their god in earth, whose doctrine and opinions at other times, and in other things, they have so ravenously devoured, john Calvin himself. For if kings and temporal governors (as our adversaries affirm) ought every one of them in their realms, signories, and dominions, to govern in causes ecclesiastical and matters of religion: why did then that monstruous beast in his commentaries upon the prophets Os●e and Amos, in Ose●●. cap. 1. rail upon our late sovereign lord king Henry the eight, calling him homo belluinus a beastly man, Amos. 7. and comparing him with jehû, whom he termeth wicked and nought? Why termed he then blasphemers that first buzzed into his ears that vain desire to be called chief head of the church of England (for of other you wots well he never attempted to be nor ever was called) under Christ here in earth? If Calvin have taught the truth, then have his scholars taught us and yet do feed us with lies. If they were blasphemers that called king Henry chief head of the church of England under Christ, (which is to say in effect nothing else but to be chief governor in all causes belonging to the same) who was yet a man although lay, and thereto also of great wisdom and learning: in what degree of blasphemy shall we place them, that give this title not to lay men only, but to women also and children with out respect? If Calvin, who touching the giving of this unlawful title to our late lord and master was utterly innocent, complained yet that even his conscience was wounded not a little there withal: how much more daungerousely wounded ought they to think themselves, who of so many horrible and bloudly wounds (whereby for the refusal to follow this example in Christ's church never hard of before, so many godly, learned and innocent men in this realm have died: some by heading, some by hanging, some by quartering and tearing peace meal one member from an other, have by their false and untrue suggestions been the chief and only occasion? who yet like cruel bloodsuckers and bloody bourre●aus, carry about in their murdering and malicious mouths the naked knife, which were it lawful for them they would sheath in the throats of every one of us that think not as they do. But if now on the contrary part their master Calvin were deceived, if they be in the right and he in the wrong, why steppeth none of them forth, to defend and vindicate from perpetual infamy, that prince of famous memory which by his railing writings this wretched caitiff goeth about to bring him into? why have they left him so long undefended, who did no other thing then whereof themselves were the authors and first beginners? Or why at the least purge they not themselves, of the horrible crime of blasphemy laid by him to their charges and all such as they are? for if they were blasphemers that called king Henry head of the church of England, what privilege ha●e these that calling not only him, but his son and daughter by the same title in effect, they should not incur the same crime? Where is now their spirit of unity that they are wont so much to brag of, which descent not here in any small point, or from any mean man, but even from the chiefest caterpillar (while he lived) of their congregation? who not only in these places before by me alleged keepeth as it were with their proceedings a combat, but else where in his Institutions doth merueilous●y discredit the same. Lib. 4. cap. 11. sect. 4. And in steed of many places which might be brought here out of his works: I shall only for this time be contented to allege one, in such sort as I find it in the french, because at the writing hereof I had not, nor could getanie other copy. The place is thus: Pour tant ceulx qui despouillen● l' Eglise de ceste puissance, pour exalter be magistrate, ou la justice terriene, non seulement corrompent le sens des paroles de christ par false interpretation, mais aussi accusent d' une grand vice, les sainctz euesques qui ont estè en grand number, depuis be temps des Apostres, come ●iilz eussent vsurpè la dignitè & office du magistrate, subz fauls se coverture. That is to say in english. Those therefore which to exalt the magistrate or earthily justice, do spoil the church of this power (he meaneth and speaketh of the order touching church matters) do corrupt, not only the sense of Christ's own words by false interpretation, but do also accuse of a heinous fault the holy bishops, (whereof the number is not small) which have been sense the apostles time, as though they had usurped by false colouring the matter, the office and dignity of the magistrate. Now choose good readers, whether ye had rather believe Calvin maintaining the authority and jurisdiction of the church, or our clawebackes and parasites which impugn the same. The one hath scripture to defend it. Deuter. 17. The other hath nothing to assault it. The scripture saeith that in doubtful questions we should resort to the priests, Ezech. cap. 44 that at their word should all matters be decided, that they should judge, that at their hands we should demand knowledge, ●ggeus. 2 that their lips be the keepers thereof because they are our lords angels. Now cometh the heretic, the perverter of scripture, he telleth us that we must seek it at the prince's hands, that he is god's chiefest ministre in things and causes aswell ecclesiastical as temporal. 1. Cer. 12. The scripture reaconeth in the first place in Christ's church apostles, that is to say priests (for we may not think that in that place the apostle described a form of the church to endure but for that only age). The heretic will have princes placed above and priests beneath. Actor. 20 The holy ghost appointed bishops and priests to govern the flock of Christ, that is the church. The devil in his membres appointeth civil magistrates to rule, and priests to obey. So that herebie we may most evidently see, how manifestly they pervert and corrupt the true sense and meaning of god's word. As for the other point which Calvin also layeth to their charge, of accusing of a most heinous and grievous fault the ancient bishops that have been sense th'apostles time, as though they had by unlawful means usurped to themselves the office and dignity of the Magistrate: it is also if their doctrine were true, most plain and evident even at the eye. For first if kings must be the chief governors in matters of religion, Ig●●tius. and bishops their underlings, Epistol. ad Philadelphens. who seeth not then, how far Ignatius that holy martyr abused both himself and us, to bid all men without exception, even th'emperor himself by name, to the obedient to the bishop, to tell us that after him next, the king is to be honoured. If this be true which they teach, Liberius. who is he that can excuse Liberius that holy father, who for the determining of matters concerning the cuhrche, would have a synod kept where the emperor should not so much as be present: Or that reverend father Hosius, Hosius. who willed th'emperor not to intermeddle in ecclesiastical causes, nor to control or command the bishops therein, but to learn of the in those things, to whose charge they were committed, not to his. Athanasius Or Athanasius that strong pillar of Christ's church, who when he saw that wicked emperor Constantius, do that which the heretics of this our time, persuade the Kings and Emperors that now are to do, as the Arrians did those of their age: that is to take upon him the determination of matters ecclesiastical, to make himself chief judge both of the bishops and causes belonging to the church, called him that abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, and pronounced that for his so doing his impiety was such, as Antichrist when he should come himself, should not be able to go beyond: termed it a new devise brought in by the Arrians, and finally demanded but one example ab oevo condito, from the beginning of the world, where by it might appear that the doings of the church should take their authority from th'emperor, till Arrius his time. Or Gregorius Nazianzenus, Gregorius Nazianzenus who told th'emperor, that by the law of Christ his power was subject to his consistory, and that although he were an emperor, yet was he not withstanding a sheep of his flock. Or S. Ambrose, Ambrose. that bade the emperor set his heart at rest, and not to think that he had by the right of his crown, any authority in those matters that concerned religion: that his palace belonged to him, and the church to the priests. Or Chrisostom, Chrisostom. who comparing the power of a King, with the authority of a priest, calleth the one a prince aswell as the other, Homilia. 5▪ de verbis Esaiae. and greater than he toe, by so much as heaven is greater than the earth, and addeth that god himself to witness the same, hath brought under the hands of the priest the head of the prince. Heb. 7. For that saith he that is lesser is blessed of the greater. Who in an other place saith that the power which is given to priests is such, Libr. 3. de sacerdotio. as the like thereto was never given to Angels or Archangels, seeing that to none of them it was ever said: what so ever you bind in earth shallbe bound in heaven, or what so ever you lose in earth shallbe loosed in heaven. Or how were it possible if this doctrine of our adversaries were true, to excuse Damascenus Damascenus. for reprehending Leo Isaurus (as you have hard before) the emperor, and many a one more of the holy fathers, which for brevities sake I am here constrained to pass over in silence. Leaving therefore our adversaries thus at square, both with the old fathers and their new doctors: it is high time good readers that I remember to discharge myself of my promise, which was to lay before your eyes, such evidence as in this matter either part had to bring for themself. Which as I have for the catholics according to my simple wit and poor knowledge already done: so shall I by god's grace on the contrary part for the protestants and Huguenotes, faithfully endeavour to do the like. And because, for that aswell of all the poisoned reasons touching either this matter, or almost any other at this day in question, the late apology of the church of England (for so is it by th' authors termed) may well be called as it were the some or abridgement, as also for that there is as it should seem and sense hath been confessed, in it common consent of all the fantastical congregation, I mean of them that trouble Christ's church in our country of England: I could not me thought either for their part (which I covet to make as strong as the naughtiness of the cause will suffer) do better, or for mine own assurance work more warily, then to take and cull out such proofs, as for the maintenance of their opinion they have there heaped together. For them, because there I persuade myself the reader may find, the very force and strength of all that they have for themselves in this matter to say: as the place where both of good reason they should, and for their crafty conveyance I nothing doubt but they would, bring forth of their grounds the very best, if they have any better than other. For my part or rather for Christ and his churches whose quarrel although far unworthy, at this time I sustain, it shall thus stand in steed, that if it fortune in your judgements good Readers their said grounds and reasons to seem such, as any good man, yea happily with some of them, some of themselves may mislike: they can not yet flee to their old starting hole that it is but one doctors mind, as they use being sore pressed customably to do, whereas the book both by the manner of the publishing thereof appeareth, and sense hath been acknowledged, to be no private man's act. The first argument therefore of theirs, The first argument of the protestants. to prove that lay men in that they be kings may take on them the ordering of matters in religion, that to them belongeth the authority and oversight thereof, is taken from the example of Moses, Moses. who being a civil magistrate, received nevertheless at the hands of almighty god, both the charge and order of all the religion and ceremonies, delivered the same to the people, and when Aaron being a bishop had contaminat the true religion by making the golden calf, he failed not sharply to rebuke and reprehend him therefore. To this argument good Readers which out of this example they frame, that therefore by good consequence it followeth that the kings, emperors, and other civil magistrates of our time may do the like, thus do we answer: The answer. that, that authority which Moses had over the priests, was not because he was a prince but in that he was a priest, Psalm. 9 4 as appeareth most evidently in the psalm where he is so called. But against this answer laboureth (as they say) with tooth and nail, The Reply. the author of that book which walketh abroad in many men's hands, under the name of a harborough for faithful subjects. whose reply is this, that in that psalm how ever the old interpreters have given us the word, the Hebrew text hath Cohanim, a word indifferent to signify priests or princes, and that therefore such as do best understand the tongue give it thus: Moses & Aaron inter ministros eius, Moses and Aaron amongst his ministers. And to prove that it may well so be, the scripture he saith calleth David his sons Cohanim that is to say ministers, for well he woteth that no man willbe so fond to say, that a kings sons were priests: yea he addeth that the best amongst the hebrews interpreting these words give it in Chorei Shemo: Moses & Aaron inter eos qui invocant nomen eius, Moses and Aaron amongst them that call upon his name. these in effect be the reasons that moved the man to think that Moses was no priest. To be short. The solution, proving that Moses was a priest. Whom he taketh for the best, or whom he accounteth for the worst in the Hebrew tongue, or what his ability to judge thereof is, I confess in good faith I know not. But of this I am well assured, that S. Hieron, Pagninus and (whose translation for his religion he need not to suspect, Sebastianus Munsterus, amongst all men taken for singularly learned in that tongue) inrerpret the word to signify priests. And if all this satisfy him not, the 70. interpreters translate it so. For these are their words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, Moses and Aaron in the number of his priests. And for so undoubted a truth was it taken with S. Hierom, that he in the exposition of this psalm used these words. Hieron. in Psalm. 9 8 Vterqué Moses scilicet & Aaron, domini adventum sacerdotali praeconio nunciavit. Both of them, that is to say Moses and Aaron, did with their priestly voice denounce before hand, the coming of our lord. Now touching the indifferency of the word Cohanim to signify a minister or a priest, we grant it to be true: but that because in some one place it so signifieth, it ought therefore so to be expounded in this, that we utterly deny. And for proof hereof we bring Abrahamus Esdras, amongst the old Rabbini called Sapientissimus. He expounding this place of the psalm, calleth Moses and Aaron by the name of priests. And because no man should cavil about the ambiguity of the word Cohanim, he granteth it to be a word doubtful. But to take away all such ambiguity, and to make us assuredly understand when it signifieth this or that, he giveth this rule, that being joined and applied to the name of god, or any thing to him belonging (as here it is) it signifieth always a priest: but otherwise referred to profane things, a minister: as may be answered of David's children in the second book of kings the .8. chapter. And surely so long as he standeth upon his bare vaunts of the best without naming at all any: I see no cause but that we may well rest in that interpretation which these ●ower, for their knowledge in that tongue of the learned sort accounted most excellent, beside the number of the .70. interpreters have delivered unto us, especially seeing that interpretation which the very best amongst the hebrews he saith have given upon that place, that is, Moses and Aaron amongst them that call upon his name: I think to him that considereth well the words that follow Et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen eius, will seem and prove to be even the very worst. But because you shall well perceive that Moses was in deed a priest, beside the testimonies already brought forth, I shall here allege certain other to prove the same. First S. Austen writing upon the same psalm where both he and Aaron are called priests, Psalm. 9 8 maketh as it were against the priesthood of Moses a certain objection, and afterward concludeth that Moses was not withstanding a priest. His words are these: Ibi quidem non videtur sacerdos essenisi Aaron. Aper●è enim in illis literis Aaron nominatur sacerdos dei. De Moyse non ibi dicitur quòd sacerdos erat. Sed si hoc non erat, quid erat? Nunquid maior sacerdote esse poterat? Expropriat psalmus iste quia & ipse sacerdos erat: Moses & Aaron in sacerdotibus eius. Ergo erant illi domini sacerdotes. Exod. 28. that is to say, there it seemeth that there was no other priest but Aaron: for in that place is he plainly named a priest, but of Moses there is no such word. But if he were not a priest, what was he then? Can he be greater? The psalm uttreth that he was a priest: Moses and Aaron amongst his priests. They were therefore both our lords priests. Here I beseech you good readers behold the false and uneven dealing of an heretic, the author of the harborough, of whom a little before I made mention. He minding to elude this manifest exposition of S. Austen, answereth in this manner: that S. Austen was ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, whereby being easily deceived and wrapped in these two places of scripture, wherein there seemed contradiction, he leaveth them at a jar as he found them, the one to say he was a priest, tother to say that he was none. Which manner of interpretation and reconciling of scriptures how it is to be liked, he leaveth he saith to the learned reader to judge. For answer to this mere cavillation of this vain jangler before I proceed any farther, because he shall not abuse S. Austin's ignorance in the Hebrew tongue to the deceiving of you good readers, you shall understand that S. Hieron was not ignorant therein, and yet doth he so expound the place. The .70. interpreters chosen and picked as it were out of the best learned and cunning est in that tongue (by all likelihood) that could be found: saints Pagninus and Sebastianus Munster, yea that most learned rabbin, Abrahamus Esdras ● jew born, were not ignorant but peerless Paragons therein, and yet do all these expound the Hebrew word to signify priests as Saint Austen doth. And where he saith that S. Austen being thus wrapped in these two contrary texts, was driven to leave them as he found them, the one to say he was a priest, tother that he was none: in th'one he hath belied● the holy scriptures, in tother he hath slandered that holy and learned bishop. For where, or what scripture saith, that Moses was no priest (as he saith that one text said he was, an other that he was none?) Let him show some such scripture, or else hath he lied upon the scripture. He may show I confess where the scripture (as there upon S. Austen made his objection) speaking of him, calleth him not by the name of a priest: which in many other places it doth also of Aaron. Is this therefore a good reason to say? The scripture in that place made no mention that he was a priest: therefore it said that he was none. Yea truly, even as good as is this. The scripture maketh no mention that th'apostles were ever baptised: therefore it saith that they never were baptised. Or do these texts make any jar, the one affirming the other denying, to say Aaron the priest in one place, and Moses and Aaron his priests in an other? But as this is a lewd lie, so to go about to note S. Austen to the world of such ignorance in the scriptures, as though he had not been able to undo this simple knot (a knot if it be) but was forced to leave the two places at a jar unreconciled: I can call it no better, but even by the name of wilful malice. As appeareth by that, that guilefully in alleging after their manner without cotation, (the easilier thereby to deceive the reader) this place of S. Austen: he left out these later words, Ergo erant illi domini sacerdotes, therefore they were (Moses, and Aaron) our lords priests. Now here note I beseech you diligently that are of the learned sort, these words of S. Austen, which import in them thus much. It may seem saith he, to some man, that Moses (because the scripture nameth there only Aaron by the name of a priest and not him) were no priest: Exod. 28. but of them that so gather I would know, if he were no priest what he was then, whether they can make him King, Emperor, or any thing that should be greater. And although the scripture in that place do not call him by the name of his office, yet neither doth it therefore deny him to be a priest, nor we are destitute of other places to prove the same by, as namely this psalm, wherein expressly he is so called. Wherefore seeing neither that place or any other, do say that he was not a priest, and there is plain scripture that doth call him one: I may boldly conclude, Erant ergo illi sacerdotes domini. Therefore they were both our lords priests. This is (no doubt) the true sense of S. Austin's words, whereby you may see how great the difficulties were, in which he was wrapped, and how he wound himself out. But than saith this stout champion, there were two high priests at once, which could not be by the law, and also Moses must needs be inferior to Aaron, because Aaron and not he, is there called the high priest. This objection hath in deed a show of somewhat, although in their manner of government, to have many heads were no great absurdity at all. But to this objection answereth most fully S. Austen himself in an other place, In quaesti●. Sup. levit. Lib. 3. cap 23. after this sort. Cùm ergo videatur, etc. Seing therefore that the high priesthood, seemeth to have begun in Aaron, what think we that Moses was? If he were not a priest, how did he then all those things which he did? If he were, how say we that the high priesthood began in his brother Aaron? Although the Psalm also where it is said, By the bishops apparel understand the execution of the things be●longing 〈◊〉 Moses' an● Aaron amongst his priests, doth remove all cause of doubt, affirming that Moses was also a priest. Were they therefore Moses and Aaron, both chief priests, or rather Moses the chief and Aaron under him? yea Aaron also the chiefest in respect of the bishops apparel, and Moses the chief in respect of a more excellent ministry. Exod. 4. For ●t the beginning wa● it said to Moses of Aaron. How Moses was chief and how Aaron. He shall be thy director in those thinger that are to be handled with the people, and thou his, in such business as is to be done with god. Hitherto S. Austen, by whom we learn that it is no absurdity, that two should be chief in two several respects, the one in overseeing and prescribing what shallbe done, th'other in practising, and putting in execution, the things prescribed: the one absolutely without relation, the other in a respect by a comparison. As in the new law (a figure whereof diverse well learned men have expounded this priesthood of Moses and Aaron to be) Christ we see, is of his church only, simply and absolutely the head: Peter and after him his successors, no otherwise but in comparison of other inferior members. Moses as he was with god more familiar than any other, as he received immediately (without the help of any other instrument to convey it by unto him) from the mouth of almighty god his holy will and pleasure: he was there is no doubt thereof, the high and chiefest priest. Aaron also, as he was by almighty god chosen to publish to the people those things which Moses had given him in charge: as he offered the sacrifices and executed the ceremonies, he had also therein the sovereignty and superiority. And thus much for answer to that objection made of two high priests. But to make this matter more evident and to follow my purpose, this is not saint Austin's mind alone, In oratione quam habuit in present. Gegor. fratris Basilij de Moyse & Aaron. that the man should so fret and fume at him therefore. For Gregorius Nazianzenus, hath of Moses and Aaron, in plain words, that they were both priests, and allegeth to prove it (as saint Austen did) the Psalm where they are so called, with diverse other ancient writers whom because I take the case to be clear amongst the learned I here forbear to allege: and am for this time contented (to give to our adversaries the larger scope) to put the case as though Moses had being no priest, corrected and reproved Aaron that was one, levit. capite. 8. that he prescribed to him what he should do, that he made him priest as it appeareth by the scriptures he did. The which imagined to be true, I ask this question, whether it do therefore follow that princes being lay men, may at this day in matters of religion, control the bishops, and prescribe unto them what order they shall observe and follow therein? whether they may also give orders to priests, and consecrate bishops now, because Moses' consecrated Aaron then? No truly if you will believe john Calvin, Lib. Instit. 4. cap. 11. Sect. 8. it is an untrue and a false collection▪ For that Moses saith he, had both the charges, that is of things aswell ecclesiastical and spiritual as civil and politic together: to that I answer that it was done first by miracle, and secondarily that that was but temporal, Caluins' answer to the objection of Moses. till such time as things were better stayed. For afterward saith he, as soon as god had ordained a form such as he ●ould should continue, there remained to Moses but only the civil government, concerning the priesthood, it was necessary that he should resign that to his brother Aaron. And good reason whew, for it passeth natural power that one man should sustain both the charges. Hitherto Calvin. Now if it be so that this authority of Moses came to him by miracle, or that he had it by especial commission, then can we not you wots, of either of these two cases gather a necessary consequence. And thus might we answer our adversaries good readers, even by their own Doctor. But cleaving to the scriptures, and ancient fathers of Christ's church, we hold the first opinion that Moses was a priest, and that in that respect he had authority over the priests, and not as he was a prince. The next example that they allege is of joshua, The second example. who being also a civil magistrate, received (they say) at the time that he was appointed to govern the people, express commandment and by name, joshua. of religion and worshipping of god. But by what words that would I feign know. For in that chapter by them in their apology alleged, can I find no words whereby there might be grounded in temporal men, as we call them, or civil magistrates any such authority over matters of religion, as they labour to induce. For first this is out of all question, that in one of these two sentences it is which I shall here allege, or that else it is not there to be looked for. The first of the which two is this: Confor●are & esto robustus etc. Be of good comfort and be strong, that thou mayest keep and do all the law, which Moses my servant hath commanded the. serve not either to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest understand all things that thou dost. Is there here good readers any authority given to meddle with religion? was there not as much as this cometh to, said to every one of the children of Israel, that they should truly observe the commandments given to them by Moses? Is there not as much said to every one of us touching the observing of the commandments of almighty god? and yet had neither the children of Israel then, nor we now, authority over religion pardie. The other sentence is this. Non recedat volumen etc. that is to say: let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth, but thou shalt spend thy time both night and day in the meditation thereof, that thou mayest keep and do all things that are written therein. Then shalt thou direct thy way and understand the same. Where I pray you is josua here commanded to meddle with religion? in that that he is bidden to study the scriptures? Now surely that is far fetched and needeth no great refutation. For this know I well will they grant, and for a maxima and very principle is it holden in their religion, that these words pertain to every man a like, aswell to the cartar as to the king or duke, and make as much for the one to be a king, as they do for the other to entremeddle in the order of religion. Well may every man and easily perceive, how much they would have triumphed, if they had had but one such text to serve their purpose for kings, as the catholics have for priests out of the holy scriptures many. If they could have found but one place in all the whole corpse of the scriptures, where had been said that the lips of the civil magistrate should keep the knowledge of gods most holy will and pleasure, and his mouth be the treasure of the same, as is said of the priests: O lord how is it likely that their lips, mouths, and tongues should have swooned and clattered thereof long before this, that ruffle so with the example of joshua, because (or for no cause) that he was willed to study the scriptures? dissembling in the mean season the .27. cha. of the book of Numeri where in plain words it is to be found, that joshua was subject to Eleazarus the high priest, at whose bidding the scripture saith he should go forth and come in, he and all the children of Israel. It followeth, The .3. example. that king David brought home the ark, restored religion, was present not only as to admonish or encourage them that accompanied it, 1. Paralip. cap. 13. but delivered also to them psalms and hymns, disposed the order of every thing, instituted the ceremonies and solemnitees, and ruled after a sort the priests. That David brought home the ark it can not be denied, to the house at the least of Obed Edom. Although in an other place we read, ●. Paralip. cap. 15. how David being strooken with a marvelous fear, for that which so lately before he had seen happen unto Oza, for the only staying (being no priest) th'ark, which otherwise was in great danger to fall: he would not presume to carry the same into the tabernacle prepared to receive it, but called unto him Sadock and Abiathar the priests, willing them in express words to carry it to the place appointed therefore, The bringing home the ark without the priests acknowledged by David to be an unlawful act lest happily god might strike them once again, for doing the like unlawful act to that, which through their absence before they had done. He made psalms and wrote hymns to the glory and praise of god. And who is there I pray you, that at this day forbiddeth any prince or king to do the like? He appointed and established to serve the temple for ever, some to sing, some to play on the organs, some and a great some, the scripture hath four thousand, to keep the doors. And what conclude they hereof, if David had appointed players and singing men as he did not, 3. Paralip. ●●p. 15. but willed the chief of the Levites to appoint some of their brethren thereto? that therefore he was chief governor in all causes ecclesiastical. O what new logic is suddenly sprung up with their new divinity. How many notable Kings hath our little country had, which in their days have established for the like purposes like foundations, by our adversaries at this day almost all overthrown, of whom no one ever by this means, thought himself any thing the more authorized, to govern in matters of religion the clergy of his country. But for this example that which I have already said may suffice, both because I think they lean not much thereto, for that they can show no great store of Kings, yea I may be bold to say none at all, by them persuaded to build any churches, or to establish any foundations of such as should there continually serve god, and also for that the place itself (how ever in the apology the conclusion contain more than the premises) seemeth not to be brought in directly to prove any such thing. For our apology which allegeth it, hath only, & quodammodo praefuit sacerdotibus, that is, and in a manner or after a sort he was above the priests. And therefore will I proceed to their other examples. Solomon (they say) builded and dedicated to god a church, Solomon. 3. Reg. Cap. 8. made to the people an oration concerning religion and worshipping of god, deposed Abiathar the bishop placing Sadoc in his room. Ezechias purged the temple, Ezechias 4. Reg. cap. 18. commanded the lights to be kindled, incense to be done and sacrifice offered, after the old accustomed manner: finally the brazen serpent which was then worshipped by the people, to be utterly taken away and broken all to fitters. josaphat josaphat. took away the hills and woods whereby the people was hindered from the common temple of jerusalem. josias josiat. warned the priests and bishops of their duties. joas restrained their riot and insolency: joas. and last of all, jehu put the wicked prophets to death. jehu. These be th'examples good readers which the adversaries to the truth bring for the maintenance of the contrary, out of the old Testament. Which manner of reasoning from examples in that age used, if it might be at these days in all points lawful to follow, what and how huge a number of inconveniences, might by just consequence thereapon be easily grounded and brought in, I need not here to rehearse, any man but meanly exercised in the holy scriptures may with himself easily conceive. If the miracles, examples significative, and singular privileges, done, practised and granted in that age, might without any danger, aswell be to the present esta te of the church which now is, drawn, applied and accommodate, as the moral precepts of that law may and ar: why have not then the Kings now a days, as many wives as had King David then? why should it not be as lawful for the clergy (I will not only say to admonish and reprehend) to put Kings doing amiss at this time to death, as it was at that for Samuel to cut in pieces with his own hands, 1. Reg. 15. the body of Agag king of Amalech? why not for them to depose kings, aswell as kings to deprive them? For if they bring to us th'example of Solomon, who deposed Abiathar the priest, and placed Sadoc in his room, 1. Reg. 15. &. 16, they shall hear of us again, that Samuel by gods own commandment pronounced Saul deprived of his king doom, and settled David in the same. Numer. Cap. 25. Phinees being a priest, killed with his dagger the Israelite and the Madianite as they filthily abused themselves: and have priests therefore at this day think we like jurisdiction? Or would god (is it likely) praise him for the doing that would now do the like, as he then did him? No no good readers, they tread not uprightly that so interpret the scriptures. And thus you see how generally all these examples and authorities, being even after this sort answered, make no more for kings to rule in matters of religion, than other places do for the clergy to depose kings, or to kill them, or other doing amiss. But to descend now more particularly to the several examination of these examples. I would gladly ask this question of some of these our new Rabbins, that being granted to them by the way of reasoning which they presuppose, that is, that king David entremedled in th' affairs of religion, how this argument holdeth not withstanding: David being both a king and a prophet had the rule of religion. Therefore the kings of our time must have the like. And in deed thus must they reason, if they will reason truly. For so was king David they can not all deny it. And as well am I able to prove, that if he had any such power it was because he was a prophe te, and not in respect of his kingdom, as they shall ever be, to prove the contrary. So that to make this reason of theirs have, yea seem to have, some appearance of truth, of two things must they needs do one, that is either prove our kings now a days prophets also, or David in his days to have been but a king simply. In Solomon also, is the case trow ye all so clear as they make it? For touching the deprivation of Abiathar the priest, to that I answer, that as in breaking the wicked pack of Adonias, Abiathar, and other their complices, who had conspired to have put Solomon beside his kingdom: 3. Regum. cap. 1. he used the council of Sadoc and Nathan to defeat them: so used he their authority and ministry to punish them. Nor it forceth not, that the scripture saith. Eiecit ergo Solomon Abiathar ut non esset sacerdos domini, therefore cast Solomon Abiathar out, that he should no longer be our lords priest, as though that therefore it were his own deed, and could be done by no other, seeing that that is a phrase of speech common not in the scriptures only, but in common talc also: as if for example a man should say, that Queen Mary (whose soul god assoil) deprived Thomas Cranmer of the archebishoprick of Cantorburie (whose treason also against her was no less than that of Abiathar against Solomon) he should not say a miss. And yet was not she god wots the chief doer thereof, but an instrument joining with the pope in the execution of his determination, touching the rooting out of that wicked member. So say we in like manner that the prince hath made such a man bishop, when in very deed he only commended him by his letters or word, leaving the free election notwithstanding to them, to whom of right it appertaineth, as this placing of Sadoc in abiathar's office may welbe understand. To th'example of Ezechias I answer with the scripture, that of all those things here rehearsed, Ecclesiastici cap. 48. and what so ever else may be, he was only the executor, the council and ordering thereof, coming always from Esaias the prophet: Who as the mouth commanded the arm, that is the prince, to do and put in execution this or that. In like manner I answer to the example of jehu who killed the wicked prophets, but by thadvertisement and sentence as it were first given against them, 4. Reg. Cap. 9 by Haelizeus the prophet, sent to jehu as king, by him to be put in execution. How josias warned the priests of their office and duty, Cap. 22. it appeareth in the fourth book of the kings, where he required the priests to demand at god's hands council, what he and his people should do: so that what so ever he did also, he can be counted no otherwise to have done, but as a minister, upon the advertisement and relation of the priests. Now as for josaphat and joas, if th'one overthrew the woods and hills where the people lurked from the temple, the other warned the priests to see better to the reparation of the same: what great matter is this I pray you? or how doth this prove that kings ought to have, the chief rule over the church? If princes that have been in times past, had so well looked in this point to their duty as of right they ought, and all good men wish they had: if they had scoured your luskes corners, and overthrown the woods, the blind cellars and rotten barns, in which you first uttered your poisoned doctrine: neither had that made them rulers of the church but faithful and trusty ministers, nor you been here now, to trouble the church of god as you do. As if on tother side, they had also followed th'example of joas in calling upon the reparation of god's house, neither would any good man have found fault therewith all, nor any wise man have thought, that this should have made them the chief governors in religion: nor finally so many churches lain at this day flat on the ground, so many monasteries in which god was served and the poor relieved, made stables for horses, housen for sheep, or sties for swine. And thus may you see good readers, that all these examples alleged by our adversaries are to no purpose, as of the which some, as of king David (who was not a king only but a prophet also) contain a manifest fallacy, other as that of joshua, that he should receive especial commandment of almighty god to meddle with religion, an impudent lie: some as of Solomon, Ezechias, and jehu, a figure or phrase of speech, as by the scriptures I have proved, 4. Reg. Cap. 22. and as of josias may be also truly answered, who enterprised nothing, before he had caused the priests first, to go and consult what he should do: and other some such, as of josaphat and joas, as no man ever denied to kings, yea many wish that in the practising thereof, they had in times past, and at this day also would, show themselves much more forward than they have or do. And last of all you may see, that all were it so that every example had plainly concluded their intention, that yet it is no good reason to say, that therefore our kings now a days must have the like authority: no more than this, that if Moses had been no priest, it should follow that other temporal governors might consecrate bishops, because he did being none consecrate his brother Aaron, or that because David had many wives, therefore our kings also may: or the clergy put to death kings because Samuel did, or priests kill adulterers after th'example of Phinees, or one spoil an other (I mean of them that be of contrary opinions in religion) because the children of Israel spoiled the Egyptians. Exod. 3. &. 12. And here there cometh to my remembrance an other cause, why that reason of theirs should be nought which is this, that the priesthood of the jews was altogether carnal and fleshly, and might therefore the rather be subject to the kings, whereas the priesthood of the new testament is so much more excellent than that, as by how much the matter and object about which it is occupied, Psalm. 109. the head, author, and chief priest thereof (which is no other than Christ himself the eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedech) doth far surmount either the matter, the priest or priesthood of theirs. Which thing S. Petre did not obscurely signify by these words: 1. cap. 2. vos estis regal sacerdotium you we are a kingly priesthood. as who should say the priesthood before was not kingly, for that that kings ruled over priests, but now is the priesthood kingly, for that to it be subject even kings themselves. Which neither is any such great absurdity (if we indifferently weigh the matter) as some men would have it seem to be, That kings should be subject to priests no absurdity at all. considering that Ignatius disciple to S. john the evangelist, that all the ancient fathers, do most plainly affirm the same: neither yet any great reason why these words should be to any man cause of offence, seeing that when all is counted, this honour of government resteth not in the priests, but goeth farther to god himself whose ministers they ar: as contrariwise the dishonour, the contumelies and reproaches done unto them, are done also to Christ as himself witnesseth. Lucae. 10. Qui vos spernit me spernit, he that despiseth you despiseth me. The which thing I would to god our adversaries which glory so much of the name of Christians, vaunt themselves of the knowledge of the gospel, would not think scorn to learn by the example of a pagan and infidel, I mean Alexander the great. Who although he were by religion an ethnic, Lib. 4. histor. suae by nature intolerably proud, so that not contented as Quintus Curtius writeth of him, to be born of the race of mortal men, he conveyed his pedigree from the gods, not suffering but commanding also, that upon pain of his indignation all men should call him the son of jupiter: and to increase the more that naughty humour of his, and to pour as the proverb is, oil in to the fire, by fortune so happy, that the whole world was in a manner, by the dent of his sword conquered and brought under, that at his name the proudest tyrants trembled, and barbarous nations stooped: he yet all this not withstanding, being such and so mighty a Monarch, josepus lib. antiq. 11. cap. 16. when on a time he should entre in to the city of jerusalem, as soon as he once perceived jaddus the high priest coming towards him, Origin. contra Celsum lib. 5. fell down and reverenced him. Whereat when Parmenio one of his trusty friends marveling not a little, had demanded of him, why he whom all other men worshipped, Alexander's reverence towards the high priest. and had in reverence, did worship the prince of the jewish priests: his answer was, that he worshipped not him, but god whose ministre he was. By this which hitherto good Readers you have hard, forasmuch as it appeareth, that our adversaries stand altogether destitute and as it were naked, of such provision out of the scriptures, as with the vain title whereof, they persuaded themselves their part to be well bolstered, and themselves against all that would maintain the contrary, sufficiently furnished: it remaineth now, that I first bring forth to you such examples, as having happened in Christ's church sense his departure hence and his apostles, they allege for themselves: then after, ●hat I refel the same, and prove that they make as little or less for their purpose, as do the other before brought forth of the scriptures. Examples brought by the protestants. And first for Constantinus the great, although by consent of all historiographers it be well known and most apparent, (as before hath been showed) how far he was of all other, from that unlawful desire of entremeddling in matters of religion: yet for asmuch as the impudence of these men is such, that they are not ashamed to abuse his name amongst other, for the maintenance of their opinion, and that they labour to make him a pillar to sustain and hold up their rotten building, alleging his calling together of the council of Nice, his sitting there presently with the bishops and fathers, his admonishing them how to proceed, that is according to the doctrine of the prophets and apostles: I will first answer thereunto, and after proceed to the rest. Constantinus the truth is, called together to the rooting out and utter extirpation of the heresy of Arrius, that great and famous council of Nice, as after him did diverse other good emperors, diverse other. But neither of this act of his, or that of theirs can any man rightly gather, that either the one or the other had over matters of religion any thing thereby the more authority. But even as the hands or arms reaching a thing far of, A similitude. are when it is brought nearer to sight, nothing thereby the more authorized to judge of the value and goodness thereof, to dispose how it shallbe ordered, but that remaineth still in the head by whose council and commandment the hands and arms reached it thither: even so in this case may it be said. In Christ's church there is, and as it hath been before proved necessarily must be one head. As there is a head, so is there a body, arms, legs, and other members answering to the same. Amongst the which, princes and kings have of our elders not amiss, been termed the hands and arms to aid and secure the head. If now the bishops of Rome for the time being (for they are under Christ the true heads of this church, as hereafter by god's grace I shall make it most manifestly appear) have amongst so many enemies and back friends as Christ and his gospel had, been glad to bid the hands do their duty, to call to the emperors and kings for help which had so long hindered, if by this means they compelled them to come in for fear of the temporal sword, who feared not the spiritual: if they used this rigorous means where lenity could have no place: who is so void of wit to think, that princes had thereby authority over religion? Nay but Constantinus (saith our apology) did not only call together the council of Nice, but he sat in the same with the bishops, nor sat there barely as a cipher, but warned them how to proceed by the scriptures. Here mark diligently I beseech you good readers, either the manifest malice of them that wittingly mangle the holy histories, or intolerable foolishness which allege that that they never themselves saw, but only have by report of others: or last of all their gross ignorance, that think they have to do with them, who without any farther searching of such places as are by them alleged, will straight ways give full credit to their bare honesties. Libro. 3. de vita Constantini. Eusebius who writeth the history of Constantinus, Constantinꝰ would not fit in the council with the bishops before he had asked leave of them, so to do. and whole discourse of his life, witnesseth, that coming into the council last of all, having prepared ready for him a seat lower than any of the rest: he would not before sit down in the same, than first he had asked of the bishops and they granted him licence so to do. The very same doth Socrates' report of him, and even he out of whom the apology allegeth this example, Theodoretus himself: whose words are these. Lib. 1. Cap●. te. 8 Minore verò sede quám alijs posita, in medio eorum sedit, primò tamen petens sibi hoc episcoporum iussione concedi. Hist. ecclestrip. lib. 2● Cap. 5. And having (that is to say) appointed for him a place or feat meaner than any of the other, he sat him down in the midst of them, desiring yet first, that by the commandment of the bishops it might be grau●ted him so to do. If this be true (as if the histories and old records do not witness the same then let me never be farther believed) what meaneth then this lying generation to bring in for example, to sustain and uphold their wicked doctrine, this virtuous emperor Constantinus? then whom if they would have laid all their heads together for that purpose, they should never have found one, whose doings and whole life had made● more for us, or more against them. If he were chief of the council, and ruled all as they say, why had he in that place (where by all likelihood there lacked nothing that pertained to seemly order) a seat less stately than hi● inferiors? Places are I know of their own nature things indifferent and of no great account. yet have they at all times, in all ages, and amongst all men, been taken for means to distinct according to their worthiness in degree, one from an other. So that it can be to no man doubtful, but that, if of the council gathered and assembled together he had been the head and chief, there should have been prepared for him, if not a seat such as might by the majesty above the rest well have declared the same: yet at the least such a one, as should not by the baseness thereof compared with tother, well and plainly have proved the contrary. If the whole some and order of religion belonged to him being th'emperor: Why then in that place whither they were all for that purpose (to entreat of religion) assembled, had the head of that parley, no place but by licence? why asked he leave of the bishops to sit in the council and not rather they of him? Yea but he warned the bishops, how they should proceed in the council, that is, by the doctrine of the prophets and apostles. If they would here have dealt truly, and uprightly with us, and not rather have followed their father in lying and patching: they would not have rehearsed Gloria patri without Sicut erat, nor taken a piece that seemeth to make for them, leaving out that which maketh against them. But because they are sworn to be true to their occupation and so may not: I, who I thank god therefore, am none of the company, will take the pains to stoop, and do it for them. It followeth in Theodoretus after he had mentioned the oration which Constantin had in the council: Haec & his similia, tanquam fi●●us amator pacis, sacerdotibus veluti patribus offer●bat. These words and such like, as a son that loved peace, he offered up to the priests as to his fathers. Lo good readers, was not here trow you a great precedent for our Emperors and kings to meddle with the order of religion? Well he was as the histories bear witness, the first christian emperor that openly professed the faith and name of Christ (for of Philip the histories make no great account) and before that time the church was governed, The church governed before Constantinus time, either by priests or by infidels or by none. either by infidleles and tyrants, as Nero, Domitianus, and such other: or by priests, or by none. And this was the very cause that they would so feign have won to their part, the first Christian emperor. The next example that they bring, is of Theodosius th'emperor, that he not only sat amongst the bishops, but was also the very chief of the conference, between the catholics and the Arrians. That Theodosius did in this matter nothing of himself, but all by the council of Nectarius the B. of Constantinople, had not our adversaries, as they did before in th'example of Constantine, mangled the history, any man might easily have perceived. Histor. eccles. trip. libro. 9 cap. 18. For read the beginning of the chapter, where this matter is mentioned, and you shall find, that Theodosius called to him Nectarius then B. of Constantinople, asked of him his advice, what order were best to be taken, for thappeasing of that schism which then so miserably troubled the church: and finally embraced himself, and commanded all other to receive, the same doctrine, not which himself had determined to be true, but which Nectarius and the other catholic bishops had delivered and commended to him. And truly marvel had it been if he had otherwise done in matters of religion any thing, to the prejudice of that authority, which bishops and priests of right aught to have in those matters: who at other times had so often declared his mind persuaded to the contrary, Concilium Aquileien se. and namely in that council that he caused to be assembled at Aquileia: where in the summons of that Synod he openly protested, that controversies arising upon matters of doctrine, can not be better tried, then by being referred to the bishops, that they quoth he, from whom the very grounds and principles of doctrine have proceeded, may if there fall out any doubts, dissolve the same. For the which words, being afterward rehearsed in the council, it appeareth how greatly S. Ambrose praised him, when he said openly. Behold what order the christian emperor hath taken. he will not do any injury to the priests, he referreth to the bishops the interpretation of all doubts. If Theodosius had taken apon him to judge in matters of faith, being a lay man, could S. Ambrose think you that flourished under him have been ignorant thereof? If he could not, would he have praised him for that he did not? would he have asked of Valentinianus the younger beginning in his youth (although he after repentid) to encroach upon the spiritual limits and jurisdiction: Lib. 5. ●pist. 32. Quando audisti clementissime imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo iudicasse? when did you ever hear most gentle emperor, that in matters of faith lay men, have judged of the bishops doings? Might he not have answered, (if it had been as our adversaries say) I have not hard only but known also by experience, that mine own fellow in the empire Theodosius, hath done so, So that hereapon we may be bold probably to conclude (S. Ambrose virtue, wisdom, learning, long experience and great practice in Christ's church well considered) that Theodosius attempted no such matter, nor did any thing in religion without the council of such bishops as being catholic, instructed him what he should do, for th'advancement and setting forward of Christ's catholic faith. It followeth in the apology. In the council of Calcedon the civil magistrate condemned for heretics by his sentence, Dioscorus, Juvenalis, Thalassius, being all bishops, and judged them worthy to be degraded. Here would I feign know in what place, or where they find this history written. If they say in the. 5. book and tenth chap. of Socrates history, as the place is in the margin coated, I must needs tell them that the place having been there sought for, can not be found. And as little hope is there of finding the same elles where, if a man may believe vehement presumptions. For if in that council, Juvenalis and Thalassius had been at all condemned by any magistrate either ecclesiastical or civil, as well should it of all likelihood have been mentioned in the acts and records of the council of Chalcedon, as was the condemnation of Dioscorus, they being all accused, and partakers of one crime. True it is (although in the place by them alleged there be no such thing) that in the acts yet of the council we find a record, where the civil magistrates consented, that Dioscorus had well deserved to be of his bishopric deprived, and of all priestly dignity degraded. But how, I beseech you diligently to consider: if to the bishops, to whom god had committed the charge to give that sentence, it should so seem good. And these are not my words but his that was sent from the whole council to Dioscorus, Actio. 3. (who then after the manner of all heretics fled from the face of the council, and lurked I wots not where) joannes the bishop of Germanicia, who after he had told him in what terms he stood, that was, condemned by the whole council, he added this clause, Si hoc placuisset sanctissimis episcopis, quibus hanc infer a domino deo creditum est, if it so seemed good to the holy bishops to whom god had committed the power to give that sentence. This sentence afterward (the said Dioscorus continuing in his obstinacy) was by the whole council allowed, Act. 3. Euag●ius Lib. 2. cap. 4. and by the legates of the bishop of Rome in his name pronounced, no man's name subscribed, or consent asked thereto, besides the only bishops. And thus much for Dioscorus: for of Juvenalis and Thalassius, till they show where, and when they were condemned for heretics and worthy to be degraded: I can say nothing. Although this in the mean season I may boldly say, that if they (the civil magistrates I mean) gave any such sentence, it is very likely that they would qualify it (as you hard before that they did in Dioscorus) with this adjection, if the bishops think good, to whom that matter belongeth. Which if they did, what have they then gotten by th'alleging of such a sentence I pray you? The next proof that they bring, Constantinus. is out of the third council of Constantinople, where Constantinus (they say) did not only sit amongst the bishops, but subscribed also with them to the council. To this I answer, that this being granted that Constantinus sat in the council and subscribed also thereto, neither weakeneth our part, nor strengtheneth theirs. For who ever yet denied that Christian emperors might not be present at the councils, The difference be tween the bishops subscribing in the Council, and the Emperors. yea and subscribe thereunto also? The thing wherein we differ from them is, in the only manner of subscribing. For we say that the bishops subscribed, as defining and judging, the emperors, as following and consenting: that the bishops are necessary parsons in the councils as without whom they can not be kept, that the emperors are ornaments and not of the substance. The which difference of their presence, Ex relation. Synod. Chalcedon. ad B. papam Leon. and the cause thereof there, if it were by no place else to be proved, this only testimony which I will here allege of the council of Calcedon, written by the whole consent of the fathers and others there assembled, to Leo then pope, How the emperors government in the council is to be understand. where they all professed that he (as the head) was in his legates that there supplied his room, of all the rest (as members) the govern our: and that the emperors governed there ad ornandum, to be an ornament: would be sufficient to persuade. This thing would also most manifestly have appeared, Concilio. Constantinopolit. 3. Act. 18. if our adversaries had faithfully alleged the words which the emperor used in subscribing, which were (after the subscription of all the bishops, a hundred and seventy in number) these. Note the difference between the bishops and the Emperor, Subscriptions in the old counsels. Legimus & consensimus. we have readen and given our consent. Whereas the subscription of every bishop was, Definiens subscripsi, I defining have subscribed. And thus should they if they will needs glory of the emperors subscribing have alleged this example, that thereby might have been perceived, the manifest difference between con●enting in the one, and defining in the other: that men might yet at the least have wondered, if emperors and kings bare the sway in religion, and ruled all, if the bishops and priests were their underlings and governed by them, what should then mean that strange manner of subscribing in them that should lead and rule, to say they subscribe consenting, whereas the bishops that should be ruled by them, writ that they subscribe determining, and defining. And thus much touching the diversity of subscribing, between the bishops and the emperors: whereby may easily be judged, what authority th'emperor and civil magistrate had in the council. As for th'other difference wherein they and we vary, that th'emperors presence in the council, is not of the substance thereof, as is the bishops, they I think themselves, (except they will say that the first council assembled after Christ's ascension in jerusalem, Act. 15. was of no force: or of less, as though there were not all the parsons necessary for the holding thereof) will not deny. No more than we do this, that emperors have used to be present at such counsels as have been kept, and subscribed also thereto, but always as for the surer confirmation, and trusty execution (and yet not that with the better sort neither, but with such as regarded more, and stood in greater awe of present punishment in this world, then of god's indignation in an other) of such things, as were agreed upon there: that they seeing th'emperors and rulers of the world (in worldly matters) assenting thereunto: that the which they feared not in the bishops and priests, propter conscientiam, they might fear in the civil magistrates propter●iram. Concil. 2 Aurasi●anum. Thus deny we not that many years before this, in the second council Aurasicane subscribed to the doings of the council, those notable lay men (the example also of whom our adversaries object against us) Petrus, Marcellinus, Felix and Liberius. But o lord god I would once at the length, they would allege such things as they bring against us, simply, truly, and as they find them in the originals with their circumstances. Then should they have told us, that as these men subscribed to the council: so was it by licence of the fathers. Then would we have asked of them, why bring you then to us that example, that maketh not only not at all for you, but also much against you. But how I prove this perhaps you will ask. Forsooth by the acts of the same council, about th'end thereof. Where I find these words spoken by the fathers. Et quia definitionem antiquor um patrum nostrámq●e, How the lay men subscribed in the council Aurasican que suprascriptaest, non solum religiosis, sed etiam Laicis medicamentum esse & desideramus & cupimus: Placuit, ut etiam illustres acmagnifici viri, qui nobiscum ad praefatam festivitatem convenerunt, propria manu subscriberent. And forasmuch say they as our desire is, that those things which be above written, defined of old time by th'ancient fathers, and now presently by us, should be not to the clergy only available, but to the profit and health of the laity also: it pleaseth us, that those noble men that have been assembled with us at this present council or solemnity, should also with their own hands, subscribe to the acts thereof. Here note I beseech you good Readers this word, placuit, it hath pleased us, or wear content. Is this think you a phrase of speech meet for them that can do no other? If these lay men had subscribed, by their own right, as having an interest thereunto, would the bishops in the council have ever showed themselves so presumptuously foolish, as to say to them, it pleaseth us that you subscribe: who might have answered them by the rule of the law, Eius est velle cuius est nolle what tell you us that you are contented who can neither will nor choose, he may only say he will or is contented, that can say the contrary, that is, that he will not, or is not contented. Doth not this place argue most manifestly against them, that the order touching matters of religion, was all in the bishops hande●, as to whose doings they could not so much as witness their consent by subscribing, unless the bishops had first consented thereto? yea truly doth it, except we have of those wise and learned fathers that opinion, that we think they were all stark fools. As any man might have of our counterfeit bishops in England, if they should assemble together and agree, that every Baron within the realm should have a voice in the parliament house. This therefore being presupposed, as till they be able to show the contrary it must, that those bishops had their right wits, The protestāns example taken out of the council Aurasican maketh against them. and knew what they did, this argument holdeth very well: The fathers assembled in the council Aurasican were contented, that lay men that were there should subscribe to the council with the clergy. Ergo they might have chosen. And then how maketh th'authority of this example for them? Nay who seeth not how much it maketh against them? It followeth that justinian being a Christian emperor, Iustini●●. deposed yet notwithstanding two pope's, Silverius and Vigilius. Hereby our adversaries think, to have not a little help to prove the superiority of emperors and kings over bishops and priests. Truly that justinian did this, it is but barely affirmed, nor any place in th'apology is there coated where a man that doubted might see it proved. And therefore with the same authority might it be denied, with the which it is proposed to be believed. True it is, that Theodora th'empress as some writ, being altogether given to the heresy of Eutiches, after she had long travailed first with Silverius, and after Vigilius both bishops of Rome, to have Menna the catholic archbishop of Constantinople deprived of his bishopric, and the heretic Anthimius removed by Agapetus before restored again, and could not obtain at their hands her wicked purpose: did upon displeasure conceived by this repulse ● procure by the means of Belisarius justinian's chief ●apitaine, the banishment first of th'one, and after of th'other. Who so ever deposed them, or who so ever banished them: true is it, that this was the cause thereof and no other. Which being as in deed it is most true, let us now grant to our adversaries that it was not the empress, but the emperor himself that deposed them: and let us see how they be able to prove thereby, that emperors and kings may degrade priests, and depose bishops. If they will deal uprightly they must to prove it ●eason thus: justinian otherwise a Christian emperor, but in this point a cruel heretic, tyrannously deposed two pope's, Silverius and Vigilius, only because they would not do wrong (that is deprive him of his bishopric) to a catholic bishop, and restore an heretic lawfully before deprived. Ergo th'emperor is above the pope. Ergo kings be above bishops. Is not this a proper kind of reasoning trow you? Might they not have reasoned after this sort that Nero deposed S. Petre, that trajan put down Clement, with a number of such like examples? For to say that justinian was a christian whereas these were infidels, is but a mist cast in to th'objection to desell our eyes. For who seeth not, if he be not already blind, that this deed (if it should have been justinian's) to maintain and defend an open heretic, against a faithful and true catholic, had been the act of a tyrant and infidel, not of a Christian and good prince; and that it is no better reason to say and conclude that he deposed them, and therefore justly, than it should be to say that he defended the heretic Anthimius, and therefore rightefullie. But seeing this example will not serve our adversaries turn, The adversaries objection turned against himself. let us assay to make it serve ours. And first let us examine what should be the cause, why justinian should be so earnest with these two bishops of Rome, to depose the B. of Constantinople, and to restore the heretic that stood deprived? was he not emperor of all the world? had he not by the means thereof, as our new doctors bear us in hand, the chief government over all matters spiritual and temporal? was on the other side the authority of the bishops of Rome at that time such, that it extended, I will not say out of their own diocese to any other bishops in the Latin church, but to Constantinople the chief of the Greek? Here are they taken how so ever they answer. For first if th'emperor had been of that authority that they say the lay magistrates are, why did he not then by his own mere and absolute power, displace the one and place the other? Might he not as well have deposed one bishop at Constantinople as two at Rome? But if on the contrary part they answer, that the pope was he that must necessarily place and displace, even at that time and in the Greek church, and not the emperor: why then should it be lawful at this time for emperors or kings to do that, which was not lawful to be done then? Or why should it not now be lawful for the B. of Rome which at those days was not unlawful? Thus may you see good Readers how this history wholly and truly alleged, maketh not only not against us, but also much with us, if it had been true that th'apology saith, that justinian had deposed those two pope's. Yea but say they you can not deny, that the emperor made laws of matters of religion, that he abstained not even in matters of the church, from these terms, Sancimus, jubemus, we ordain, we command, with such like. Truly this can I not deny, Bishops and priests forbidden to marry by justinian's Constitution. and if I would there be whole constitutions of his, ready to be brought against me: as that where he commandeth that none be made bishop that hath a wife, and of them that have had, such as have had only one, the same no widow, neither divorced from her husband, neither forbidden by the holy canons: and also that, where he commandeth that of priests no other be received to that order, but such as vel coelibem vitam agunt, vel uxorem habuerunt, aut habent legitimam, & eam unam & primam, nequé viduam, nequé divortio separatam à viro, aut alioquiî legibus aut sacris interdictam canonibus. that is to say: as either lead a single life, or have had a lawful wife, or presently have, and that one and the first, no widow, none divorced from her husband or otherwise by the laws or holy canons forbidden: and that of deacons also, where he giveth commandment, Chastity vowed in justinians time. that if he that should be deacon, have no wife presently, he be not otherwise promoted, except being first asked of him which giveth the orders, whether he can from thence forth live without a wife, he answer yea. In somuch that th'emperor plainly pronounceth, that he that ministereth to him the orders can not dispense with him to marry after, and that if he should so do the bishop which suffered it should be deposed. But although this be true, that th'emperor justinian not only in these matters which touched the clergy, but in many other also, hath entremedled: yet hath he always so tempered the matter, as he hath showed himself to be a follower not a leader, a ministre to execute, not a governor to prescribe. The which thing his own words, in all such places where he entreateth of such matters placed as it were for the nonce, How justinian made laws in matters of the church. to take away all such sinister suspicion, do manifestly declare. For either he hath these words: Sequentes ea quae sacris definita sunt canonibus following the definition of the holy canons: or these, Sacras per omnia sequentes regulas, in all points following the holy rules, or such like: wherebi he would have testified to the world, The first four general councils defined the pope's superiority not Phocas as the protestāns maliciously affirm that he meaneth by his penal laws, severely to execute the canons of the church, and nothing less than to make new himself. In this sense used he the word Sancimus, a Constit. 131. we ordain: Where speaking of the first four general counsels and the B. of Rome, he hath these words: Sancimus ut secundum eorum definitiones sanctissimus veteris Romae papa, primus omni●m sacerd●tum sit. We ordain according to their definition (the first four general counsels) that the most holy pope of old Rome be the chief priest. Finally how in all like matters● justinian is to be understand, Epistola inter claras C. de sum. tri. & fid. cathol. if nothing else, his epistle written to johannes then B. of Rome is able sufficiently to instruct us. where he most manifestly protesteth, to suffer nothing that appertaineth to the estate of the church, The. pope confessed by justinian the emperor to be the head of all churches. to pass, yea although the truth thereof be perspicuous and out of all doubt, without the bringing thereof first to the knowledge of his holiness, and he addeth for a reason quia caput est omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum, because he is the head of all the holy churches that be. To conclude therefore, touching the examples brought from the doings of the emperor justinian, what so ever they be, I answer that he did those things as following the old canons and rules of councils before, devising nothing himself, but by his laws adding to them terror, to cause them to be of all men the better observed, or else that what so ever he ordained himself and put forth in his own name, he did first communicate with the B. of Rome (as in the epistle before alleged he promised he would) and procured it to be ratified by his authority. And these answers I hope you have hard by the emperor himself in the places by me before alleged, sufficiently proved. The substance and very strength of our adversaries reasons you have hitherto hard. There remaineth one or two testimonies more, brought of late by M. Haddon in answer to the learned epistle of Hieronimus Osorius, Ro. 13. as that S. Paul saith that every soul should be obedient to the higher powers: in which words they say that neither bishop priest nor monk is excepted, and that S. Peter willeth all men to be subject to every humane creature for god's sake, 1. Cap. 2. whether it be to the king as to the chiefest and so forth. The which reasons (if reasons they may be called that consist of mere folly) because they are so childish that every child may in a manner answer them, and so foolish that he is more than a fool that is by them moved: as loath to spend so much time in vain, or trouble your ears and eyes for nothing, I pass over. Only this I say, that even as priests and all without exception, own obedience to their prince in those things that concern his jurisdiction, I mean things temporal: so on th'other side meant neither S. Peter nor S. Paul, to give them any pre-eminence in matters ecclesiastical. For in those things, they call as fast upon obedience to be exhibited towards the clergy, Hobr. 13. namely S. Paul, who addeth the reason to be, for that they are the watch men, which watch to give the account for our souls. The which words can no more be understand of civil magistrates (who could then full evil be called watchmen for other, being themselves fast a sleep and drowned as it were, in the dead sleep of infidelity) than their other place of obedience toward the king, can be understand of matters concerning religion. Which any man that hath but half an eye may easily perceive it can not, if he cast but a quarter thereof to that time in which S. Peter wrote those words: which was in the reign of Nero. whom by all likelihood (being to christ and his little flock an utter enemy, and extreme persecutor) he would never make or name to be, (a cruel greedy, and ravenous wolf) the governor and leader of the meek and simple sheep. To bid them obey him in matters of religion, had been to bid them to disobey Christ, to refuse him and cast him of. Wherefore that obedience must be restrained, which it can be to no other things, than such as only consist in civil and politic government. Thus having I trust good readers satisfied both you and my promise, it followeth now that I show who is that priest, that aught to be the head of Christ's church here in earth. A PROUFE OF CERTAIN ARTICLES THAT THE B. OF ROME IS THE CHIEF OF ALL OTHER BISHOPS, THE HEAD OF CHRIST'S CHURCH HERE IN earth, and that for so, the first six hundred years after Christ, he hath with the old general councils, the ancient fathers and doctors been reputed and taken. THose blocks and stumbling stones being at the length removed and tumbled out of the way good Christian readers, which they that intend then the breach of all good order, nothing else, heretics and enemies to our faith had there placed for the nonce, to overthrow the weak: we are come to that principal point of the B. of Rome his supremacy over all other bishops, his chief government and superiority over Christ's whole catholic and universal church. Wherein truly amongst all other things that are at this day called in to controversy, I can not enough marvel at the shameless impudency of him, that bloweth abroad that we have not one ancient doctor, one old general council, one allowed example of the primitive church, to prove that the B. of Rome was within the first six hundred years after Christ, called head of the church, or for so taken. Whereas in good faith to me, thinking not lightly or slenderly upon this matter, and minding some thing to utter touching the same to the world, and to imitate, at the least in good will, that honest example of them, who having with great danger escaped themselves, the peril of drowning, being now safely arrived on the land, think next of the delivery of their poor companions, who floating one while above the water, an other struggling for life and death under the same, are in danger to fall into that which they so lately before escaped: cast them either a board to bear them up, or reach them a pole to draw them to the shore, or by such other means as they may, cease not busily to procure their speedy recovery: there happened nothing more hard, then in such copy and variety of substantial witnesses, to satisfy myself (for all neither my leisure would serve me to allege nor the adversary demandeth many but e●en only one) in the choice of those, that should for virtue and learning, gain with the honest readers most weighty credit. Here first of all, because I mind to keep me within the limits and term of years by you master jewel appointed to me: I will begin even with the first pope S. Peter himself, from whom I make this argument: S. Peter was bishop of Rome, S. Peter was called by ancient fathers that wrote within the first six hundred years, the head of Christ's church. That S. Petre was B. of Rome. Therefore the B. of Rome was with in the first six hundred years called and taken for head of the church. Lib. 1. hist. apostol. The first part of this syllogism the mayor, that is that Peter was bishop of Rome, I prove by Abdias a man of the apostles age: Lib. 7. cap. 6. by Orosius who writeth that he planted there the faith, Ado. by Ado who beareth witness that he was bishop there 25. years, Lib. de prescript. adverse. haer. until the last year of Nero his reign: by Tertullian, who in teaching us how to try out heretics, Tertullia's rule to know an heretic. which he saith is if they be not able to derive their doctrine from some church where the apostles have planted first the faith, either from Rome where Peter was, or Smirna where S. John the evangelist taught: doth most manifestly give us to understand, that they were both bishops in those places. Lib. 1. Epistol. 3. What shall I here remember S. Cyprian, who had called Rome in vain S. Peter's chair, if he had never been bishop there? In Catalogo. Or S. Hierom, who in one place reckoneth how many years he possessed the bishopric there, and in diverse other calleth Damasus the B. of Rome, Epist. 42. successor in Peter's faith and seat. Or Optatus B. of Milivetum in Africa, Lib. 2. contra Do●atistas. who told Parmenian the Donatist, that he could not allege ignorance, knowing right well that the bishops chair was first given to Peter in the city of Rome, in the which he sat being head of all the apostles. And to conclude, would trow● we (in skirmishing with the Donatists) S. Austen have bidden them view the bishops of Rome sense S. Peter's time, if he had never been bishop there? This therefore standing as manifestly true, it remaineth that I prove the second part, which is that S. Peter being bishop of Rome was called head of the church. The which thing is easy to be proved by the testimony of divers ancient writers and first of S. Austen. Who in a certain sermon of his entreating of Peter's denial of Christ hath these words. Sermon. 124. de tempore. Totius corporis morbum, in ipso capite curat ecclesiae, & inipso vertice componit membrorum omnium sanitatem, that is to say. In the head of the church itself (he meaneth of S. Peter) hath he cured the disease of the whole body, and in the chief part thereof the very top, doth he set in order the health of all the members. Leo the B. of Rome the first of that name, whom although Calvin (because he saw in his doings so many tokens and signs of chief government over the church as by no means he could avoid but that he so was) calleth proud and orgulouse: the substance yet of the world for learning and virtue, gathered together at Chalcedon honoured with the name of ter beatus, thrice happy or blessed, whom Martianus the emperor called Sanctissimus most holy: Sermon. 1. & 3. he I say nameth Peter to be not only bishop of the see of Rome, but primate also and chief of all other bishops. chrysostom a doctor of the grieke church, Homil. in Math. 55. Cap. 16. affirmeth the same in most plain and evident words, saying: Petrus futurae ecclesiae pastor constituitur ac caput piscator homo. Hunc universo terrarum orbi Christus praeposuit. Peter a fisher man is appointed to be the shepherd and head of Christ's church that he will build. Him hath Christ made ruler over all the world. Homil in Math. 59 And in an other place he saith: Christus Petro ecclesiae primatum gubernationemque per universum ●●undum tradidit. Christ delivered unto Peter the primacy of the church, and rule thereof through out all the world. Last of all note I beseech you to this purpose out of chrysostom, Lib. 2. de Sacerdot. these words. Quanam item de causa Christus sanguinem effudit suum? Certé ut pecudes eas acquireret quarum curam tum Petro tum Petri successoribus committebat. Which is in english to say thus much. For what cause I pray you did Christ shed bis blood? Truly to redeem those sheep whose charge he committed to Peter and to Peter's successors. Here would I ask of you M. jewel this question, whether you think that Christ died for all his church, or for some part thereof only? An invincible argument that by Chrisostom the charge of the whole church was committed to the BB. of Ro. Peter's successors. chrysostom in answering to this question for whom he shed his blood, answereth as hath been said, for them whom he committed to Peter's charge and his successors. If the whole church be not committed to Peter and his successors, but only one part thereof, then followeth it that either chrysostom thought he died for no other, or else did he evil solute his own question. But for so undoubted a truth was it taken with chrysostom and in his time with all other, that S. Peter and the pope's after him had the universal charge of Christ's church, that he was not a feared by such a periphrasis or circumlocution to utter his mind, as every man he wist as soon as he hard would easily understand. You have here hard M. jewel, for the confirmation of the minor of mine argument or second proposition, not one but three substantial witnesses, that have called S. Peter head of the church, Augustin. bishop not of Rome only, Leo. but of all other bishops the chief, that have affirmed that to him was committed by Christ, Chrisost. the government and superiority over the church through out all the world, that he and his successors have the charge of those sheep for whom Christ died. So that upon the conclusion which necessarily followeth (Ergo the bishop of Rome was of one ancient doctor in the first six hundred years after christ called head of the church) I might M. jewel if I wou●d even out of hand (if you have already yielded to none other) challenge you for my prisonier: your importune request being as you see sufficiently satisfied. For you can not say pardy, that although you grant with the ancient fathers, that S. Peter was head of the church, that the bishops yet of Rome his successors were not. First, because that were as much in effect to say, as that Christ would that there should be a head of his church and no head, a head while Peter lived and after none. And if that be your answer I pray you tell us a cause why, and show us some scripture where, our Saviour Christ so taught, or his apostles delivered, or the ancient counsels and holy fathers have so affirmed. Secondarily you are barred of this plea, because the very nature of succession is such, that except he or some other having authority, into whose place an other succeedeth, expressly provide for the contrary (which yet remaineth to be proved that ever Christ or S. Peter did) he cometh directly in to all the right and interest what so ever it be, that his author had before him. Last of all you can not use this frivolous exception, that this title of head of the church began and ended altogether with Peter (as most foolishly john Calvin doth, Lib. 4. Inst cap. 6. Sectione. 8. who granting that Peter was in deed the head and chief of the apostles, because he saith the very order of nature requireth, that in all companies there be one to govern the rest, denieth yet, that the B. of Rome succeeding in Peter's office, should be head of the church now, as S. Peter was of the apostles which represented the same then, and that for so the, because that which had place amongst a few, may not suddenly be drawn to all the world, for the government whereof no one man alone can suffice). For this gross error is both by authority and also reason easy to be confuted. By the authority of S. chrysostom, who as ye hard before named in the government of the church, as far forward the successors of S. Peter as S. Peter himself: Lib. 2. de Sacerdotio. By reason, because if there were such fear of disordre in twelve parsons, so small a number, so well ordered and directed by the spirit of god as the holy apostles were, that even amongst them for the avoiding thereof there must needs be had one head: how much more need is it, to have one amongst so many thousands, as the church consisteth of? If a few be likelier to agree then a great number, if unity be named of one, because lightly none jarreth or is at dissension with himself, if the nearer that all numbers come to that one the less confusion, and the farther we go from it, the greater is like to follow: then is there no man I trust so blind but that he may easily see, that the same cause of schisms and disorder (yea so much more greater as the church is more amplified and increased) to be feared, remaining still, Hi●ron▪ ad Euagrium. the remedy which is to have one head must also endure and continue still. And as for that sorry shift of the compass and largeness of the church which no one man is able to rule, of what value and force that is, he that listeth to cast his eye, first to the time passed and government in those days, when next under god all was governed by one, and then after to this miserable time of ours, in which there be so many heads, one of the church of England, an other of that of Geneva, one of Wittenberg, an other of Frankford, of every church one and in all none: every one challenging to himself merum imperium absolute jurisdiction out of the check of any other, and to consider with himself in each of these governements their several effects, the quiet re●gne of one truth in the one, the diverse sects and heresies in what part of the world so ever they sprang up overthrown and repressed, the sundry triumphs that Christ's church hath had over them these fifteen hundred years: in tother scarce yet of forty years continuance, the tumultuous hurly-burly, the pernicious and horrible heresies never before hard of, the sundry schisms and sects so many as there be heads, the arrogancy of the captains and masters, while every one boasting of the spirit and vaunting as S. Hierom saith that he hath the church on his side, will submit himself to no other, the implacable hatred of the scholars and disciples, every one standing upon his masters honour and reputation, with an infinite number and whole swarm of evils more which I reserve to an other place: shallbe easily able without the help of any other himself to judge. I omit here touching this foolish reason (that therefore there can not be now one head of the church as in S. Peter's time there was, because the church is so increased that no one man is able to govern the same) proceeding first from Calvin, and patched afterwards into our english apology: that seeing he, that at the beginning appointed this one head where he might have appointed more, and did not, never changed that order sense, being all this while not ignorant to what greatness his church should after grow, it can to no man that hath the use of reason seem other, but that either he thought that one, ruling by such as he should appoint under him, might suffice for the government of his church, or surly at the least that he hath not circumspectly provided therefore. But if all these mere cavillations had been good and strog reasons, yet have I showed you enough in this one B. of Rome S. Peter, (who hath been called you have hard how often, head of the church and chief of all bishops) to gain you, if you will stand to your word to our part M. jewel. Because notwithstanding I would have you with your good will, I will yet show you the like titles given by the ancient fathers to other bishops of Rome. And to frame myself the more to your humour (although I think you put no difference between these terms head of the church, ruler of the church, chief of all other priests with such like many other, that the fathers and ancient general counsels have not spared to use, as often as they had occasion to either write or speak, to or of, the B. of Rome) I will here first allege unto you certain authorities, where the B. of Rome hath been called, sense S. Peter's time (and yet within the first six hundred years) even in express words head of the church: and then after the testimonies of diverse other, who although they use not the same words, affirm yet and confirm the same pre-eminence and authority. Vincentius therefore Lirinensis, Secundo commonito rio. a man of singular learning and of the old age (for he flourished under Theodosius and Valentinian, th'emperors (writing of the bishops that were assembled at Ephesus in the council there against the heretic Nestorius, maketh mention of two bishops of Rome, Foelix the martyr and julius, whose epistles after that he had told were there readen in the council against the said heretic, he addeth immedatlie after these words: Et ut non solum caput orbis verumetiam ipsa latera illi judicio testimonium perhiberent, The B. of Rome head of all the world. adhibitus est à meridie B. Cyprianus, à Septentrione S. Ambrose, that is to say. And that it might not be said that the head of the world only gave witness to that judgement (against Nestorius) but the ribs also and sides: there was present from the south blessed Cyprian, and from the north holy Ambrose. In the fourth general council assembled at Calcedon we find, that the legates of the B. of Rome writing in a certain epistle to the emperor, Ex Epist. Pasch●sini & aliorum collegarum de dam● natione Diosco●●. what they had done in the council touching Dioscorus, had these words: unde s●nctissimus & beatissimus Papa caput universalis ecclesiae, etc. whereapon the most holy and blessed pope Leo, head of the universal church, by us his legates, the holy council consenting thereto, hath deprived him (Dioscorus) of his bishopric and degraded him of his priesthood. If the B. of Rome had not at that time amongst all men beneso reputed and taken: is it credible that they would ever have been so boold, nay impudent rather, to give him upon their own heads any such title? Or if they would have needs so called him being not so, durst they in their letters to th'emperor? Well if they had only so called him, some brabble they might yet perhaps have made thereabout, but seeing the whole body of the council, the corpse of Christendom, the church itself (for such is every general council lawfully assembled) in that epistle which they sent by common consent, and is rightly termed the certificate of their doings, to Leo the pope, wherein they called him the head and themselves the members, and in that that they termed him the man to whom our lord committed the keeping of his vinyeard, do most plainly affirm the same, there is now left to our adversaries no starting hole to escape. Besides all this that you have hard, there is a notable testimony of justinian the emperor, who in his Codex calleth in plain words joannes that was then the pope of Rome, Epist. inter claras ●desum. trivit & fid. Cath. caput omnium ecclesiarum, that is, the head of all churches. And thus much for such as within the first six hundred years, have called the B. of Rome by this name head of the church. To come now to those who although they have not used the same term, have named him yet notwithstanding by the like, and have attributed unto him, and acknowledged in him, in all points the same jurisdiction and authority. I shall first bring forth the testimony of that strong pillar, and unmovable rock of Christ's church Athanasius, Athanasius and yet not him alone, but accompanied with the whole number of the bishops of Egypt, Thebaida, and Libya. Who writing to three several pope's; Marcus, Liberius, and Felix, called first Marcus, S. Ro. & Apostolicae sedis atque universalis ecclesiae papam, that is the bishop or pope (for the word is in the ancient doctors used indifferently for both) of the holy apostles seat at Rome, and also of the whole universal church of Christ, and the church of Rome the mother and head of all churches: acknowledged in the second written to Felix, that almighty god had placed the bishops of Rome, The pope called the B. of the universal church of Christ. insummitatis arce, omnium ecclesiarum curam habere praecepit in the chiefest tower, that he had commanded them to take on them the charge, not of their own proper and peculiar church of Rome only, The first council of Nice alleged by Athanasius for the Pope's authority as though their charge extended no farther, but of all churches universally: witnessed beside, (whereof they could not be ignorant, themselves being present there, and then which they could not have brought a stronger proof to prove the superiority of that See) that in the first council holden at Nice, it was ordained and agreed upon, that no councils should be holden or bishops condemned, without the authority of the B. of Rome. And in their letters last of all to Liberius the pope●, do so openly and manifestly witness their opinion in this controversy, in saying that to him as pope was committed the universal church of Christ, to labour for all, to help every one: that I can not enough marvel at your impudence M. jewel, who standing in defence of the contrary, beat in to the ears of the people that this doctrine of the pope's authority is new, and hath for warrant thereof not so much as one ancient writers approbation, and that as surely as god is god, the Catholics (if they had vouchsafed to follow the scriptures, the general counsels, the examples of the primitive church or opinions of th'ancient fathers (would never have brought in the pope again, being once banished out of the realm. The several answers of every one of these pope's, wherein they acknowledged no less burden of charge than was by these father's laird upon them, I here forbear to bring in, lest they may by you perhaps be challenged, as principal parts to the title in strife. The which because I know you can not say, by S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Austen and other such like, I shall here of many allege some for the confirmation thereof. In praefat. in. 4. evang. Chief priest. S. Jerome called Damasus who was B. of Rome, the chief and highest priest. S. Ambrose calleth him ruler of the church. Ecclesia (saith he) domus dei est, 1. Tim. 3. Ruler of the church. cuius hody rector est Damasus. The church is god's house the governor whereof at this day is Damasus. S. Austen saith in writing to Bonifacius the pope against the Pelagians, Ad Bonifac, contraduas epist. Pelagian. lib. 1. cap. 1 that although the office of being a bishop be to them all common, that yet he was in that care placed above the rest. And in an other place comparing together the blessed apostle S. Peter and the holy martyr S. Cyprian, Placed above all Bishops. he had cause to fear he said, lest he might seem to be towards S. Peter contumelious, not as though touching the crown of martyrdom they were not both equal, but in respect of their seats and bishoprics. Lib. 2. de Baptismat. Cap. 1. Quis enim nescit illum apostolatus principatum, cuilibet episcopatui praeferendum? for who is quoth he ignorant, that that principality of apostleship, is to be preferred before all bishoprics? To these shall I add Theodorite the B of Cyrus, who writeth in this wise to Leo the pope. Epist. commentar. in Pauli epist. pr●●fix. Si Paulus praeco veritatis, tuba sanctissimi spiritus, ad magnum Petrum cucurrerit, ut ijs qui Antiochiae de institutis Legalibus contendebant ab ipso adferret solutionem: multò magis nos qui abiecti sumus pusilli, ad apostolicam vestram sedem currimus, ut ecclesiarum ulceribus medicinam à vobis accipiamus. Vos enim per omnia primos esse convenit. If Paul (that is to say) the messenger of truth, and trumpet of the holy ghost, ran unto mighty Peter to fetch from him the resolution of such doubts, as rising upon th' observation of the Law, ministered to them occasion of strife that were at Antioch: much more need had we which are weak and abject, to run unto your apostolical seat, from thence to fetch salves for the sores of the church. For expedient is it that in all points before all other, The church of Rome ruleth all the world. you have the pre-eminence. And a little after he addeth, that the church of Rome is of all other, maxima, praeclarissima, & quae praeest orbi terrarum the greatest, the noblest, and that which ruleth all the world. By occasion of this place of Theodoritus, calling the church of Rome the chief of all other, (which yet he doth not alone neither, for so did well near two hundred years before his days Irinaeus, Lib. 3. Cap. 3. when he would have every church, that is as himself expoundeth it, all faithful Christians from all parts of the world, to meet and conform themselves to the imitation of this church, propter potentiorem principalitatem saith he, for the chiefest sovereignty that it hath: De vocat gentium lib. 2. cap. 6. and after him aswell S. Ambrose whose opinion was that Rome hath been more honoured through the pre-eminence and principality of the apostolical priesthood, by having there the chief tower of religion, than it was before when it had there the chief throne of worldly power and civil jurisdiction: as also S. Austen, Epist. 162. affirming that in that church the pre-eminence and chief honour of the apostolical priesthood hath always flourished:) I shall here make this argument, for the better confirmation of this controversy, that the B. of Rome is the head and chief of the whole church (this always presupposed that you M. jewel whom I desire to solute this argument are still of this mind that the aun●ient fathers are good grounds to build upon). A reason to prove the pope head of the church. Irinaeus, S. Ambrose, S. Austen and Theodoritus, affirm that the church of Rome is the chief of all other churches. Ergo the B. and head of that church, is chief and head over all other bishops and heads of all other churches. And thus much by the occasion offered. Stephan (to return from whence we have digressed) the archbishop of Carthage, Chief bishop of all bishops. with three counsels of Africa, called the B. of Rome pater patrum & summus omnium praesulum pontifex: that is to say father of fathers, and chief B. of all bishops. In confession sua. Constantinus the emperor in one place calleth him summus pontifex the chief bishop, and in an other universalis papa, In aedicto. universal pope. In which place he also commanded that the church of Rome, should be called the head of all other in the world, and for so reputed and taken. Hitherto have I proved unto you, that the B. of Rome hath been of the ancient fathers of Christ's church, within the first six hundred years after Christ's departure hence, called head of the church, ruler of the church, chief priest, chief of all other bishops, bishop of the universal church and universal bishop. Now will I show that the doctors and fathers in the primitive church, have not only in words (which yet proceeding from the mouths of such men as they were might to any honest man seem sufficient) so termed him, but by several acts also of theirs well witnessed to the world, that in their consciences for so they took him. And even as in the law, to prove the possession of a lordship or manor, it is a sufficient proof to bring in evidence, that he who is disturbed therein hath quietly without interruption or contradiction, ma●ured and tilled the ground, reaped and received the fruits, or in a controversy of jurisdiction, to prove the doing of such acts as properly belong thereunto: even so in this case if I prove unto you, that the ancient fathers of Christ's church (the same whom I named to you before) have, some of them from the farthest part of the east church, complained to the B. o● Rome of wrongs done to them, some of them required him to confirm their acts and ratify their doings, other some scent to him their works by him to be examined and judged: I nothing doubt but you will easily grant, that these are to induce and prove his jurisdiction over the whole church, arguments most strong and invincible. To performs this the better, call to your remembrance I beseech you, that which a little before I alleged to you out of S, chrysostom, where he witnessed that Peter and his successors had the charge of those sheep for whom Christ shed his blood, and then judge I pray you whether of likelihood he thought not as he said, when being chased from his fold and flock at Constantinople where he was archbishop, and unjustly driven into banishment, he wrote unto Innocentius then being pope and the chief shepherd, for help after this manner. Epist. ad Inno●●● tium 〈◊〉 5. Obsecro scribas quôd haec tam iniqu● facta, & absentibus nobis & non declinantibus judicium, non habeant robur, sicut neque sua natura habent: illi autem qui iniquè egerunt, poenaeecclesi●sticarum legum subiaceant. that is to say. I pray you (saith this holy father to the pope) address forth your letters to signify that those things, which have so unjustly been decreed against me in my absence not proceeding of contumacy may be of no force, as of their own nature they are not, and that they which have given this unjust sentence, may suffer the smart of the ecclesiastical laws. Behold here good readers a most manifest place, to prove in those days the universal authority of the pope. Two things there are here to be noted which chrysostom desireth the pope to do: first to declare that all that was done against him should be of no force, next that he would write that they might be punished which had thus misused him. Now if the pope had had nothing to do out of his own church, than had wot you well chrysostom been a mad man, to make labour to him to send his commandments to the Greek church, to entremeddle in the affairs thereof, who might easily have received of the doers of those injuries which were members thereof (as chrysostom was) this short answer, to meddle with his own matters and to let them alone with theirs. Or if he had had nothing to do in that cause, which was concerning the archebishoprike of Constantinople: would he (is it like) have excommunicate Arcadius' th'emperor with Eudoxia th'empress, Niceph●. lib. 11 cap. 17. for not permitting Chrisostom quietly to enjoy his said bishopric, The tenor of the excommunication pronounced by Innocentius the pope, against Arcadius the Emperor. as Nicephorus reporteth of him that he did by these words? Itaquè ego minimus, & indignus peccator, cui thronus magni apostoli Petri creditus est, segrego & reijcio te & illam à perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri. Episcopum etiam omnem a●t clericum ordinis sanctae dei ecclesiae, qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas, dignitate sua excidisse d●cerno. That is to say. I therefore (Innocentius the pope) of all other the least and an unworthy sinner, This was above a thousand years ago. to whom the throne of the great apostle Peter is committed, do sequester and reject both the and her (the Empress he meaneth) from the receiving of the immaculate mysteries of Christ our god. The bishop or clerk within the order of the holy church of god, which shall presume what so ever he be, from the time that these letters containing the band of our excommunication shall come to your knowledge, to minister the sacraments unto you: him pronounce I deprived of his dignity. Now if he had then authority over Constantinople in the Greek church, why do you at these days M. jewel, thrust him out of England in the Latin church? S. Hierom as you hard before, called the B. of Rome chief priest and successor to Peter. If he had not thought as he said, would he ever have penned his faith and sent it to him to be allowed, To. 1. 〈◊〉. 42. with these words? Haec est fides beatissime papa quam in ecclesia Catholica didicimus, quamque semper tenuimus & tenemus. In qua si minus perité aut parum cauté aliquid forté positum est▪ emendari a te cupimus qui Petri & fidem & feden tenes &c. This is that faith most blessed pope which I have learned in the catholic church, and which I have ever hitherto maintained and still do. In to the which if any thing by me be either not cunningly, or without due circumspection enfarced or put in, that desire I by you to be corrected, who possess both the faith and seat of Peter. And if this confession of my faith, be by the judgement of your apostleship allowed, who so ever he be that will afterwards carp and reprove the same, prove he may well himself a fool, or malicious, or not catholic, but me an heretic shall he never prove. Hitherto S. Jerome. with whom if one would after this sort expostulate: What mean you S. Hieron to boast so much upon the judgement of one, who as he is a man (although learned yet not the learnedest in the world) so may he both deceive and be deceived. Why say you that who so ever ●●ndeth fault with your faith▪ after Damasus the pope's approbation and allowance thereof, shall never be able to prove you an heretic? May not many heads find out that, wherein one hath failed? Me thinketh I say, to him that should thus question with him, I hear him expounding his own words, and answering for himself in this wise. What art thou man that findest fault with my words, and understandest not my meaning? Am I thinkest thou he, that will pin my faith to any man's back what so ever he be? Do not I know as well as thou, that Damasus is a man, that he may deceive and be deceived? yea truly. But on tother side, as I know all this right well, so am I not ignorant that he that sitteth in Peter's chair, that the B. of Rome in matters of faith can not give wrong judgement. And therefore cease to marvel, if upon the trust of this privilege I challenge all the whole world, and say that of them all, there is no one that can prove me an heretic, whom Damasus being thus qualified hath allowed for a good christian. It is not Damasus (so hath this quality to be the chief governor of Christ's church altered him) that I stay myself upon. It is Peter, it is Christ himself. If upon any other persuasion I had used these words▪ well might I have been said to have abused myself. But that this was even from the beginning my meaning, and not invented sense for my defence: look once again to my words, where I say not simply I desire to be corrected of thee, but of the which holdest Peter's faith and seat, nor yet spoke of the allowing of my faith by Damasus, but apostolatus sui judicio by the judgement of his seat, of his apostleship. Thus much touching S. Hierom. of whose mind if any man yet doubt in this controversy, him shall I pray to take the pains for his better instruction, to read a certain other epistle of his to Damasus, Tom. 2. Epist. 41. and upon these words which he uttered of Peter's chair: Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit prophanus est, who so ever eateth the lamb (he meaneth receiveth the blessed body and blood of Christ) out of this house he is profane, Erasmus judgement against the Protestants. to search for the judgement of Erasmus: where he shall find in express words, that S. Hieromes' opinion was, that all churches should be subject to the church of Rome. S. Austen (as before you hard) called Peter B. of Rome, head of the church: he told Bonifacius his successor that he was placed in Christ's church above the rest of the bishops. And did he not well declare by sending to the same Bonifacius his book written against the two epistles of the Pelagians, to be judged and examined by him, that he took him for no less in deed, than he had pronounced of him in words? For truly S. Austin's learning being such, as in his age there lived not his match: for the perusing of his works both had he had little need o● his help, and if he had had much, there lived yet many to have been consulted thereapon, better learned than he, and more nearer to him toe, than was Rome to the place where he had his abiding: had it not been that persuading himself as did S. Jerome in the like case before, he had made his full and sure account, first that his judgement in that that he was Peter's successor and head of the church, was by the very mouth of Christ himself warranted, in matters of faith never to err, and next that his work being confirmed by authority, such as was his, should so quell and beat down to the ground the heretics his adversaries, as with the world they should neither be able to sustain their credit gotten, nor after that gain new. Theodoritus said of the B. of Rome: Vos enim summosesse convenit. for you must be the chiefest of all other, and of the church itself, that it was the greatest, the noblest of all other, and that which governed all the world. It is evident that he wrote as he thought, when being unjustly deposed he appealed to the B. of Rome, desired his help, and that he would command him to appear before him, there to plead his cause and show his right, as he did in deed and was restored by him. By these authorities it appeareth M. jewel, that the fathers of Christ's church be not so thin sown on our side, as you bear the world in hand they are, seeing that I have here brought you not one alone as you demanded, but many: not their bare words, which (although of themself most plain and manifest) might perhaps have been subject to your wrangling interpretations: but their several acts and deeds (the best expositors of their own minds) confirming most manifestly the same. Will you have now some allowed example of the primitive church to testify the same? What better examples can you have, then that in all controversies arising either between bishop and bishop privately, Examples of the primitive church to prove the B. of Rome his supremacy. or in the whole church publicly sense the beginning, the B. of Rome hath been only he, to whom the parties grieved were they catholics or heretics, good or bad have had recourse for help? What better examples then that amongst so many appeals made unto him, there is not so much as one instance to be given of some one, that lawfully and orderly appealed from him, and whose such appeal took effect? Tripart. hist. lib. 4 cap. 6. Who hath cited to his consistory even from the farthest part of the east church (and as Theodoritus writeth ecclesiasticam secutus regul●● following the rule of the church) offenders and transgressors of the holy canons? The odorit. lib. 2. cap. 4. The B. of Rome. Who is it without whose licence and consent, Triparti. histor. lib 4. cap. 9 the primitive church forbade counsels to be holden or bishops to be condemned? Truly the pope. The whole council of Nice affirming the same, if we will give credit to Athanasius, Epist. ad Felicem. who was present thereat and affirmeth it to be so, although the canon thereof (for of. 70. there agree upon we have only at this day 20.) be perished and not now to be had. Where I can not but note by the way, the circumspect manner of writing used by Athanasius, who saith not that the council of Nice decreed or ordained this, but only that by their judgements they confirmed and renewed the same. His words are these. In Nicena synodo. 318. episcoporum concorditer ab omnibus roboratum▪ it was in the council holden at Nice by full consent of all the bishops in number. 318. roborate or confirmed, non deberi absque R. pontificis sententia celebrari concilia nec Episcopos damnari, that without the authority of the B. of Rome neither councils should be kept nor bishops condemned. So that herebie we may gather that it was before taken for a truth, but then by reason of some busy brains that began to call it in to question, by the judgement of the council confirmed and put out of all doubt. Who but he excommunicated all the churches of Asia and provinces bordering upon it, Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 24. no man finding fault with the doing thereof for lack of jurisdiction (which would no doubt where parts be taken as at that time there were about the keeping of the Easter day, of all other things first have been espied and reprehended if it had been done with out authority) although some complained of over much rigour, He lived in the year of our lord. 193. and would have wished a little more discretion in Victor then pope which did it? But to go forward in th'examples of thancient counsels, Concilium Constan. about the year of our lord 369. ca 5. To whom did the second general council gathered at Constantinople declare that the honour of being chief over all other bishops did appertain? To any other then to the bishop of Rome? In whose place was Cirillus precedent of the third general council holden at Ephesus but in the B. of Rome his? Concil. Ephesinum in the year of our lord. 433. Whom called the fourth general council of Chalcedon, Councilium Calcedon. The year. 453. Act. 8. universae ecclesiae episcopum bishop or overseer of the universal church, but him? Who commanded the body of the same council that they should in no wise suffer Dioscorus the bishop of Alexandria to sit amongst them, Sessione. 1. but the pope by his legates? Why was Lucentius one of the pope's legates forbidden at the same time to accuse Dioscorus, but because the fathers told him that the parsons of the judge and th'accuser must be distinct▪ and that the judge might in no wise take on him the others name or office? And how was Lucentius amongst them a judge? because he represented the pope's parson. And why was the pope his master judge? because he was the chief judge and head in earth of the church. Can you tell any other cause M. jewel? And for this cause Lucentius gave over and Eusebius an other bishop accused him. Finally to make an end with this council of Chalcedon, know ye that after many reasons on both sides and long debating toe and fro in the same touching the B. of Rome his prerogative, the fathers at the length concluded the matter and knit up the knot in this wise. Act. 16. Ex his quae gesta sunt vel ab unoquoque deposita perpendimus, The Conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon touching the Pope's superiority. omnem quidem primatum & honorem praecipi●um secundum canon's, antiquae Romae Deo amantissimo archiepiscopo confirmari. That is to say: By those things which have passed amongst us or have been by every one of us alleged, we perceive according to the canons, all soverentie and chief ●onour to be confirmed, to the well-beloved of god th'archbishop of old Rome. Note here I beseech you good indifferent readers (which a little before I noted to you out of Athanasius alleging for the B▪ of Rome his superiority the first council of Nice) that the council of Chalcedon determined here no new thing of the pope's authority, but confessed themselves by bolting out the truth to have found, that the canons and rules of the church in times past had given him that chief honour above all other, and that therefore they perceived that by them it ought to be confirmed. What can we here think of the council of Chalcedon referring itself to the canons, but that it meant of the council of Constantinople and Nice going before? And of the council of Nice what can we judge, but that their confirmation had relation to the very institution of Christ himself? The fathers assembled in the two counsels of Carthage and Milevite, Concilium Carthag. Milevitanun of whom S. Austen was one, wrote unto Innocentius then pope of Rome to confirm their doings against the two heretics, Apud August. epist. 90. Pelagius and Celestius. The whole council of Carthage writing to the pope, did so they said: ut statutis suae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis adhi●eatur authoritas, to the intent that to their ordinances which were but of mean authority, the weight and majesty of th'apostolical seat might add the more. The fathers in the council Milevitan, of their writing for the confirmation of their decrees alleged this to be the cause, Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in sede apostolica collocavit, August. epistlan. 92. that is, because our lord hath placed you by the gift of his especial grace in the apostolical seat. To the first of these two counsels Innocentius the pope making answer, August. epist. 9●. how doth he praise and extol the fathers, for that that they not leaning to their own judgements, had (observing th' examples of ancient traditions, Not man but god hath reserved to the pope the determi nation of all doubts. and being mindful of the ecclesiastical discipline, not contemning the ordinances of the fathers in times past: who decreed, not by the sentence of man but of god himself, that the determination of all doubts should be reserved to the See of Rome, from whence all other churches should receive the same, none otherwise then as all waters proceed from the head spring) referred the whole process of their doings to his judgement? To the other council he made answer, August. epist. 93. that they had behaved themselves both diligently and decently in regarding th' apostles honour, his honour quoth he I say, who beside the care of external things hath also to provide for all churches, in ask what was to be followed in doubtful matters: wherein he said they had followed the form of the ancient rule. He added also that as often as there was any doubt of matters of faith, his brothers and fellow bishops should refer the same to no other but to Peter, in which doing they should refer them to the giver both of that name and the honour belonging thereto, with many o●her words to this end. And last of all in the same letters he excommunicated both Pelagius and Celestius, commanding that his sentence remained inviolable, that they entered not in to the churches, that they should have no pastoral charge, but yet that if they repented pardon should not be denied them. Here perhaps some one will ask of me, why passing over the notable testimonies touching this matter, of Anacletus, Clemens, Evaristus, Alexander, Xistus, Telesphours of whom the last lived within seven score years after Christ, I rather allege Innocentius, The year or our lord. 470 who although he be also ancient as li●ing well near eleven hundred years ago, and prove right well ●he point for the which he is brought in, might yet either for the one respect or the other, have given place to any of them. To whom I make this answer, that as I have willingly and wittingly suffered myself, to lack such necessary defence for the proof of this controversy, as out of the writings of such grave fathers and holy martyrs, our adversaries themselves (I appeal to their consciences) know right well that we might abundantly and in great store have heaped together, only because the gainesaiers might happily have excepted against them, that not with standing they were martyrs, and in the whole course of their lives very apostles, yet because they were bishops of Rome, they were not in that cause which was their own, indifferent witnesses: so would I also have forborn the alleging of this answer of Innocentius for the same cause: had it not been that S. Austen himself had justified his parson against our adversaries in this behalf. For he writing to one Paulinus a bishop, Epist. 106 after long discoursing with him touching the heretics Pelagius and Celestius, telleth him at the length, how the counsels of Carthage and Milevite had written about them and their heresies to Innocentius the pope, not only the certificate of their doings but also certain familiar letters beside. To all the which saith he, ille no bis rescripsit eode● modo quo fas erat, atque oportebat apostolicae sedis antistitem he answered us by his letters again, even as it was right and as was for the B. of the apostolical See meet. Now I pray you consider here with yourselves good Readers▪ if Innocentius when he wrote to these fathers, to advance himself and his See, had being led thereunto by blind affection, without the warrant of god's word, the usage of the church, the authority of the canons, praised them, that keeping and observing the examples of antiquity and having in remembrance the ecclesiastical discipline, they had referred as they ought their doings to his judgement: if he had beside borne them in hand, that the ancient fathers had decreed, not by man's judgement but by gods him self, that what so ever were to be done were it of those provinces that were near to Rome or far of, it should not be determined before that it were brought to the knowledge of that seat of his: if he had excommunicate Pelagius and Celestius without authority, and finally done and said so many things (as are in his said epistles more at large to be seen) for the prerogative of his church, and all false: how had then S. Austen said truly, that he answered in all points aright, and as the B. of the apostolical seat should? Shall we think that S. Austen was ignorant and so deceived, or that he flattered and so lied? Orcan we justly think that S. Austen if he had not taken him as head of the church, would ever have willed him to have cited Pelagius (being not then in Britain but in the east parts as in the same epistle it appeareth) to co me to Rome? Epist. 95 But thus much be said by the way to that question why I rather use the authority of Innocentius, than any of those other pope's before him. I might here bring forth for examples allowed of the primitive church, seeing hitherto they have been practised and never disallowed, how that Vrsatius and Valens two ringleaders and chief captains amongst the Arrians, at the length being weary of their heresies and heartily sorry therefore, Epiph●. heresi. 68 Athan. ●apolog. 2. Histor. trip lib. 4. cap. 34. of al● the bishops in the world went to no other but to only julius the pope to be absolved, and by him received into the church and admitted to the communion and company of the faithful, as witnesseth Epiphanius and other: how that the same julius restored to their bishoprics being unjustly deprived, Socrates Lib. 2. cap. 15. Athanasius to Alexandria, Paulus to Constantinople, Marcellus to Ancyra, and Asclepas to Gaza, all in the East church, and therefore impossible to have been done had not his authority been universal. I might here put you in remembrance of a number of bishops of Rome, that wrote their letters in to the farthest part of the world, sometimes commanding, other whiles forbidding this or that: of the like that directed their commissions to this bishop and to that, to execute their authority in countries and provinces far from Rome: as namely (to pass over Pius, Victor, Fabianus, and such other) of Leo the first, who in Grece and the country's bordering thereapon appointed the B. of Thessalonia, Epist. 85. 83. 89. in France the B. of Arles, and in Spain Hormisdas an other bishop, to be his vicars and deputes in those parties. Which had been a matter of all other to be laughed at, if they writing such letters, and making such delegations, had had nothing or no more to do there, than other men. But omitting many other both before and sense that have done the like, I shall at this time only allege Gregory, the first of that name, him rather then any of the rest, because in this controversy you bear yourself on his authority so bold. Did not he ordain that Maximianus the B. of Siracusa, Lib. 2. Epist. 4. should in his stead oversee all the churches of Sicily? Did he not write his letters to all the bishops of Numidia commanding them that they should give orders to no Donatists? lib. epist. 1. epist. 75. Did he not direct his letters to Adeodatus the metropolitan of Numidia, to take good heed that none were promoted to holy ordres by money? And will you yet M. jewel hearing this, persist in your lewd opinion, that S. Gregory (than whom amongst all that range of bishops that have either gone before him or followed after, you could never have found one that more maketh in this point for the catholic faith and less for you) should be a patron of your heresy? S. Gregory's place brought by the Protestant's against the Pope's supremacy examined. But because it may the better appear to all men in what distress you are, that be driven to such shameful shifts and extreme refuges for the upholding of your new found religion: I shall here (occasion so aptly offering itself) examine that place of S. Gregory, which you toss so commonly in your mouths, repeat so often in your books, where he sharp lie reprehendeth john the B. of Constantinople, for taking upon him the name of universal bishop, a title altogether (he saith) profane and meet for antichrist, a title which Leo his predecessor having offered unto him by the whole council of Chalcedon refused. Thus hath S. Gregory. To this authority the tr●the itself compelling me, I must needs follow in answering, that excellent clerk and man for his learning not in one thing or two but universally in all, amongst those of the old world worthy to be reckoned, (for for no less do the wise and learned judge him to be how ever some foolish calf have in vain murmured to the contrary:) who being urged as you know by yourself M. jewel with this place, told you that it served nothing to disprove the sovereignty, as in deed it doth not. For if you had read S. Gregory so diligently as reason would you should before you had alleged him so impudently, than had you found that although the B. of Rome had never been called universal bishop, yet had that been no proof that he is not therefore head of the church, them would you not so foolishly have noted upon D. Coles words in the margin of your book, that no B. of Rome before S. Gregory's time would ever be called universal bishop: finally then would you not so ignorantly have confounded together, The word universal B. not taken with S. Gregory to signify the head of the church. Lib. 4. cap. 76. these terms universal bishop and head of the church, as though they had in that place signified all one thing. The which that they do not, no man doth more plainly express then S. Gregory himself, who writeth of S. Peter after this manner. The charge saith he and supremacy of all the whole church was committed to him, and yet was he not called universal apostle. Lo M. I●ell if you had taken the pains to have scanned the place of S. Gregory alleged by you by this and such other, would you ever have brought in to the light this dead mouse, this false argument and untrue consequent: There was never any B. of Rome called, or that would be called by the name of universal bishop, therefore▪ they be not or ought not to be heads of the church. S. Gregory expounded to make nothing for the protestāns by his own words. Seeing that S. Peter as saith S. Gregory had the charge of the whole church although he were never called by the name of universal apostle. If S. Peter might be head of the church, and without any absurdity have the charge thereof as (S. Gregory thought) although he were not called universal apostle, why should you thick it now any more impossible for the pope to be called head of the church, although he be not called universal bishop? And so have you by the way an answer to your wise demand also, that is, if no B. of Rome would ever take upon him to be called th'universal bishop or head of the whole church for the space of six hundred years after Christ, where then was the head of the universal church all that while, or how it could then continue without a head more than now. For we say unto you, that that is most false and untrue which you lay for a grounded truth, that is that no B. of Rome would ever be called by the name of head of the church within the first six hundred years after Christ, as hath been sufficiently proved before, and that also as we have declared, you abuse yourself in the framing of your said question, in taking for all one the head of the church and the universal bishop. And thus have you one cause why this place of S. Gregory maketh nothing against the supremacy of the B. of Rome. And other cause is for that, that john the B. of Constantinople by this name or title of universal bishop, understood himself only to be a bishop and none else. In what sense it is true that no B. of Rome would ever be called universal bishop. Which meaning neither in the first six hundred years nor at any time sense, any B. of Rome that I could yet hear of ever had. And that this is the true meaning of S. Gregory and not forced by me, the very words of the same man written to john archbishop of Constantinople do well witness with me. Qui enim indignum te esse fatebaris, lib. epist. 4. Epist. 4. ut episcopus dici debuisses, ad hoc quandoque perductus● es▪ ut despectis fratribus episcopus appetas solus vocari, that is to say: for thou (john B. of Constantinople) which once grauntedst thyself to be unworthy the name of a bishop, art now at the length come to that pass, that thou labourest to be called a bishop alone. And a little after. Thou goest about (saith he) to take away that honour from all other, which by singularity thou desirest unlawfully to usurp to thyself. Thus may you see M. jewel how this place being by th'author himself expounded, fardereth you nothing at all, and also by such authorities and reasons as have for our par●e been before alleged, understand, how unadvisedly it was said of you, that the catholics as sure as god is god, if they would have vouchsafed to follow either the scriptures, In the. 2. answer to D. Coles. 2. letttres. either the ancient Doctors and counsels, would never have restored again the supremacy of the B. of Rome after it was once abolished. Do you not hereby give occasion to men to think that your lack of faith and mistrust in god's omnipotency in other things, groweth even thereof that you think god is not god? For touching the supremacy, having in the scriptures nothing, in the counsels as little, in the father's writings only these few words, that might see me to impugn the same and yet do not: how will you be able to discharge so many authorities of the fathers, such consent of counsels, such conformity of examples and force of reasons, as have been and may be brought against you? how will you satisfy your own conscience which telleth you, that so many ceremonies, so many ordinances, so many decrees of bishops of Rome, as Thomas Beacon otherwise called Theodore Basile, or by what name so ever he be else termed hath heaped together, The antiquity of holy water. delivered by them to the world, some of them, as amongst a number that which of all other you make lest account of, holy water, within little more than a hundred years after Christ, and the most part in the pure state of the primitive church, would never have been by such common and general consent without contradiction of any, received by the whole world, used and frequented in all the churches scattered and dispersed through out the same, unless the authors thereof had had universal authority to establish that which hath been universally received. Thus having hitherto touching the supremacy said so much as may presently serve for your challenge, leaving the rest for a whole book either by me when god shall send better leisure, or some other better able when he shall think best, to be thereof made: I shall now pass to the next article in question. THAT THE PEOPLE WAS TAUGHT WITHIN THE FIRST SIX HUNDRED YEARS AFTER CHRIST, TO BELIEVE that in the Sacrament of the altar (for so doth S. Austen term it) is contained Christ's body, Lib. 10. de ciuitat● dei cap. 6. really, substantially, corporally and carnally. TErtullian an ancient writer of Christ's church, Lib. de prescript. ad ●ersus. haer reporteth of heresy that the nature thereof is, either when it is pressed with the authority of scripture to deny it platlie to be scripture, or if she receive it with additions and detractions to the framing of her purpose to pervert it, or finally with false gloss and untrue expositions in such sort to water it, that it may seem to have a far other sense, than had ever the holy ghost the author thereof. This lesson and manner of old heretics was never I trow more diligently put in execution or earnestly practised, them in this our most miserable and wretched time, nor in any controversy more perspicuous and easy even at the eye to be perceived, then in this of the most blessed sacrament of Christ's own body and blood. For when our adversaries demand of us scripture for the confirmation of our part, and we bring them the words, not of Peter, not of Paul, not of any of tother apostles, but of Christ himself that saith: This is my body, and not contented there with (lest some man might otherwise construe his words because he had at other times spoken by figures) addeth, the self same which shallbe betrayed for you: (than which words if all the world would lay their heads together, to devise how he might have spoken more plainly, they shall never find the way): they bring us a gloze clean contrary to the text, that it signifieth his body, that it is a figure thereof. But what? seeing (as S. Ambrose saith) our lord jesus witnesseth unto us that we truly receive his body and blood, Lib. 4. de Sacrament. Cap. 5. shall we doubt of his credit and witness? Nay we have other council and better by Cirillus, Super illud Lucae. Hoc est corpus. who biddeth us not to doubt whether this be true or no, but to embrace in faith the words of our Saviour, who for as much as he is the truth itself, we may well be sure can not lie. Thus may you see good Readers what it is to deal with heretics, whose property is always to cry for scripture, and in whose mouth there is nothing so common as verbum domini verbum domini, the word of the lord the word of the lord, and yet when all is done and their request satisfied, that is scripture brought to them, they are not ashamed (such is their impudency) either to say that it is at all no scripture, or that it maketh nothing against them, or to call that evident for them that in the judgement of as many as either are wise or learned, is most evident against them. And of this disease if you had not M. jewel been dangerously sick, you would never have put me or any man else to the pain, to labour any farther in the bolting out of that truth wherein Christ hath so plainly opened himself, as neither hath he need by any other to be expounded, nor easily can any such I trow be found, as shallbe able more plainly to express the same, then hath Christ himself our master already doen. Notwithstanding because both you and your companions like cavilling Capernaites, stand upon Christ's meaning, which as you say was not all one with his words, and also on this that we have no old writers to maintain as it pleaseth you to term it, our new doctrine of Christ's real presence in the sacrament: I shall assay to make you understand, at the least those good people whom you have so far abused, that we have a greate sort more that say with us, that Christ's blessed body after the words of consecration duly by the priest pronounced, is really, substantially, and corporally, the same that was borne of the virgin Marie, the same that he walked in here in earth, the same that as himself witnesseth was delivered for us to be crucified on the cross, present in the sacrament, than ever you or the best that taketh your part, shall in sustaining the contrary, be able of them all to give a right answer to any one. And here I shall first allege that ancient writer Tertullian, Tertullian in the year of our lord. 200, in whom (writing above thirteen hundred years sense) I find to this purpose these words. Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur ut & anima de Deo saginetur: Lib. de Resur. carnis. non possunt ergo separ ari in mercede quas opera coniungit. that is to say. Our flesh feedeth on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul also may be made fat by feeding on god: they can not therefore be separated in reward, which have been joined and coupled together in working. Note here I beseech you good readers against our adversaries, that would shift of this place with their old accustomed answer, that the bread is called his body for that it signifieth and representeth no less unto us, those words of Tertullian where he saith, that the body and the soul can not be severed in receiving their reward, whom one office o● ministery joineth together. If the body fede upon bare bread as our adversaries affirm, and not upon Christ's blessed body and blood as Tertullian saith, how then can they be said to concur in one ministery, where as either of them feedeth diversly on diverse things? Or will you say M. jewel that flesh can feed upon signs or figures? Truly whether it can or no I durst refer the resolution hereof to yourself, if being shut up without meat or drink two or three days in some close room, it might be my chance to come to your speech at the last. I think you would beshrew him that would reak you such an argument: Yowe have thought earnestly upon meat all this while therefore you have eaten your fill. And would con him but little more thank, that would paint on the walls of your chamber the sign of a fat capon, and bid you eat and spare not. But was Tertullian think we of this mind alone? No truly. For besides him we have to confirm the faith of the church in this point all the ancient writers, as many as by occasion make any mention of this most blessed Sacrament. Cyprian▪ The year. 349. Amongst whom I ●hall next allege S. Cyprian that holy and blessed martyr. Who in his work De duplici martyrio touching this matter hath these words. Reliquit nobis edendam carnem suam, Reliquit bi●●ndū sanguinem, ut per eadem al●remur per quae sumus redempti. Christ hath left us his flesh to eat▪ and his blood to drink to the intent we might be nourished by the same things, by the which we were redeemed. Truly if we be nourished by the same things by the which we have been redeemed, then are we not nourished we may be bold to say, with a sign or figure of his body, which only and nothing else these new found upstarts would make us believe to be in this Sacrament. The same holy martyr in an other place hath to the same purpose these words. Sermon. de 〈◊〉 d●̄i. The bread which our lord delivered to his disciples, being changed not in form or shape but in nature, by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh. This place of S. Cyprian serveth me to double use. For both it manifestle proveth the real presence, and (which you also deny and call a new invention, Transubstantiation v●knowen to thancient fathers, and first hard of in the council holden at La●er 〈◊〉 under Innocentius the third) the transubstantiation of the bread into Christ's natural flesh. Your common answer, that the base creatures of bread and wine be after the consecration changed and transmuted from common bread to be a Sacrament, to be a sign, a remembrance, a signification of Christ's body and blood, yea to be in the stead of his body itself, whereas before the consecration it was no such thing, can serve you no longer. For all this induceth no change in the nature or substance of the bread, no more than if a cartar to day should be turned into a king to morrow, or placed in his seat of majesty to represent his parson, he could be said to be changed in nature. Athanasius writing of the miracle that happened about a certain image of our saviour, Ath●nas. the year 379. Lib. de passione imagi●is Christi Cap. vl●. whom certain jews (M. jewel) in a town named Berytus in Syria nailed unto a cross, and so long continued their malice in persecuting the same after the manner of their father's cruelty towards Christ himself, or ourefalse Christians behaviour towards his said image in these our days, that water at the length and blood issued in great quantity out of the side thereof, hath these words. Nec esse ●liter aestimandum est à veré catholicis praeterid quod à nobis scribitur, quasi ex carne & sang●ine Christi aliquid possit in mundo inu●niri▪ nisi●illud quod in ara per manus sacerdotum quo●idie spiritualiter efficitur. That is. Neither is it by true catholics otherwise to be thought then we have already written. As though there might be found any part in the whole world of Christ's ●●eshe and blood, saving that which 〈◊〉 on the altar by the hands of the priests daily spiritually made. Thus much touching this matter hath Athanasius. But this authority I know you will assay to avoid, by cavilling upon the word, spiritually made. In which sense you will say, you deny not but that Christ's flesh and blood, although not on the altar is yet nevertheless present on your communion table. But against this sorry shift we reply, that Athanasius said not in this place that Christ's flesh and blood was spiritually on the altar (which if he had so long as he excluded not the corporal presence also, had made nothing against us: for we both know and grant, that after both those manners his blessed body is there) but that by the priest the same was spiritually made, as though by the adjection of this word (spiritually) he would take away all occasion of offence▪ from such either weak or forward consciences, as happily might imagine some other kind of making Christ's flesh and blood then by the omnipotent power of gods most holy spirit. And that this was the meaning of Athanasius and no other, it shall most manifestly upon the knowledge of the cause for which he spoke these words appear. It is apparent by the place that he was of this mind, whereas the bishop of Berytus caused diverse vessels of glass to be made, and part of this blood that issued out of the image to be put in the same, and to be distributed in to diverse parts of the world, that all men might understand the marvelous working of almighty god: that that blood which was showed in many places in his time, and said to be of Christ's, was part of this whereof he wrote. For truly quoth he, saving on the altar, there is no where else in the world any other part of Christ's flesh and blood. Now I pray you good Readers judge in differently, if Christ's true flesh and true blood had not been in the sacrament, but a sign or a representation thereof only, is it likely that Athanasius would have made an exception of that which was not at all? that he would have written so foolishly, as no noddy would have spoken? Every exception must be of some thing contained under the rule, both law and reason say from the which the exception is made. And therefore if one would say there is no man that runneth saving such a horse, he that should so say would be counted but an ass. We may therefore boldly conclude that this ancient father and learned doctor, both spoke and meant of Christ's body truly, naturally, and corporally present in the sacrament: seeing that otherwise to have made in that place any mention thereof, had not only been impertinent and nothing to the purpose, but fond also and a thing most ridiculous. Eusebius Emissen. of this matter in a certain homely of his hath these words, Homil. 5. de Pasch●●. Sicut autem quicunque, qui ad fidem veniens ante verba baptismi adhuc in vinculo est veteris debiti, his verò commemoratis mox exuitur omni faece peccati: ita quando benedicendae verbis coelestibus creaturae sacris altaribus ●●p●nūtur, antequâm invo ea●ione summi nominis consecrentur▪ substan●i● illic est panis & vi●i, post verba autem Christi, corpus & sanguis Christi est. Quid mirum autem est, si ea quae verbo cre● r● potuit, possit cr●at● convertere? The which words in our tongue sound thus much. Even as he that coming to our faith what so ever he b●, before the words of baptesme pronounced is y●t still in the danger of the band of his old deboe, and the same being once rehearsed is now quit thereof and free from all spot of sin: so when the creatures are laid on the holy altars to be blessed with the heavenly words, before they be by the calling on the name of the highest consecrated, there is the substance of bread and wine. But after the words of Christ pronounced, there is his body and blood. Terribilis est locus iste M. jewel, This is a terrible place and able alone to break the backs and stop the mouths, of all that brutish brood crept in to the world from the filthy neaste of Luther or Calvin his wings. This one ancient father were able if we had no other, to discredit you before all the world, which have so impudently avouched that we have not all amongst us so much as one ancient writer, to affirm no not colourably, the doctrine of the catholic church concerning transubstantiation. Transubstantiatio Doth not Eusebius in this place so affirm it truly without all manner of colour, that even the taking away of our sins by baptesme, is by him compared with the departure of the substance of bread and wine in the sacrament? If therefore there remain after the words of consecration any substance of bread and wine, say also that after baptesme our old sins remain still. For so reasoneth here Eusebius, that the one is as true as the other, otherwise his similitude should halt and be of no force. And if you yet make strange to grant thereto, To allege the onnipotency of god what had it needed, if there had been no other change in the bread and wine than the Protestants say there is? do not his words that follow manifestly convince this to be his meaning, where he asketh this question: what marvel is it if he that could create all things with his word, be able to turn and convert one thing in to an other? But of that great number of testimonies which might be here for the confirmation of this truth brought out of Eusebius, this one for this time may suffice. The next authority that I will here allege, shallbe taken out of that valiant champion of Christ's church and holy bishop of Milan S. Ambrose. Who is in this matter for us so plain, both in the controversy of the presence, Ambrose The year of our lord. 380 and also of that other of transubstantiation, as he that favoureth those opinions most can not whatso ever he be, to that effect express his mind more fully. His words I will here truly rehearse (as they are in his works to be found) word for word in english. This bread (saith h●) is bread before the words of consecration, Lib. 4. de Sacrament cap. 4. after the which of bread is made the flesh of Christ. Let us therefore prove that which we say. How can bread be made the body of Christ? Note that of bread the flesh of Christ is made. By consecration. But this consecration with what words, or with whose is it done? By the words of our lord jesus. For through all the rest which are spoken, thanks are offered unto god, prayers are made for the rulers, for the people and for other things. But when the priest is come to the consecration, now useth he no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. It is therefore Christ's word that maketh this sacrament. What word of Christ? Truly that, whereby all things were made, that whereby our lord commanded and heaven was framed, that whereby the sea and land was created and every other creature formed. Seest thou therefore of what power Christ's word is? If it be of such force that of nothing it is able to make some thing, how much more is it able to turn those things which were before made, in to some other thing? Thus far S. Ambrose. The same S. Ambrose in an other place hath these words. Thou wilt perhaps say I see an other thing, how do you tell me that I take the body of Christ? De ijs qui init. myster. cap. 9 And this remaineth yet for me to prove. How many examples use we therefore to persuade, that it is not that which nature hath formed but that which blessing hath consecrated? and that the force of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing even nature it self is changed. Moses held in his hand the rod, he cast it from him and it became a serpent, again he took it by the tail and it returned to the nature of a rod. And after this example with many other to this end by him out of the holy scriptures alleged, he concludeth in this sort. If man's blessing were of such force that it was able to convert nature, what siae we to that divine consecration, where the very words of our saviour do work? This thought S▪ Ambrose a proof strong enough to convince the truth of this sacrament. And although the substance of the rod being turned in to the substance of the serpent, lost also there with all his first outward nature, the accidents I mean, which in this miraculous change in the sacrament is otherwise, where they remain for our infirmities sake safe and sound: yet was this in his judgement no let why he might not well reason after this sort: Moses gods servant was able to turn a rod in to a serpent. Therefore god his master is able to turn bread in to his flesh. Neither thought he it any juggling because to sight bread and wine remained still, as that blasphemous tongue which of late hath taken upon him to be your champion M. jewel, against a certain treatise by a notable learned man made in the defence of the catholic faith, in certain points by you not so much by learning impugned, as by malice maligned, hath termed it: but the miraculous working of god above nature. And yet this good man forsooth, may not abide in any wise to be noted one, that should put any manner of mistrust in the omnipotency of god, but that he granteth as freely as we do with Abraham, Isaac and jacob, that god is able to perform what so ever he doth promise, that no word is impossible to him, that he hath done what so ever his will was to do. And therefore he saith that they that so report of him and his companions, th●ie must needs do● it either of hateful blinden●s orignorant malice. Truly good readers this man seemeth to me, to be like a makeshifte, that falling into a company of others making merry, braggeth and boast●th of his purse wherein is never a cross, that he hath to spend as largely as the best, and will bear his part as fran●k●lie as the proudest what so ever he be, and yet for all his high looks and great brags made before, when it cometh to the gathering of the shot he slippeth fair and well away, and leaveth the honest company to pay for all. Even so I pray you marske, when it cometh to the reckoning of this heavenly banquet, where is prepared for us the most precious body and blood of our saviour Christ, where is required of us for the shot that faith as saith holy S. Basile that Christ's words (This is my body) teach us: In responad quaest. 172. let us I say mark how well for all his brags he payeth his part. Forso theyowe shall see. If Christ had made his body in the sacrament to appear like a body, A Protestants faith. and his blood to taste and show like blood, if he might have seen it with his eyes, as the people of Israel saw the rod, as th●ie tasted of the water: if Christ had ever done any such miracle before as this is, that is to say if he had turned the substance of one thing in to an other, and left still unchanged the qualities of th'other thing that it was before, that it might not have seemed a juggling, if finally he had had any necessity to constrain him to work any such change, than he would have believed as we do notwithstanding all the appearance of impossibility to the contrary. These be the conditions requisite to the faith of this protestant. But here it is a world to see, while he would seem humbly to grant the omnipotency of god, and to deliver himself and his companions, from that note of infamy, whereinto by long struggling against the same they are run with all men, while he patcheth and cobbleth with his rotten lingells a number of clouted ifs, and is like the false tinker that mendeth one hole and maketh two new, or crafty Couper that to fasten one whoop looseth three: he tumbleth headlong in to a great heap of absurdities, whereof every one is as great as that which he thought to have avoided, and wherein yet he sticketh not withstanding. For if thou belevedest man (as though vainly braggest that thou dost) that god were omnipotent, wouldst thou so limit and restrain his power, that he should not change the nature and substance of a thing, unless he change the accidents thereof withal? Wilt thou first see blood and taste it as did the children of Israel the water, and then after believe? O notable faith to becompared with the grey ne of a mustered seed, whose guides the eyes and other fallible senses be. Quid memorabile facis si videas & credas? what great act dost thou to believe after though hast seen I may say to you, Lib. 1. as Theophilus the B. of Alexandria said unto one Autolicus to whom he wrote. 〈◊〉. 15. Thus said the jews of Christ our saviour hanging upon the Crosse. Descendat nunc de cruce ut videamus & credamus. Let him come down now from the cross that we may see and then believe. And except you may see flesh and blood, is it juggling? what you mean herebie I know not, of this sure I am, that great blasphemy it is so to term th● miraculous wor●king of almighty god, besides the horrible presumption to appoint god in what sort he shall do his miracles, and last of all extreme folly to say that he rather juggleth, that turning the substance of one thing in to another leaveth yet unchanged the old for me (which no juggler is able to do) than he that altereth the form although he can not the substance, which daily experience telleth us that every juggler to our sight doth. So that almighty god's working is most unlike to jugglers juggling, and rather might you have said, that Moses wand was aiuggling stick for that that commonly jugglers seem to do as Moses did, then that in this high mystery consisting all in faith, any such false dealing should take place. You that call this juggling, so far unlike thereto, if Christ I fear me had turned in this sacrament in deed the accidents and outward form, which every juggler promiseth and seemeth to do in his tricks: your false faith is such, that you would not have let to have called that plain juggling, besides other pretty terms that you keep in store. But leaving you to your tricks of liegier de main, wherein considering your excellency we will in no wise contend with you, but wishing you yet like a friend to make some more store thereof, and quietly hereafter to keep them in your jugglers box till you meet with such company as whose eyes you may be able easilier to dim: tell me I pray you familiarly, whether for all your great brags, you mistrusted not the omnipotency of god, when you made this weak reason that it was not his will to have his body present in the sacrament, because in all the scripture beside you read of no such miracle, that one thing was changed into an other retaining still the qualities of the first. Is not trow you god in good credit with you, of whose miracles you believe no one till he have done two? what needed you to have asked this question, where he did the like before had you not doubted of his ability? Is this Abraham's faith, is this Isaac his, is this David his that yoweboast yourself to have? what scripture have you where any of them did this? Did our blessed lady when she had received that strange message that she being a most pure and immaculate virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, desire first to see it done in an other? And yet amongst all the miracles that ever were done before or sense, was there ever any so strange? Ar they now blind or malicious that charge you with mistrust in god's power? Have they not right good cause to say that you see no farther than Ishmael and Agar, that confess yourself not to believe this miracle because Christ never did the like before? Your last reason is of all other most unreasonable, and maketh me to think that sense the time that I last spoke with you, there is some mischance happened unto you, that hath sore bruised your head and let our your wit. For who I pray you hath made you at any time a counselor to god, that so presumptuously you dare affirm that there was no necessity, Esaiae. 40 Rom. 11. why Christ should work such a miracle, as to give us his body really and carnally in a sacrament to be eaten? Is this all the than●kes that you give him for so great a benefit and precious a jewel, that he might have chosen being at liberty not constrained by necessity, whether he would have done it or no? Truly these reasons so 〈◊〉 and weak have betrayed you, and given us to understand, that the chief stay why you believe not this truth, is even that which you would so gladly keep from our knowledge, that is to wit, lack and defect of power, which you persuade yourself to be in god to the performance of so great a miracle. And even as the heretics Basilides, Cerdo, and Martion, because they could not attain to the understanding how a virgin might bring forth, took the occasion of their heresies, to say that Christ took no flesh of the virgin Marie, and therefore suffered not in a true but in a fantastical body: so fareth it with you and your company, who because you can not see how Christ's body may be in the sacrament really present, and in many places at once, fall flat to the denial thereof, and bring it to a simple figure, or fantastical understanding. Now let us return again to S. Ambrose, from whom your peevish proctor (M. jewel) hath made me somewhat to stray. The same holy bishop hath touching this matter in an other place these words. De Sacr●mentis. Lib. 6. Cap. 1. Sicut verus est dei filius D. noster jesus Christus, non quemadmodum homines per gratiam, sed quasi filius ex substa●●ia patris: ita vera caro sicut ipse dixit quam accipimus & verus est potus etc. Even as our lord jesus Christ is the true son of god and not as men are by grace, Christ●s true flesh in the Sacrament but as his son of the substance of his father: so is it true flesh and true drink which we receive as he himself hath witnessed. But thou wilt peradventure object (as even Christ's own disciples did, at that time when they hard their master say: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man etc.) how is it true flesh? I which see the similitude of blood see not true blood in deed. 〈◊〉. 6. First of all I told the of Christ's word, which is in operation so mighty that it can change and alter, yea the common and accustomed ordinances of nature. afterward when the disciples could not abide this communication of their masters they departed. But only Peter said, Thou hast the words of life everlasting. Lest therefore more might say thus, as though there should be a certain horror and fearfulness of blood, Why in the Sacrament the accidents be not changed. but yet the grace of redemption should remain, therefore truly thou receivest this sacrament in a similitude or likeness, but so that thou receivest also the grace and force of his true nature. Hitherto S. Ambrose: in whose words two things there are especially to be noted, first that of the true presence of Christ's body in the sacrament he took him self to be so sure, that even as certain a truth as it is that Christ was the true son of god, not by grace only or adoption: so certainly and truly he took his body to be present in the sacrament, not by grace or spiritually alone but truly and really. The second point that is diligently to be observed is, why Christ contrary to his accustomed manner of working in his miracles, changeth not here in this sacrament the outward shape and form, but only the inward nature and substance, which is as this holy doctor saith, for our infirmities sake, to avoid that horror and fear which if we should receive them in their own likeness, and not under the for me of things wherewith we are better acquainted: we were of all likelihood sure to fall into. I can not here pass over in silence that notable and evident testimony of this worthy bishop and learned father, Lib. 4. de Sacra●. Cap. 5. uttered to this purpose by him in an other place in these words. Antequâm consecretur panis est, ubi autem verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi. Ante verba Christi calix est vini et aquae plaenus: ubi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficitur qui plaebē redemit. that is to say, before that it be consecrated it is bread, but when the words of christ are come unto it, it is Christ's body. Before the words of Christ there is a cup filled with wine and water, as soon as Christ's words have wrought their effect, there is made that blood which redeemed the people. If these authorities alleged out of S. Ambrose be not able to stop the mouths of our adversaries, if they will yet needs press us with their faithless howes and whies, and will deal with almighty god so straightly that they will grant him to be able to do no more, than their simple wits can attain to the manner of the doing whereof: I shall yet most humbly desire them to bear with me, if I allege once again the same excellent and learned bishop (S. Ambrose I mean) most plainly refelling all such faitheles Caparnaites, as leaning more to frail reason then firm faith, have their doubtful minds ever weltering and tottering in the truth of this sacrament. His words are these. De his qui initiantur myst● r●js. Cap. ulli. Nunquid naturae usus praecessit quum jesus dominus ex Maria nasceretur? Si ordinem quaerimus, viro mixta foemina generare consueverat. Liquet igitur quôd praeter naturae ordinem virgo gener avit, & hoc quod conficimus corpus ex virgine est. Quid hic quaeris naturae ordinem in Christi corpore, cum praeter naturam sit ipse D. jesus partus ex virigine? That is, when our lord jesus was borne of the virgin Marie, was nature's usage practised? If we seek after her order, women have first the company of men, and then so conceive and bring forth after. It is manifest therefore that the virgin brought forth besides the course of nature: The body consecrate by the priest the same that was borne of the virgin and this body which we do consecrate is the same that was borne of the virgin. Why demandest thou here (in the sacrament) the order of nature to be kept in Christ's body, where as besides nature our lord jesus himself was borne of the virgin? Hitherto have you hard of what mind holy S. Ambrose was, touching the controversy moved in these our infortunate days, Lib. 6. de Sacram Cap. 1. Christ's true flesh in the Sacrament even as Christ was the true son of his father. about the most blessed sacrament of Christ's body and blood. In whom I have tarried somewhat the longer, for that that both he proveth most manifestly the presence (when he affirmeth that Chrstes flesh in the sacrament is so verily his true flesh, as Christ was the true son of his father, and excludeth all figures, all signs, all representation, when Christ was in none of these senses his father's son) and also the change and alteration of the bread and wine in to the true substance of Christ's flesh and blood, It had been in vain to have brought examples of thingest urned in substance, to prove the same in the sacrament if there had been no such change there. by alleging th'examples (which had otherwise been in vain) of Moses rod turned in to a serpent, the iron floating above the water, the bitterness of the waters of Marath turned into sweetness and such like, with answer to such carnal objections as are wont to be commonly made against this truth: and last of all for that of all other he giveth most plainly unto us the cause, why in this great miracle our lord god changeth not the accidents but only the substance. By all which things he giveth us most manifestly to understand, that he meant no less than he spoke. For otherwise if Christ's body had not been truly there but a sign thereof, not in verity but in imagination, all his proofs to prove the same had been needles, whereas he might and for his great wisdom and learning no doubt would, to all such as either had doubted of the presence or transubstantiation with much more facility have answered with our adversaries, that there was no change at all in nature or substance, nor no presence there of Christ's true body: then to have heaped together a number of examples whereof every one contained a true change in nature, to have proved that which was not: or to have alleged the miraculous conception of Christ, or to give any cause why his body appeareth not like a body, whereby to bring the simple people in to a pernicious and damnable error. But forasmuch as his great travails taken in the defence of Christ's church against the wicked Arrians, do well witness to his posterity how far he was from all such impiety, we must needs conclude that S. Ambrose did not only so write but also believe, that in the blessed sacrament after the words of consecration, is the very true and natural body of our lord jesus Christ, the substance of bread and wine passing into the substance of his flesh and his blood. From S. Ambrose let us go one step farther to S. Austen. Augustinan. 400. He in a certain place examining these words of the Prophet, A dor ate scabellum pedum eius: worship ye his footstool psalm. 98. hath these words. Suscepit enim de terra terram, in psal. 98 quia caro de terra est & de carne Mariae carnem accepit. Et quia in ips● carne hi● ambulavit, & ipsam carnem ad manducandum ad salutem dedit, nemo autem illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit, inventum est quemadmodum ado retur tale scabellum, & non solum non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando. That is to say: for he took earth of earth because flesh cometh of earth, and of Mary's flesh he took flesh. And forasmuch as he walked here in that flesh, and hath given to us the same flesh to be eaten to our salvation, and no man eateth it but he first worshippeth it: the means is found how such a footstool of our lords may be worshipped, and we not only not sin in worshipping it, but sin in not worshipping it. Hear you M. jewel S. Austen telling you that Christ's flesh is here given to us to be eaten, A sin not to worship Christ's body in the Sacrament. the same that he took of the virgin Marie, the same that he carried about with him in this world? Hear you not yourself vanquished which take from it all manner of worship in the sacrament, Adoratio. and violently wrest these words of S. Austen to Christ's body in heaven? which interpretation how far it goeth from the mind of the author to omit all other proofs, your own self have well declared, when you grant that there he must be worshipped where he is eaten, which seeing it is here in earth, what moved you to conclude that therefore he must be worshipped in heaven, truly I know not, but sure I am that the argument holdeth à loco topico: Baculus stat in angulo Ergo Christus non est in coelo. I am loath here to press you with farther authorities in this point, both because I would not gladly stray from that which I have in hand, and also lest thereby you might falsely think that you had truly answered the place already alleged. And therefore I forbear to lay to your charge Chrisostomus, who exhorteth in a certcine place of his works all Christian men, Homi●. 24 in 1. Cor. 10. Christ to be worshipped on the altar. to imitate and follow those barbarous men who worshipped Christ lienge in the manger, in worshipping the same on the altar: who telleth you and us all twice in one sentence, that Christ's blessed body being in heaven is showed unto us here in earth, Ibidem. and that it is Summo honore dignum, worthy the chiefest honour. But although of gentleness I release you of the pains in answering to these places of S. chrysostom, yet all the world looketh for thus much at your hands, that you should give some reason (for as much as you so understand the place of S. Austen) why Christ's body may not aswell be worshipped on the altar as it should in heaven. If you say because there it hath annexed to it the divinity, do we separate them on the altar? How Chr●ste● b●die is worshipped in the Sacrament Or do we direct our worship to it for any other cause then for that it hath the deity inseparably united thereunto? wherefore of fine force you must confess, that seeing S. Austen hath granted that Christ's body is received of us here in earth, and you can give no reason why it should be rather honoured in one place then in an other, that he meant as he spoke, of honour to be to be done thereto, then and there as it is received, which is not in heaven but in earth. And truly if there were no authority therefore, very reason doth convince the same. For who is there so foolish or rather stark mad, that if his prince should do to him being a poor man that honour, that he would vouchesaufe to visit him in his poor cottage, like a rude beast without cap or knee would stand staring in his face, and say that when he meeteth him in his court, or findeth him in his throne (as though there unto were tied all his princely power, and that he carried not the same with him whither so ever he went) than he will not fail to do his duty to the uttermost. Who would not detest such a lourdaine, that whereas for such exceeding great kindness of his lord and king he ought the more to have honoured him, he abuseth now the same as a cause to take all honour from him? But let us return to S. Austen, and of many testimonies that he hath concerning the truth of this controversy, Psalm. 33. allege only one other. which is there where he expoundeth these words of the psalm. Et ferebatur in manibus suis: and he was carried in his own hands. His words are these. Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait, Hoc est corpus meum. Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis. The words (saith he) of the prophet are found to be true, not in David (for how he or any other could carry himself according to the letter in his own hands we find not) but in Christ: for he was carried in his own hands when commending his body (to his disciples) he said. This is my body. For he carried that body in his hands. If the devils ministers will here go about to persuade you good readers, that S. Austen meant not that Christ carried in his hands his true body, but a figure thereof: tell them that S. Austen excludeth all figurative speech in that that he hath, how Christ carried himself according to the letter, and that if he had meant as they say he did, it had been no great hard thing for either David or any other, to carry in his hands the figure of himself. If they yet press you with that that S. Austen useth the word quodammodo after a certain manner: tell them that he meant not thereby to infirm the truth which before he had so manifestly confirmed, but to teach the manner to be miraculous and above the reach of reason, and withal to withdraw us from such fond fantasies, as discussing this mystery by the manner of reasoning in other things, we might perhaps have fallen in to. I would here make an end of alleging any more authorities for the confirmation of this article, were it not that happily some man might think that I contemned that notable pillar of Christ's church in Grece chrysostom, if out of him having for this controversy so many testimonies, as in no one there can, either more in number or stronger in proof be found: I should not also bring to light one at the least or two. He therefore when he compared together the departure out of this world of our saviour and Helias, Chrisostomus. and noted therein this difference, that the one, Helias, left behind him to his disciple his cloak stripping himself thereof, Ad populum Antiochen. homil. 2. but Christ the other, left with us both his cloak (for so calleth he there his flesh) shifting himself thereof, Christ's cloak his flesh. and yet ascended into heaven and carried the same with him also: witnessed not he manifestly his faith in this controversy? If Christ left not his flesh here behind him, how could he then have said that in that point he was like to Helias? if you say that he left a figure of his flesh, or a representation thereof only, how is it then true that he left the same behind him that he carried with him, seeing that the scriptures teach us that the flesh wherein he ascended, was no such as Martion said suffered on the cross, and as you affirm to be in the sacrament, but real, natural, and true flesh? when he complained of the outrage done at Constantinople by the means of Th●ophilus B. of Alexandria, Epist. 1. ad Innocentium papam. where he said the soldiers rifled the holy places of the church, Nicephor. lib. 13. cap. 19 and that the most holy blood of Christ was shed and spilled on their garments, did not he plainly witness with us against you? Hitherto you have hard master jewel for one, seven ancient doctors of the primitive church, all within four of the first six hundred years that you demanded. But all this not withstanding you will yet perhaps stand still upon your negative and bear the world in hand, that although I have by diverse authorities alleged, Tertullian. sufficiently proved that Christ's body is present in the sacrament, forasmuch as the ancient fathers have, one that flesh feedeth in the sacrament on his body and blood, an other that we eat the same flesh, and drink the same blood by the which we were redeemed, Oyprianus. that the bread in the sacrament is turned not in form or shape but in nature, Athanas. that by a spiritual means the same flesh and blood is daily made by the hands of the priest upon the altar, that before the consecration there is bread and wine, Eusebius● Ambrosi. that after there is the body and blood of Christ, with such like: that yet I say for all this I have proved no thing, because forsooth I have not vouched your terms, Really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally. If you flee to this bare and miserable shift, then shall you do all men to understand that you are driven to an Exigent, when to defend your devilish doctrine you are feign to cavil upon words and terms, which also you shall but wrangle about in vain, the thing itself being most evidently proved, which those terms and words could do no more than signify. Besides that, you shall well show yourselves to be mu●h either more foolish or malicious, then were those faithless Capernaites. Of whom there was yet no one amongst them all, so void of wit or freight with malice, who hearing our saviour commend to them the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, believed not straight ways thoroughly, that he meant as he said, of his true and natural flesh and blood, all were it so that he never mentioned your terms, Really, naturally, substantially corporally, or carnally. And truly to say the truth, I see no cause why you might not also if you listed, renew Martion his heresy again, and say with him that Christ suffered not in a true but in a fantastical body, if such pleas on your part may be allowed, that except certain terms such as you list to demand can be found, otherwise let the truth be uttered in words never so apt or proper, you will never grant thereto. For the Evangelists (I pray you M. jewel) which of them ever told us in describing Christ's death and passion, that his body was nailed on the cross, Really, substantially, with the rest of your terms? And will you therefore with Martion deny that he suffered in a true body, unless we can find to you such terms as you demand? Or if you say that in this article of our faith you make no such demand, but that you hold yourselves fully contented with such words as you find uttered in the scriptures for the expressing thereof: Why then believe you not as well the verity of this article, being by Christ's own mouth first, by the voice of his church sense in all ages confirmed, as you do the Evangelists touching the suffering of his blessed body? Or why might not Martion denying Christ's body on the cross then, have bidden Tertullian and other that strove against him, prove it by these terms Really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally, aswell as you denying it now on the altar, drive us to the proving the presence thereof there by the same? Especially the words uttered by the Evangelists to ascertain us of the true suffering of Christ's body on the cross, being no more manifest to that effect then are the words of Christ to the other, that is to give us to understand of the true being of the same upon the altar. Well, yet shall I even in this point assay to satisfy (if it may be) your dainty and delicate appetite. Although this must I needs by the way confess, that the ancient writers used not these terms so commonly as the latter have doen. For in that pure and unspotted age of the primitive church, when no heretic durst once open his mouth to impugn this verity, there was not to say the truth like occasion, as sense Berengarius his time hath been ministered. Or rather the innocency and perfect simplicity of those days, thought it not necessary for them to use your terms, corporally, carnally with the rest, which had said, the same body that suffered death on the cross, the same that walked here on the earth: whereas it might probably be thought, that they whom such words should not persuade to yield in this point to the truth, would not fail also in such wise to cavil and wrangle about the other, that had they been used never so often, they would yet by one shift or other seem to avoid them, and so continued in their old heresy still. And this I fear me will hereafter appear by your doings, how ever for the time you dally with your dilatory exceptions, which being brought to wise men's scanning be not all worth a blue point, or a rotten rush. But now I come to your terms. The first, which is, realiter, Really, Really. is a barbarous word, and therefore of likelihood not to be found in the learned eloquent works of the ancient fathers. Which thing maketh me to think that if in your challenge M. jewel, you meant good faith, you will not take it in evil part if for that which can not be had, I give you an other as good: I mean for this term really, the word truly or verily. For in right judgement they signify I doubt not all one thing. This being presupposed, your challenge touching this term may be answered by the words of our Saviour, where he entreateth of this most blessed sacrament, and in express words taught his disciples, that his flesh which he would give them and they should eat, joan. 6. should be truly meat, and his blood truly drink. Which if it be so, then is it not by fiction or imagination (as you and your companions dream) but in true, and to speak after your manner in real existence. If you say that the words of Christ be here by me racked, and violently wreste● to a far other sense then himself had in them: then turn I you over to try that matter, He lived Anno, dni 371. to Hilarius that worthy Bishop of Poitiers in France. Who reasoning against the heresy of Arrius, as I do now against yours, applieth them after this sort to the same purpose. De naturali in nobis Christi veritate quae dicimus, nisi ab eo discimus, stultè atque impiè dicimus. Ipse enim ait, Caro mea verè estesca, & sanguis meus verè est potus. De veritate carnis & sanguinis, non est relictus ambigendi locus. Nunc enim & ipsius domini professione & fide nostra, verè caro est & verè sanguis est. The which words in our English tongue sound thus. Of the natural verity of Christ in us what so ever it be that we teach, except we learn it of him we teach both foolishly and wickedly. For he saith himself, my flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink. Of the truth of his flesh and blood, there is not any place left to doubt. For now both by the testimony of our lord him self, and by our faith, it is truly his flesh and truly his blood. Hitherto Hilarius, by whom in this place may be gathered good readers, first that in the primitive church, upon these words of Christ, my flesh is truly meat, etc. the fathers, and bishops of that age grounded the doctrine of Christ's true presence in the sacrament, and so consequently that I deserve no blame, who use this authority no otherwise, than I find by good and lawful records, that the learned fathers of Christ's church have done before me: next, that upon this doctrine once settled, they builded an other, that Christ dwelled naturally and truly in us, against the Arrians who denied it: And for so undoubted a truth was this true and real presence of Christ taken to be with Hilarius that blessed bishop, that a little before the place even now alleged, to prove that Christ dwelled naturally in us, Naturally. he used this argument or reason: The word was truly made flesh in Christ's incarnation: we receive the same word truly made flesh in our lords food. Therefore he dwelleth naturally in us. To this ancient father, Concilium Ephesinum. ● Anno domini. 433. for the better justifying of this term truly or verily, I shall here add the ancient council holden at Ephesus, one of the first 4. general, and therefore allowed with us at home for good by act of parliament. The fathers in this council assembled, to Nestorius, who (as by that council it may appear) believed the bread in the sacrament to be so turned in to flesh, as that it should have no manner of conjunction at all with the godhead, nor be any other thing then the flesh of a pure and holy man, wrote after this sort: that we should think that we receive flesh in the sacrament, non ut hominis, unius ex nobis, sed ut verè propriam eius factam, qui propter nos filius hominis est factus & vocatus: that is to say, not as the flesh of a man, one such as we are, but such as was truly made his own proper flesh, who for our sakes was made and called the son of man. Can there be any plainer proof, to show that Christ's flesh is truly present in the sacrament, than this M. jewel? You can not here shift of this place with Oec●lampadius, and say as he most impudently did, that this authority is no part of th'acts of the council. For if you so say, the inscription of the epistle (out of the which these words are taken▪) sent by the council to Nestorius will overthrow you, and prove you both liars. The words are these. Religioso, & amabili consacerdoti Nestorio, Cyrillus & quicuque sunt apud Ephesi synodum. To the religious, and well-beloved of god our fellow priest Nestorius, Cyrillus and as many as are gathered together at the synod of Ephesus. By the which it appeareth that there was in the sending of this epistle common consent, and agreement of them all, which is enough to sober wits, and honest judgements to prove, that this epistle is and so ought of all men to be taken, lawful and authentic. But what labour I to prove by the ancient fathers this term verily, or which is all one therewith Really, which in john Calvin himself is to be found in his commentaries upon S. Paul's epistles, where he writeth thus: Concludo nobis realiter in coena dari Christi corpus, 1. Cor. 11. ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem: I conclude (saith he) that in the supper is given to us really the body of Christ, to be to our minds a wholesome meat. Thus have you had proved to you M. jewel, that Christ's body is in the sacrament truly, and that we may not so much as doubt thereof, that it is there naturally (for that was Hilarius meaning, when he proved that Christ dwelled naturally in us) and last of all as Calvin hath and you have hard, really. Here I fear not a little, least after the manner of children, that whine and whimper till they have gotten at their mother's hands some trifling thing such as their childish appetite listeth after, which so soon as they have once fingered, they straight way cast in the dirt and trample under their feet: You will play the like part with her, that of right aught to be your mother the Catholic church of Christ. And whereas to satisfy your wanton request, not for any necessity that she knew you stood in thereof, she showeth you by good and lawful records, and some other, such as yourself in times past have accounted for sound and worthy credit, where the body of Christ hath been said to have been in the sacrament truly, naturally, and really, and mindeth to do the like in your other terms demanded hereafter: I fear me I say, lest when you have all your ask, you handle them in such homely manner as was said before, by casting them in to the mire of your distinctions, (as you use them to subvert the truth, not dirty but poisoned) Symbolice, Sacramentaliter, Spiritualiter, and such other. Which if you do, thinking that to such places as expressly mention that Christ's flesh and blood is truly present in the sacrament, may be answered that it is there truly by a figure, by a sign, Sacramentally or Spiritually: then how ever this seem to be a childish guise, yet will it prove in the end an old knavish practice of Valentinus the heretic and his mates, who lived almost fourtien hundred years ago. For he and his (as you are not I am sure ignorant) denied that Christ had any true or natural body, such as man's nature consisteth of, granting nevertheless that he suffered in true flesh on the cross, as you will perhaps (clea●ing to your distinctions) not deny that he hath flesh and blood truly in the sacrament. Lib. 5. Contrahaereses Vale● tini & aliorum. Now even as Irenaeus told them when they so said, Neque enimesset verè sanguinem, & carnem ha●ens, per quam nos redemit, nisi antiquam plasmationem Adae inse recapitulasset. Christ should not truly have had blood and flesh by the which he redeemed us, unless he had renewed in himself the old shape of Adam: so may we tell you M. jewel saying that Christ's flesh and blood is truly in the sacrament, but yet in a figure, in a sign only and spiritually, that then he is not there at all having true flesh and blou●●, the same that the scriptures, and fathers say he redeemed us with all, except he be in that old shape of Adam. And thus much of the terms verily or Really, and naturally or by nature. The next of your terms is, substantially, Substantially. after the which manner of being, I prove Christ's body to be present in the sacrament by Irenaeus. Who after many vain opinions of Valentinus and his companions by him rehearsed, as that Christ had a certain flesh brought with him from heaven, not true or natural such as ours is, with other like: inferreth thereapon these words. Vbi supra. Sic autem secundum haec videlicet, nec dominus sanguine suo redemit nos, neque panis quem frangimus, communicatio corporis eius est. Sanguis enim non est, nisi a venis & carnibus & a reliqua que est secundum hominem substantia, that is to say. By this means neither did our lord redeem us with his blood, neither the cup of the sacrament is any part of his blood, nor the bread the communication of his body. For blood there can not be without there be veins, flesh, and other substance such as man is made of. This place of Irenaeus good readers let it not I beseech you belightly run over. For if any one of the rest prove all M. jewels terms and more than he demandeth toe, by flesh and veins, this is it. For the better understanding whereof, An absurdity in Irenaeus time to grant that in ●he Sacrament were not such blood as issueth from veins, or-such flesh as is of the Substance of man, such I mean in substance not in manner of being. retain well the cause that moved this ancient father, and learned bishop to write as he did. The cause was the absurd doctrine of them, that taught that Christ had no natural flesh such as we have, against whom he reasoned thus: If he had no true body, of such nature as ours is of, than was not his blood shed on the cross, then do we not eat his flesh, nor drink his blood in the sacrament. For as there could be no blood shed on the Cross, so there can be none drunk on the altar, except there be veins, flesh, and other substance of man. Here have you proved to you M. jewel, that Christ's flesh and blood is present in the sacrament, in human substance, therefore substantially, that there be veins and flesh such as blood useth to issue forth of, Substantially, Corporally, Carnally. therefore corporally, carnally, and real●y. Of the which words of Irenaeus you may if it please you gather also, that so confessed a truth it was amongst all men in that age, that Christ's blessed body was truly present in the sacrament, yea even with the heretics themselves, that the true suffering of the same upon the cross, was holden for no more certain, and undoubted a truth. And truly if it had not so been, a poor argument had Irenaeus made, to induce any man to believe that Christ had a true natural body as we have, because there is flesh, veins, blood, and the very substance of man in the sacrament. Whereas he against whom he should so have reasoned, might have bidden him go prove first the ground that he took for the foundation to build his reason upon, that is that Christ were present in such sort in the sacrament, and then to come to him again afterward. But well witted he that the heretics themselves could not deny it, and therefore he so reasoned. After this manner of reasoning disputed Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria against Origen. who was in this error that he thought the bodies should be after their resurrection mortal again, and that after many other years passed over, they should vanish away and become nothing. His words are these: Lib. ●. Paschal. Nec vanitatem appellamus substantiam corporalem ut ille astimat, alijs verbis in M●nichaei scita concidens, Manicheus taught that Christ had no true but a fantastical body. ne & Christi corpus su●iaceat vanitati, cuius aedulio saturati ruminamus quotidieverba dicentis: Nisi quis comederit car nen meam etc. that is: neither do we call corporal substance vanity, as he thinketh, (Origen he meaneth) falling thereby although in other words in to Manichaeus doctrine, lest by that means Christ's body might be subject to vanity with the food whereof being filled, we chew daily the words of Christ saying except you eat my flesh etc. What had here Theophilus meant to object to Origen, that by this opinion of his it would follow, that Christ's body which we receive and eat in the sacrament, should vanish away and become vain, if it had been there not in substance, but in a figure or baresigne? If he had not been there corporally; and substantially, to what purpose (seeing he spoke of corporal substance) mentioned he his body in the sacrament, and not rather the same being in heaven, which no heretic could have denied? Truly we can no less do but think, that both for his great learning and wisdom he would so have done, had he not been fully persuaded that the same body which is in heaven is in the same substance, the same truth of nature, and in the same moment in the blessed sacrament of the altar. Eusebius Emissenus when he taught the people that the visible creatures of bread, Homil. 5. de paschate and wine are turned in to the substance of Christ's body and blood said he not that Christ's body is in the sacrament substantially? Or chrysostom, when he taught the people, Quenadmodum si caeraigni adhibita illi assimilatur, Homil in Encenijs. nihil substantiae remanet, nihil superfluit: Sic & hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia. Even as wax if it be cast in to the fire, The mysteries he calleth the bread and wine becometh like to the fire, nothing of the substance remaineth nothing aboundeth: even so think that here (in the sacrament) the mysteries are consumed with the substance of Christ's body: was his meaning think we any other? I pass over here the testimonies for this matter that ●ight be brought out of the works of that noble bishop Cirillus Bishop of Alexandri●●: In Io●●. lib. 10. cap. 13. Lib. 11. cap. 27. who in sundry places there of abstaineth not from these terms, corporaliter, substantialiter, carnaliter, corporally, substantially, carnally, and diverse other, because I hope these which already have been alleged shallbe sufficient. Or if this suffice not, then beseech I you M. jewel and your companions to draw us out in writing a form of words to prove that Christ's body and blood are present int the sacrament: A reasonable request to M. jewel and his fellows. such as yourselves will promise if we be able to prove by the scriptures, fathers or counsels, to stand to simply, without adding thereto gloss, distinctions or interpretations. When I minded here to have knit up this knot, behold it came to my remembrance, that I had yet answered nothing to the foolish, and unsavoury reasons of your advocate (who so ever he be) who more stoutly then wisely, beareth out even to the hard hedge, this devilish doctrine of yours. First forsooth he beareth us in hand, that Christ when he said. This is my body, the same which shallbe betrayed for you, meant not that we should receive his very true natural and fleshly body, but using a figure called Metonymia, gave the name of his body to the sign, that is to the bread. And this interpretation he saith may be proved by a number of examples out of the canonical scriptures, as in one place where circumcision was called a covenant, being in deed but a sign and testimony thereof, in an other the paschal lamb called the passover, Christ himself a vine, a rock, with such like. But here note I beseech you good readers, what a strange kind of reasoning this is. In the scriptures is used a figurative kind of speech in one, two, three, four, or more places. Ergo Christ in that place where he instituted the sacrament is to be understand by a figure. Or thus: the scriptures speak figuratively in some places. Ergo in all, and no where otherwise. This kind of Sophistication in arguing, is the old shift of the wicked Arrians, who like as this man taketh away now from the blessed sacrament the very body and blood of Christ, by expounding his plain words by a figure, under colour of some other places where such allegories must needs have place, and were no otherwise to be taken: so did they take from Christ's blessed parson his omnipotent godhead, and would not grant him to be equal with almighty god his father, but the plain texts of scripture which proved his godhead they expounded wrong and frowardly, not only by some other texts that seemed to say otherwise, but also as this man doth now, by some allegories, affirming that he was called god, Exod. 7. and the son of god in the scripture, by such manner of speaking as the scripture for some property calleth certain other personnes gods, and gods sons in other places: as where god said to Moses I shall make the Pharaoh his god, Exod. 22. and in an other place. Thowe shalt not backbite or slander thy gods. And where he hath, I have said that you be gods, and the sons of the high god all of you. Psalm. 81. But surely if this manner of reasoning may be allowed for good, that because of allegories used in some places, every man may at his pleasure draw every place to a figure, we shall shortly bring the scripture from a fair flat figure I fear me, to a sorry simple cipher. Yea saith he, if we had not these examples with a great number more in the holy scripture to justify our manner of interpretation, yet the very words which the spirit of god by singular providence hath used in the Evangelist and S. Paul, do lead us unto this sense rather than unto that that you have devised. For in the second part of the sacrament whereas matthew and Marc say. This is my blood of the new testament: that Luke and Paul utter in this manner. This is the new testament in my blood. Which can not be otherwise understand, but that the sacrament is a testimony or pledge of his last will, and gift of our salvation confirmed by his most precious blood. Wherefore if you say never so often times with Matthew and Marc This is my body: This is my blood. We will repeat as often with Luke and Paul who were led with the same spirit. This is the new testament in my body, and blood. Hitherto have reached the words of your friend M. jewel. Who if he repeat never so often the words of Luke and Paul, shall spend but his wind in waist, and gain when all is done not so much as one inch, towards the furtherance of his and your heresy in this point. The scripture belied by the heretic. For if he repeat their sayings truly, they vary in words from the other two, but in the second part of the sacrament, and say but only: This is the new testament in my blood▪ and then can he no● wots ye well as here he falsely doth, repeat (which they never said) This is the new testament in my body and blood, and so add to the holy scripture the word, ●odie. And then the case standing thus, that all four agree in the first part of this sacrament and call it Christ's body, and two in the later calling it his blood, and all, so far as no one denieth it to be his blood: a man may ask of your friend, why he should rather suck out a figure in those words of the first part which all four agree upon, only because in the second part two do speak figuratively, then so to interpret that figurative speech of those two used in the cup, as to give place to the literal sense by two in the second part and all in the first, so firmly and by so full consent agreed and arrested upon. But of this he (as it seemeth) himself being notignorant, if the matter should be by him left thus raw, that there is no man so evil advised but he had rather under stand two by four, then so many by two: he laboureth marvelously to prove, that the old writers have so understand those words of Christ as he doth. To be short we deny not nor ever did, that the old fathers have some times upon considerations called this sacrament a figure, a sign, a similitude, an example: but never in that sense we say, to take away the verity of his blessed body therein. For as it were but a homely piece of logic to say that Christ were no true man, because S. Paul saith that he was made in similitudinem hominum, Philipp. Cap. 2. after the likeness of men (as by occasion of that text and other, Martion and Appolinaris the heretics did as witness Tertullian and S. Ambrose): lib. 5. contra Martion cap. penult. Epist. 47. or to reason that he were not of the same substance with god his father and very god himself, with Arrius and his mates, because the same S. Paul calleth him the image of god and figure of his father's subtance: Colloss. 1. Hebre. 1. so truly to reason in the sacrament, that because it is called a figure, a similitude, a representation, that therefore it is not his true body is an argument most false and faulty. And all were it so that we had not these places of the scripture and the father's manner of speaking and many other, How the sacrament is called a figure of Christe● bod●e. which plainly teach us that the self same thing may be a figure of itself (as the body of Christ in the sacrament invisibly offered on the altar, is a figure of the same visibly offered on the cross): yet of fine force (except we would discredit a great part of the ancient writers as though they had written contrary to themselves) should we have been driven to have found out this answer. Seeing of them all that call it in one place a figure, it will be hard to bring forth any that calleth it not in diverse other the verity and thing itself. As for his similitude fetched from the court, well may it be fine and he please himself therewith: but other men I suppose such as have more learned than dainty ears, he should have pleased a great deal better, if although in sluttish eloquence, yet plainly and truly he had uttered better sense. For I for my part, (and therein I think I may be bold to measure other by myself) had rather drink a cup of wholesome beer in a sluttish cup, than a draft of poisoned wine in a fine golden goblet. But I pray you (for you I am sure know him) when you happen upon him next, ask of him how he is able to prove the like change in the parchment of his letters patents, as hath been proved to be in the bread and wine in the sacrament. It hath been showed out of the holy martyr S. Cyprian, that this bread is changed not in the outward shape but in the inward nature, that by that change it is made flesh. It hath been proved by Eusebius Emissenus and holy S. Ambrose, that before the words of consecration, there is the substance of bread and wine, but after those words the body and blood of Christ. The same hath been sufficiently proved by diverse other. Let him now if he can, find one other so very a dizzard as himself, that will say the nature of the parchment of his letters patents, to be changed in to earth, grass, wood, waters, worth by the year a thousand pound. If there had been no other change in this bread but that it is now as he saith made of common and profane, holy and consecrate, never would Chrisostom have exhorted us to worship that body on the altar, Homil. 24 in. 1. Cor. 10. which the wise men worshipped in the manger: Christ's body worshipped in earth not in heaven only M. jewel. never would S. Austen have said that they sin which worship it not. By this may it appear, that your friend is he M. jewel that hath played the lourdeine with his master, and therefore well worthy the whip. For where he had provided for his guests a most precious and costly feast, this honest companion stealeth all away, In psalm. ●8. and leaveth them in stead thereof a bare piece of bred. And thus much to satisfy your challenge in this point. Now to the next article which is of the use of the Sacrament under one kind. THAT WITHIN THE FIRST SIX HUNDRED YEARS AFTER CHRIST THE COMMVnion was ministered under one kind. EVen as in the controversy of the pope's supremacy you deny M. jewel, that there ought to be any other head over the church here militant in earth than Christ himself, which is the chief, not as though you knew not right well that government for the appeasing of schisms and repressing of heresies to be the best: or as though if your god john Calvin had had that authority over all the world were it twice as large again as it is, you would have found any fault therewithal, and not have thought him able to rule the same well enough, but only of a cankered hatred that you bear to the Catholic church sometimes your mother, a vain pleasure that you take to thwart her in her doings, and last of all because that government serveth not your turn: as you find fault with private masses, not as though you allowed any, but only to banish from the father's sight if it might be the lawful enheritor, and to set up the misbegotten bastard, to abolish and utterly extinguish the sacrifice of the new testament, which that crafty wily serpent foresaw so long before, if he were once able to quench that burning charity and earnest desire of often receiving the blessed body and blood of Christ, which then was so commonly amongst christian men in use, and he alas hath now obtained, he should in time to come by his wicked members be with the more ease able to bring to pass: even so in this present controversy fareth it with your doings. When all the world may see, that you which charge us so hotly with no less than that great and heinous crime of sacrilege, as of robbing the lay people of Christ's blood in the communion (which is notwithstanding an impudent lie) rob not only them but the clergy also (except you had rather call it by an honester name of exchange) both of Christ's body and blood toe. The which thing leaving to the indifferent reader by him at his leisure more earnestly to be weighed, I shall now prove unto you that within the first six hundred years after Christ, the sacrament of the altar was ministered under one kind. But here I must warn you of this one thing before hand, that I mean in this article and the next to give you but only a taste of our proofs, not a full bit as in the two first I have. Which I pray you not to impute to want either of matter or good will, but only to this, that when I was thus far entered in this simple treatise it was given me by a friend to understand, that aswell in this point as in all the rest by you challenged, you have of late by a notable learned man been so applied with store of wholesome viands, that the wiser ●orte take you to be rather in such terms, as you care more how to digest that which you have already received, then that you once think of craving any more. Bear with me therefore if I bear with your weak stomach. Now to the matter. You say that to minister the communion to the laity under one kind is an act unlawful, contrary to Christ's ordinance, and a thing in the primitive church never used or hard of. But for proof of the contrary I reason thus. Christ our saviour ministered this sacrament under the only kind of bread: his apostles practised the use thereof after the same manner: The church receiving it from them hath continued the same usage. Therefore it is lawful which we defend and blamed of our adversaries without cause. That Christ first ministered this sacrament under one kind, Christ ministered the sacrament under one kind. it appeareth by the history of the gospel, where is mentioned how that our saviour in the way between Jerusalem and Emaus, happening upon two of his disciples entered with them in to a certain house, Luc. 24. where he ministered to them the sacrament under that one kind of bread. That this was the sacrament and not common bread, these words of the evangelist: Benedixit ac fregit & porrigebat illis, he blessed it, he broke it, and he delivered it to them, do well prove. Seeing that those words he blessed and broke it, are in no place of the scripture to be found, applied by Christ or his apostles to profane or common bread: next for that the effect wrought by that bread, that was the opening of their eyes, doth give us also to understand that it was his blessed body and no other thing. To these reasons, I may here add the authority of S. Austen, chrysostom, Beda and Theophilactus, all four agreeing that this was the blessed sacrament, and not as the adversaries would have it common or profane bread. S. Austin's words are these: Lib. 3. de consens. Evangelist. Cap. 25. Non autem incongruen●er accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana fuisse factum. etc. that is to say: We do not verily take it amiss to think that this mist was cast before their eyes by Satan that they should not know jesus, but yet even suffered by Christ so to do, until they had received the sacrament of bread, that being thereby made partakers of the unity of his body, the let or impediment of the enemy the devil being removed and taken away, they might know Christ. Hitherto S. Austen, with whom speaking incidently of this bread, the virtue and holiness thereof, agreeth that learned bishop Chrisostom, in an homely that he writeth upon the .7. chapiter of S. matthew in this wise. Homil. 17. Si aunt tale esset quod de manu sacerdotis accipitur, quale est quod in mensa manducatur. etc. If it were such which is received at the priests hands, as the bread which is eaten at the table, every man would receive it from the table, and no man at the priests hands. Therefore our lord by the way did not only bless the bread, but he gave it also from his own hands to Cleophas and his companion. And Paul as he sailed, did not only bless the bread, but he delivered it also to Luke and the other disciples. And within a few words after he addeth. This bread is holiness itself and maketh holy the receivor thereof. By the testimony of these two notable pillars of the Greek and Latin church it appeareth, how this history of the gospel is to be understand, not of common bread but of the blessed sacrament, and so withal that Christ the author of this sacrament ministered the same under one kind, which our adversaries so stoutly deny, and you especially amongst the rest with terms most odious, against the whole council of Constance M. jewel. That th' apostles did the like, and practised the same in such wise as Christ their master did before, thereof if there be any man that doubteth, him send I to S. Luke: in whom he shall find that as many as received the apostles doctrine, Act. ●. Eran● perseuerantes in doctrina apost●lorum & communicatione fractionis panis & orationibus: were continuing in the doctrine of the apostles, the communion of breaking of bread and prayers. In which words you can understand M. jewel no other bread than the sacramental bread, if you pondre reverently the text. For truly the writer of that history, making there mention of such spiritual exercises as the faithful spen● their time in, it is not likely that between the doctrine of the apostles which he remembered in the first place, and their payers which he placed in the last, he would ever have couched the breaking of profane bread in the midst. Act. 20. Of this breaking of bread have we also mention in an other place where it is said. una autem sabba●i cùm convenissemus ad frangendum panem. The morrow after the Saboth day when we came together to break bread. What remaineth now M. jewel, seeing that the scriptures bear so manifestly wit●esse of the communion ministered first by Christ, and after by his apostles under the kind of bread, but that either you yield and join with us, or flee to your old and last refuge the help of some favourable figure, as before you Melanchton being sore pressed with these authorities was forced to do. This figure for sooth is you say Synecdoche, by which S. Luke would by naming the one part of this sacrament, signify the whole. But truly, whereas even in them that take in hand to write profane histories, such figures are nothing commendable, where the truth ought wholly and truly without concealing or dissembling any part thereof to be expressed, but that the same law ought of all other especially in holy histories, and those that contain the acts and doings of Christ himself, inviolably to be observed, there is no man I think that doubteth. And yet of all other if any of the Evangelists would so have written, of them all S. Luke was most unlikely, as the man who by the common veredict of the learned, was not of his words scarce or pinching, but plentiful and liberal. Or if he would needs use figures where was no need, yet aught every good man to think that the holy ghost the director of his pen (to whom being god and having all things present before his eyes, this troubelouse hurly burly that should afterwards hap in the church about the receiving of this sacrament either in one kind alone or both together could not be unknown): would so have provided, that so little a word whereby so great troubles might be raised, should not by any figure in this place, in this high mystery, in this precious jewel, where all things ought most perspicuously to be expressed, have been omitted. And thus much touching the apostles ministering of this sacrament. Now that the church long after the apostles continued the same manner, Laica communio. what better proof can you have, then may be deduced from that word so well known to the fathers, so frequent and common in the old general councils, Lib. 4. epist. ●. Laica communio, the lay man's communion? Of this communion of the lay men maketh mention the blessed martyr S. Cyprian in an epistle written by him to Antonianus, where he telleth of one Trophimus that having been a bishop and an heretic, was then returned from his heresies and become a catholic, and received thereapon by him in to the church and admitted also to the communion, but so that he should communicate ut laicus non ut sacerdos, as the lay man useth to do not as the priest. Ca●. 2. Of this communion read we, Can. 50. first in the council holden at Sardica under julius then pope, above 12. hundred years sense, next in the council kept at Agatha in France in the year of our lord. 430. and in diverse other which might be here alleged. What can we here think M. jewel, but that there was a difference in the lay man's communion and the priests? And what other difference can you give then this, that the one received both the kinds the other but one? For of all other it is most ridiculous, that for answer hereunto you are wont to allege, that the priests used to receive the sacrament in a place of the church appointed therefore by themselves alone, and the laity in some other place a part also, and that hereof rose the word Laica communio. For admitting this to be true, how doth yet the place make a difference in the communion? Between his dinner that sitteth at the upper end of a table and his that is placed at the neither, if there be the same meats, like courses of service, semblable art of cookery, can you put any difference. Beside this, the ancient council of Sardica maketh in such wise mention of the lay man's communion, that the words will in no wise admit your wrangling interpretation. For there in the second canon is it decreed against such bishops as changing their bishoprics be translated to other, that they shallbe excluded from ever receiving the communion, ita ut nec Laicam in fine communionem talis accipiat, so excluded, that such a one shall not be admitted so much as to the lay man's communion, no not in the end of his life, not at the hour of his death. Thus have we here plain evidence, that the lay man's communion is not to be understand of difference of places in the church: whereas the canon of this council hath, that at the hour of his death he shall not be admitted thereunto. At which time every man will I suppose, think him to be at home in his chamber, not out of his house at the church. After this sort appeareth it by S. Austen that his mother Monica received this sacrament. Lib. 9 Confess. When as he saith, being on whitsunday refreshed with that bread that came down from heaven, she continued by the space of a whole day and a night without all corporal food. Thus much seemed he also to signify to us in an other place, Epist. 180 where he hath these words. Si autem ministri adsint, pro viribus quas eis dominus subministrat omnibus subvenitur: alij baptizantur, alij reconciliantur, nulli dominici corporis communi one fraudantur. that is to sai. If the ministers be present, according to the strength that god hath given them all men are helped: some are baptized, other some are reconciled, none are deceived of the communion of our lords body. Much more might here be said touching this point were it not that I am loath to trouble you with the often repeating thereof, that I fear me you are sorry to have hard so much as once. And therefore if this sati●fie you not, for the rest I remit you to that learned work of late set forth at Lo●ain●, wherein you have I doubt not already for this matter found, such store of testimonies, such weight of authorities, as in your own judgement you may have cause to think, t●at you hold by the worst end of the staff. Your objections also against the catholic faith in this article, because they are there with like dexterity answered and soluted, I here pass over in silence. One I except amongst the rest, which because you mentioned it not in your sermon (where unto the author without wandering any farther kept himself) he also in his book speaketh not of. Theophil. Alexander. alleged by M. jewel. The place that you bring against us, is you say out of Theophilus Alexandrinus, and is alleged by you without cotation after this sort. Si Christus mortuus fuisset pro diabolo non negaretur illi poculum sanguinis. If Christ had died for the devil the cup of the blood should not have been denied him. Here M. jewel good faith and true dealing would, that you should have coted to us this place. But I fear me it will so fall out in the end, that in all Theophilus works there shall no such place be found. True it is that these words we find in him. Si enim & pro demonibus crucifigitur ut novorum dogmatum assertor affirmat, quod erit privilegium, aut que ratio ut soli homines corporieius sanguinique communicent, & non demones quoque pro quibus in passione sanguinem suum 〈◊〉? That is to say: for if Christ were crucified (as this 〈◊〉 of new doctrine affirmeth) for the devils also, what privilege have men or what reason should there be, why they only should be partakers of his body and blood, and not the devils also for whom in his passion he should have shed his blood? If this be the place that you mean, why allege you it so falsely, and corrupt both th'author's words and mind? If this be not it, then show us where we shall find it. which if you could do then should you be answered in this wise: that in Theophilus' time the use of this sacrament was indifferent, to be received (as the devotion of the receivor thereof served him) either under both the kinds or one alone, as a thing by Christ so left, and the liberty whereof the church directed by the holy ghost, had not as then in any wise restrained. So that at those days the priest had done him open wrong, to whom desiring both the kinds he would have given but only one: yea if it had been the devil that he had denied it to, if Christ had died for the devil. But now I pray you apply this testimony to the present state of the church which now is, and you shall see how handsomely it fitteth you? Theophilus Alexandrinus when the church had as yet not restrained the use of this sacrament touching the lay people to one kind, was of the mind that in this case to deny to the devil (if Christ had died for him) the cup, had been a disordre: Therefore now that the church hath decreed that they shall communicate under only one, he is also of the same mind. Thus must you reason if you deal truly, which if you do, how little this place maketh for your purpose a mean wit willbe easily able to judge. Thus much touching this present controversy: now to the next which is (as by our adversaries it is termed) of private Mass. THAT THERE WAS MASS SAID WITHIN THE FIRST SIX HUNDRED YEARS, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE none that did receive with the priest. Our lord be thanked therefore, truth which well may be for the time pressed, but never shallbe vanquished, hath at the length with much a do gotten of her enemies maugre their heads, the confession of that which hitherto they have all so stoutly denied. For now relinquishing and giving over their old plea, that the Mass is a new invention, the name strange, and to the ancient doctors unknown, they flee to an other shift (as here by their common proctor M. jewel, you may good readers perceive) and say, that there was no private Mass in all the whole world, In His sermon folio. 35. for the space of six hundred years or more after the apostles time. Here M. jewel, forasmuch as this term, private, which by reason of the equivocation that it hath, might have brought us into some doubt how you had understand it, is by you expounded in diverse places of your sermon, to be taken for the priests sole, or alone receiving of the sacrament without company, and so as you take it, as this word private is contrary to public, or common to many: And you herein stick not scrupulously in the other significations thereof, as some of your fellows do, that is, that that Mass is no less private which is said in private men's houses out of the church, or which is done especially for some one man or woman, Cap. 32. Lib. 8. but seem honestly to confess, that S. Austen mentioneth these two kind of masses: the first in his books de civitate Dei, where he reporteth that a priest of his diocese said Mass in a farm or house of the country troubled with evil spirits, Evil Spirits and heretics hate the Mass alike. who immediately thereapon (none otherwise than do the heretics of our time) avoided the place, and were no more hard of. Where we might also stand upon this till the contrary were proved, that the priest received then alone. For by the place it appeareth not of any that received with him. The second, in his books of confessions. Where he telleth us that he offered for his mother after her decease, Lib. 9 Cap. 12. sacrificium praetijnostri, the sacrifice of our ransom. Forasmuch I say as you seem not to pitch in these last points, I shall assay to satisfy you in the first, and then after to answer such objections as you make for the fortifying of your part. You say that within the first six hundred years after the apostles and more, there was no Mass said in the church, unless there were some that did receive with the priest. Against this I reason thus. chrysostom lived within the space of four hundred years after the apostles time; but chrysostom and the priests in his time said Mass when none did communicate, ergo to you M. jewel, within the first six hundred years after th'apostles time, there was private mass in the church although there were none to receive with the priest. That this learned doctor with other priests said Mass when none did communicate, (for that I am sure you will deny) by this complaint of his uttered in these words, it may most evidently appear. Ho●il. 3. in epist. 〈◊〉 Ephes. Frustra●●betur quotidiana obla●io, frustra 〈◊〉 ad altar. Nemo est qui communicate. th● daily offering is had in vain: we stand at th'altar in vain. There is none that receiveth with us. If there were daily oblation, yea when none received, why bear you us in hand M. jewel th●t for that long space of six hundred years, the priest might never offer the same without company to communicate with him? If that were true, how did chrysostom and the other priests of Antioch offer it, and that daily (that you may understand a necessity that enforced them thereto) whether the people came or no? If they received not themselves, how could he have said that there was none that did receive with them? But here you will ask me perhaps, The true meaning of Chrisostomes' place. how I dare allege this place, which saith that the oblation was had in vain because there was none to communicate. To this I answer (that being first taken for granted which in no wise you can deny, that is, that daily this oblation was had whether any came or no) that this holy doctor in this place is not to be understand, as though simply he meant the oblation to be in vain, but in a respect, forasmuch as they came not who were looked for to have been partakers thereof, concerning this expectation it was had in vain, and the priests stood in their churches not at the table, but at the altar in vain. A●d that this was the very▪ meaning of Chrisostomes' words, and not as you falsely surmise, there needeth no other reason to persuade any reasonable man, than the learning, the virtue, and great wisedom● of the man himself. For if the sacrifice had been offered by him in vain, so often as there was none to be partaker thereof with him, what a heinous act had this been of him, especially standing at liberty without any more necessity to offer, than the lay man hath to receive, if it were true that you and your company affirm? Shall we not rather think if he had so meant, that he would utterly have abstained, before he would by celebrating and receiving, practise the abuse of so precious a jewel? Would he not rather when he came to the altar, have sent the people away with a dry communion, when he saw none ready to receive? Would he not at the least have been as circumspect in procuring warning to be given to him by them that were disposed to receive, (if offering without communicants he should have offered in vain) as you and yours, our new Rabbins, are about your apish communion? No, no, Let no man think but that he was well ware, that to offer the body and blood of Christ in vain, had been a fault nothing inferior to the receiving of it unworthily, whereunto he was not ignorant that S. Paul threateneth damnation. If he would give his own life as he said himself, ●. Corin. 11. before he would give our lords body to an unworthy man, Homil. 83. In Math. and that he would have his blood shed out of his body, rather than he would give to the unworthy our lords blood, we may easily conjecture how hardly he would have been brought to have offered the same in vain. To this testimony of Chrisostom shall I add one more, and so after come to those objections which you bring for the maintenance of the contrary. Leontius a bishop of the Greek church, writing almost a thousand years sense the life of that virtuous Patriarch of Alexandria, john the almoisner or almoise giver (for that name obtained he for his charity towards the poor) reporteth amongst other things of him, how that he being on a certain time at Mass, perceiving after the reading of the gospel, that the people went out of the church and fell to talking and babbling in the churchyard: went also out of the church after them and spoke to them being all amazed in this wise. Filioli ubi oves illic & pastor: aut intrate intro & ingrediemur: aut manete hic, & ego quo que manebo. Ego propter vos descendo in sanctam ecclesiam, nam poteram facere mihi Missam in Episcopio. Children (that is to say) where the sheep are there is the shepherd: either therefore get you into the church and we will go together: or bide you still here and I will tarry with you. It is for your sakes that I come to the holy church, for to myself could I have said Mass in my house at home. Here I trust you will at the length yield and grant M. jewel, that private Masses were lawful and in use in the primitive church. For first that the Mass here spoken of was private, the word mihi missam facere, say or ce●ebrate Mass to myself, doth well declare. He said not I might say Mass to my friends, to my kinsfolckes, to my household servants but mihi, to mine own self. And when you hear him s●ie that he might do it, I trust you think it was not unlawful. But now I come to your objections against the priests sole or alone receiving of the sacrament. After you have taken your pleasure in triumphing over our poverty (as you think) you bring forth your store. M. jewels proofs against Private Mass examined. And because you will make the matter sure and out of all doubt, you use our own friend as a witness against us, the Mass book forsooth. where you say the priest according to the direction of that book, turning himself to the people, saith: Dominus vobiscum, item, Oremus. Orate pro me fratres & sorores, what then M. jewel? Ergo what so ever prai●rs be used about the ministration of the sacrament ought to be the common requests of all the people? What infer you hereapon? Ergo the priest may not say Mass without he have some to communicate with him. That ergo is false M. jewel, and not truly deduced out of the premises. But I cry you mercy this is you say but by the way, before you entre into the matter. Here you did but dribb and flirt: your other arrows taken out of the same quiver. Accipite, edite. Habete vinculum charitatis, ut apti sitis sacrosanctis mysteries, that is, take, eat: have ye the band of charity, that ye may be meet for the holy mysteries. And last of all other, those words that are spoken by the priest after the Agnus dei, Haec sacrosancta commixtio etc. This holy commixtion and consecration of the body and blood of our lord jesus Christ, be unto you and to all that receive it health of body and soul: these are they that pay home, and cleave as a man would say the very face of the white. I shall now rehearse first your words, as in your sermon printed they are to be seen, that all men may understand how handsomely my L. of Salesburie can play hi●k scornersparte: and then after shape thereto such an answer, as I trust shall to all reasonable men be sufficient. Moreover the priest by the mass book is taught to say, jewel. accipite, edite. Take ye, eat ye. and habete vinculum charitatis etc. that is, Have ye the band of charity that ye may be meet for the ho●e mysteries. And to whom shall we think the priest speaketh these words? It were a vain thing for him in the open congregation to speak to himself, and specially in the plural numbered: yet were it a great deal more vain for him to speak the same words to the bread and wine, and to say to them: Take ye, eat ye, or have ye the band of charity, that ye may be me●e for the holy mysteries. Therefore it is evident that these words should be spoken to the people. I have good hope M. jewel, both by these testimonies alleged out of the Mass book so far from the purpose, and also by your challenge wherein you promise being overcome to yield, that you will at the length do as honest soldiers pressed against their minds to serve in an evil cause are wont to do, that is, when it cometh to the push, either cast away their weapons, and suffer themselves to be taken, or keeping them in their hands fight very weakly. For surly M. jewel if this be not your meaning (bear with me if I tell you as the truth is and as I believe) it must needs be a great deal worse, and such as declareth invincibly to the world your cankered stomach, and malicious mind towards your mother the catholic church. For standing the case so, as you mean nothing less, than that good which I conceive of you: what true dealing is this of yours (to prove that no Mass may be said without there be company to receive with the priest) to allege these words, Take, eat, as spoken by the priest) to the people? Whereas your own conscience, if you have any, telleth you I dare say, that they are a part of other words going before, cut by you from the rest to serve your scoffing spirit: and that they are not, nor ever were any more taken for the priests own words, then are those that immediately follow, This is my body. And as you would I nothing doubt laugh at his simplicity, that hearing the priest say. This is my body, would take the consecrated host to be the priests body, because he repeateth the same words at the altar that Christ spoke at his supper: So persuade yourself that other men cease not to lament from the bottom of their hearts, to see you not of simplicity, but of malice wilfully to do the like. But I shall here wholly allege the words as they are in the canon of the Mass, that you may if it be possible, be delivered of that great scruple that so troubleth your mind, whether those words, Take, eat, should be spoken by the priest to himself in false latin, which you think were to great an oversight, or to the bread and wine, which you think (and I would you never might think worse) were a far greater. The words are these. Qui pridie quâm pateretu● etc. who the day before that he suffered, took bread in to his holy and venerable hands, and lifting up his eyes into heaven to the o god his father almighty, giving to the thanks, blessed, broke, and gave it to his disciples saying: Take, eat, this is my body. By these words if you do not, every man I trust else doth most manifestly perceive, that these are not the priests words, and therefore neither spoken to himself, neither yet to the bread or wine. But because I doubt not but you are weary to hear so much of your own folly, therefore I will dwell no longer in the aggravating of that, which as in the eyes of all men is brim enough, so would I to god that you had never given occasion to me or to any other, once to have mentioned it. To your other objection that you make of these words habete vinculum charitatis, have you the band of peace that you may be meet for the holy mysteries: I answer, that if there be any such place in the mass book, as having sought therefore I find none such, that such words first forbid not the priest to say mass, if none be disposed to communicate with him, then that they do not necessarily provoke the people to the sacramental receiving, but may well be understand of the spiritual communicating with the priest in those holy mysteries, by earnest meditation of Christ's death and passion, the which the more effectually to do they are exhorted to be one with an other in love and charity. And thus understand we that other place where the priest after the Agnus prayeth, that that holy commixtion of Christ's body and blood may be both to him and to all that receive it, health of body and soul. For we say, that as many as being present at the mass do heartily join with the priest in the sweet remembrance of Christ's bitter death and passion, do all receive with the priest Christ's body and blood, they spiritually, and he corporally. And this call we a true communion. But what if now in every leaf of the mass book M. jewel you had found exhortations to the people to communicate? Verily except you had found withal that unless they would the priest should not, all would not help: yea it would hinder you thus much, that where as you and your mates have borne the world in hand, that the clergy hath kept the laity from communicating, now it would appear by this, that the priest looketh for them, and their own default keepeth them away. Well, if the mass book have failed you M. jewel, as it was never other like but that it would, you have yet I dare say, other witnesses. Yea verily, you vaunt to have the help of the canons of the apostles, of Clemens, of Dionysius, of Calixtus, of justinus, of Leo, of chrysostom, of S. Gregory, yea of S. Paul, and of Christ himself. Which be surely good witnesses and such as in law may be called omni exception● maiores, and for the better abeling of them of whose credit might most be doubted: your self have said so much as no man I trow can say more. M. jewel confesseth the doctors to be good grounds to build upon. For you call than good grounds to build upon. So that now there remaineth no more but to consider how they prove your intent. The which that I may the better do, I shall allege your own words as they are in your sermon touching this matter to be found, that so the reader may be the more able to judge, In the second answer to d. Coles letters. whether your evidence be to the issue or no. In the xxxv leaf of your said sermon, you have these words. jewel. And I trust you shall clearly see, that for so long time (six hundred years after Christ) there was no private mass in the catholic church, in any country or coast thorough out the world. A hard matter is it M. jewel that you take upon you to prove, for it is a negative so general, that to prove it is a thing impossible. To prove that there is no Mass said (imagine with yourself) in all London how hard a matter it were. You are not able for your life to prove, that there is no mass said in the diocese, whereof you call yourself bishop. For how should you prove it being denied but by witnesses? how is it possible to have witnesses to depose for every church, for every corner in every church, every town, every house in every town, every chamber and secret place in every house, not for once in the week, but for every day, not for every day but for every hour of the day, all which he must do that will conclude a necessary proof. And yet all this have you M. jewel undertaken to prove, not in the city of London, or diocese of Salesburie, but in all England, France, Spain, Scotland, Portugal, Denmarck, Germany, Italy, amongst the Indians, the Mauritanians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Arabians, the Armenians, the Grecians, or in any other place or coast throughout the whole world: not that there was no private mass in some one of these places, but in never a one of them, in never a town of all those countries, in never a house of all those towns, in never a place were it never so secret of all those houses, not for one, two, or three years, but for the continual space of six hundred. A greater matter I confess, then if you had stood to the law you could peradventure have been constrained to have done: but seeing you trust so much to yourself, let us hear how you prove it. For (say you) All the writers that were within the compass of that time, jewel. have left behind them witness sufficient of a communion, but not one of them all could ever tell us of any private mass. Here if a man should desire of you, good sir, a catalogue of all such writers as wrote within the first six hundred years, I think for all your great brags you would turn him over to your friend Gesnerus: where I am sure he were like to find many a work named, that neither he nor you, nor any man else a live ever saw yet, and I think and fear it to (the more is the pity) I may add no man hereafter shall see. But let this pass, you keep not your quarters so close, but that a man may r●ache you a rap when he will. If one should ask you whether you have but e'en all those writers that being extant and to be seen, wrote within the compass of the first six hundred years: I think such a question would gravel you. But if he should go farther and conjure you upon your false faith truly to answer him, of those few that you have seen, how much you left behind in them that you never read: Esopes daw never was cause of so great laughter to her other fellows being spoiled of her borrowed feathers, as you would bring shame to your companions, when your counterfeit lion's skin being plucked over your ears, and your lofty looks and great brags brought to nought, you should appear to the world in your simple asses carcase. But let this be granted to your spirit of arrogancy, that you may say freely that you have seen all the writers, which no man else alive hath done: let it be a figure of rhetoric that you have ransacked every corner in their works, who have not read the twentieth part thereof, and of that little which you have read, have not borne away perhaps the hundredth. Yet all this I say being granted, what logic is this of yours to reason after this sort? All these holy doctors have given us perfect evidence of a communion, without mention making of any private mass, Ergo there was in Christ's church within the first six hundred years no private mass. If upon your witness you bring not in this conclusion you say nothing against us. If this be your conclusion, in effect you say as little: forasmuch as every child is in a manner able to teach you, that this consequent is nought: he speaketh not of such a thing, Ergo there is no such thing. Or as you reason, they did not, Ergo they could not. I would allege your authorities of Clemens, Dionysius, justinus martyr, Ambrose, Hierom, Austen, Leo, saving that we find in them that which we deny not, that is to say, that with the priest, the people did use to communicate: but that if (as you say) the people would not, the priest should not, thereof we find not one word, which till you prove to us, chrysostom his yea willbe taken for better than your nay. In the mean season, you may if it please you take this for an answer. That as the catholics forbid no man to receive with the priest that will: but heartily wish that all men would so dispose themselves, that at every Mass with the priest there might be some to communicate: so neither can they constrain them to receive whose devotion thereto serveth them not, nor may themselves abstain from the sacrifice whereunto Christ's institution bindeth them. Which reason although it please one of your coat (I mean him that took on him your defence of late, as appeareth by a little treatise by him sent a broad) to call the root of all the abuses of the L. supper, and farther to affirm that Christ's institution maketh no mention of any oblation or sacrifice to be done by the priest, saving only the sacrifice of thanks giving: yet are we able well to prove, that both the sacrifice which is offered is not of thanks giving only, but of the very body of Christ, both out of a epist. ad Burdegal. Martialis the B. of Burdeaulx one of the disciples of Christ, S. b in Luca cap. pr. Ambrose, S. c de civitate dei li. 10 cap. 20. et lib. 17. cap. 20. Austen, S. d in epist. ad hebreos in cap. ●0. Homil. 17. chrysostom, and others: and also that it ought daily to be e Hieron. cap. 1. in. Tit. Amb. epist. 33. offered, and so was used in the primitive church, and last of all that Christ him f Chrisost. 1. Cor. 10. ●omil. 17. self commanded himself to be offered. If you think that this be but a shift, and that we mean nothing less than that the people should communicate and receive together with the priest: lookeapon that city, cast your eyes to that church, which of all other I dare say in the world you hate most, Rome I mean: and there shall you by the common and frequent communicating of the people with the priest well perceive, how greatly you have injuried us with that selaunderouse diffamation, that our priests inhibit and forbid the laity to communicate with them at their Masses. Look upon those religious men of the society of jesus, whose chieffest-profession is to instruct youth in virtue and learning, to travail about the world to bring in to Christ's fold infidels and heretics. Which they have so done within these few years, with such spiritual fruit and increase, with such exceeding great gain of lost souls, (not sparing their own blood and lives in Christ's cause) in Africa, in India, in Persia, and else where, that god hath well testified by sundry miracles wrought now by them in those parties, no less than once in the primitive church by his apostles, how highly he esteemeth their labour: look I say upon them, whose virtuous life and godly conversation shall once I trust, be the bane and utter ruin of all heresies●, and you shall find it to be true, that both at Colein, at Augusta, at Trevires, at Cambray, at Tournay, and in other places of their abode, there passeth no Sunday or holy day in the year, in which there communicate not with the priest both of men and women great store. And yet are they it is well known; as far all this while from you in your heresies, as you be from them in perfection of life. and true religion. Well although the testimonies of Clemens, Dionysius, justinus martyr, with the rest serve not your purpose: yet you have other that touch us more near you will say. The. 10. canon of the apostles brought against private Mass. as fiust the. 10. canon of the apostles which you allege in this manner. Fideles qui in ec●lesiam ingrediuntur, & scripturas audiunt & communionem sanctam non recipiunt, tanquâm ecclesiasticae pacis perturbatores a communione arceantur. that is to say: Such christian men as come to the church, hear the scriptures and receive not the holy communion: let them be excommunicated as men that trouble the peace and quietness of the church. To this I answer, The answer. that this canon being truly alleged according to the Greek, the fountain from whence it was taken first hath no such thing in it, that all that be present at the Mass or holy communion should communicate, but only continue there to the end, that by their either often whipping in and out, either over hasty departure from thence, they might not trouble the church, or be scandulouse to any. Secondarily, that if it were to be understand as you say, that yet you must add some more force thereto before it well will serve your turn, seeing there is never a word there that forbiddeth (which is the thing that you must prove) the priest to receive alone, if none will receive with him. And for the first, that you may perceive how this translation hath deceived you, and how evil it squareth with the grieke, know you, that the fountain and original copy hath thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words Haloander a bird of the same wing that you are, translateth after this sort: neque apud praeces & sanctam communionem permanent, that is, they that abide not out, or continue not to the end of the prayers and holy communion. This translation, beside that the words in the greek do bear it, 〈◊〉 for the other there is never a word to signify or ●●●resse the receiving of the communion, it hath also to maintain it the authority of Theodorus Balsamon, the grieke writer and Pat●●●ke of Antioch, who in his commentaries upon the canon next before this, hath these words. Dicere fideles laicos & consecratos qui sacra non tractant, oportere qu●●●die sanctis comm●●●care, alioqui segregari, nec est ex sententia canonis nec potest fieri. E● ideo nonus canon dixit puniri 〈◊〉 qui non 〈◊〉 that is: To say that the faithful lay men, and those that be not lay but yet handle 〈◊〉 the holy mysteries, ought daily to communicate, 〈◊〉 to be excommunicate, it is neither the meaning of the canon, nor it can s● be: and therefore the. 9 canon (the next, which in some books is noted for the. 9 in some other for the. 10.) hath, that the faithful not continuing to the end shallbe punished. Thus understandeth he the second canon of the council holden at Antioch, The year of our lord 274. in the days of Aureliaenus the emperor. Where examining those words of the canon, by which all they are excommunicated who coming to the church, refuse the holy participation of the sacrament propter aliquam insolentiam, for some insolency, he writeth thus: Di● quôd i● non existimabuntur sacram participationem aversari, qui ●am odio habent & abominantur: velqui ut nonnulli dicebant, propter pietatem & humilitatē●am fugiunt. Illi enim non solum segregabuntur, fed etiam ut haeretici exterminabuntur: high vero propter pietatem venia digni habebuntur. Sed illi, qui prae contemptu & arrogantia ex ecclesia ante sanctam participationem inordinatè exeunt, & nec intueri sustinent. That is in effect to say thus much. Think not that the canon here speaking of them which shoonne the participation of the blessed sacrament, is to be understand of them that have it in hatred or abomination, or of them (as some said) that of a certain piety and humility abstain from it. For of these two kind of men, the first shall not only be segregate for a time, but as heretics rooted out for ever: the other, for their devotion and worthy reverence towards the sacraments, shallbe thought worthy pardon. But those are they whom this canon noteth, who of contempt and arrogancy, depart against order out of the church before the holy participation, not so much as vouchesausing to behold the same. Thus you see M. jewel, how this patriarch and learned Grecian expoundeth the canon by you alleged, not as to signify a precise necessity in all that be present at the Mass to receive with the priest, but to continue there only to the end, that by that means, although they did not sacramentally, they might year at the least in joining their prayers with the priests, and by holy meditating upon Christ's death and passion together with him, communicate the one with the other spiritually. He addeth in his said commentaries upon the above named second canon of the council of Antioch, that he thinketh the distribution of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (by which name I judge he calleth our holy bread) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have been taken out of this canon, that they which were not partakers of the lively and holy mysteries, should be bound to tarito the end of the divine ministry, and to receive the same at the priests hands ad sanctificationem, to sanctify them. Thus understandeth this greek canon joannes Monachus Zonoras', himself a Greek borne also, as in his commentaries extant thereapon, to him that listeth to search may be more at large seen. But let the canon be expounded even as our adversaries would have it, let it be so that the primitive church appointed great penalties for them, that being present at the Mass would not receive with the priest: yet is there all this while nothing brought against the priests receiving the sacrament alone: M. jewels allegations be not to the issue. why he may not take it being so disposed if other will not. And yet is this the point ye wot well that you must prove. The next authority that you allege to this purpose; Anacletus. is taken out of the first epistle of Anacletus, and never written as you ignorantly said it was, by Calixtus. But whose so ever it be you handle it like your own. For having cut of that, which otherwise might have bewrayed your falsehood, l. inci●ile. ff. de legib. you bring us in a piece, that seemeth without the rest to make for your purpose. Truly the civil laws call it incivil even in worldly matters, to judge upon the only bare view of some one part of the law, what the meaning is of the whole. What they were like to call mangling and hackling, tearing and dismembering, such as you use in god's matters, I refer it to your own conscience to judge, by the argument of L. Cornelia. de Fals. The words of Anacletus are these. Episcopus Deo sacrificans testes ut praefixum est secum habeat etc. The bishop when he doth sacrifice to god, let him as is before said have witnesses, and more than an other priest. For as his honour is greater, so hath he need of more witnesses. For upon high and solemn feasts shall he have with him, either seven, or five, or three deacons, which are called his eyes, besides subdeacons and other ministers. Who having upon them the holy vestiments shall stand with humble spirit, contrite heart, and demure countenance before him and behind him, the priests on the right hand and on the left, guarding him from evil disposed parsons, and giving their consent to the sacrifice. It followeth: Peracta consecratione omnes communicent etc. The consecration being ended, let them all communicate: they that will not shallbe suspendid from entering in to the church. For so have the apostles ordained, and the holy church of Rome observeth. These are the words of Anacletus, which if you had wholly according to true meaning alleged, every man should have easily perceived how little this place had made for your purpose: every man could have said, The true understanding of the place of Anacletus that the words (let all communicate) should be restrained to the priests, Deacons, and other ministers, of whom assisting the bishop at Mass he had before spoken, and not to be racked as by you they violently are, to all the whole people: that they should take place not in every priests mass, but in every bishops, not at all times but at high and solemn feasts. But what M. jewel if as now it appeareth that this place maketh nothing for the proof of your assertion (that there was not or could not within the first six hundred years after Christ, or now may not, any mass be said without there be ●ome present to communicate with the priest): so I make the same place (to th' intent you may not be said to have taken the pains to have alleged it in vain) to serve for us against you. Truly I nothing doubt but that in right and indifferent judgement I shall be able to do it. The assistentes to the bishop at his mass, should ye wot well as appeareth by this place of Anacletus, The place of Anacletus brought by M. jewel turned against himself. communicate peracta consecratione, after the consecration. But what if they had refused at any time so to do? What should then have been done with that which was consecrated? To have reserved it until an other time your doctrine in that point would not have permitted: to have cast it away or abused it to profaneuses, your reverence to those high mysteries could not have allowed it. I put here no case either impossible or unthought upon. For Anacletus himself provided you see, a punishment for those that would not receive, which might as well have been all as one. Thus I hope for this matter we shall not need to try the law. You will easily grant yourself, that the bishop might have finished his mass and have received alone, and so either have song or said a private mass, contrary to that which you have hitherto affirmed. To the place of chrysostom, and that other of S. Gregori, by the which it appeareth that such as would not receive with the priest were commanded away: although it were enough for us to answer, that all this proveth nothing that when they be gone, the priest which came thither for that purpose may not go forward in his Mass and receive yea alone: so that resting on this point we might look for your reply: yet although these testimonies be not I say to the purpose, forasmuch much nevertheless as they go nearer to us, than any of the other authorities before alleged, while they seem to bar the people to be present at the mass without they will receive the sacrament with the priest: I shall thereunto in few words answer after this sort. First, How the ancient writers at to be understand forbidding all to be present at the Mass save those that will receive with the priest that these fathers of a vehement and earnest zeal that they had, to revoke and call in to use again that frequent and common usage of receiving with the priest, from whence they then saw the people through coldness of devotion (which by the cruel and often persecutions of the heathen emperors was wont to be kindled and inflamed in them) to be not a little swerved and fallen away: used a phrase and manner of speech, although exactly considered in itself not all together simply true, yet for that time and those manners very much both expedient and necessary. For even as no man reprehendeth him that minding to make a crooked wand straight, A fimilitude. boweth it first to a great deal more crookedness on the other side than it had before, not that he alloweth that any more than he did the other, but only because he knoweth right well, that to make it at all straight this is the only way: even so these fathers, if they commanded them away that being present at the Mass would not communicate with the priest, if they threatened them that if they were not worthy to receive the communion, they were not worthy to have any part of the common prayers: yea if they added that except they were worthy every day to receive, they should not be worthy once in the year: we must needs think that here they bowed these crooked pieces as far an other way, and that they meant no more to have them stand thus then as they did before. If you here demand of meapon what grounds I dare, leaving the manifest words of these fathers, give this interpretation: know ye that two causes there are which have moved me so to do. The first is, for the avoiding of absurdities and inconveniences (for which causes they that be learned in the laws will tell you that it is not unlawful to serve often times and go from, even the plain words of he law or statute) which otherwise we should of necessity fall in to, and from which of good reason we ought to think those holy and learned fathers, in all their acts and doings to have been most far. For if they had meant verily as their bare words imporre, what could have been spoken more absurdly than this, that he that is not worthy to receive thee, blessed body of Christ in the sacrament, is not worthy also to be prayed for? Whereas all men know that then more unworthy he is of the one, the more worthy he is of the other (if the sick be worthy to have a physician and not the hole) that by the means thereof he may become worthy to receive that, of which he was before unworthy. If we so stick in the bark and rind and come no nearer to the pith, what sense will you make S. Ambrose to have, in saying that he that is not worthy to receive the sacrament daily, is not worthy to rceive the same once in the year? Might it not so happen, that many a good man which now receiveth worthily once in the year, should by this means not receive worthily once in his life? But of this manner used in speaking or writing, have we not in some of these father's express testimonies, namely in chrysostom? who travailing in a certain place of his works to persuade the true and real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, useth these words. Seest thou not thy lord offered up, the priest doing his priestly office, pouring out his prayers, the people round about him, imbrued and made red with that precious blood? which words I know you will easily grant with us to be not in all points simply true, but yet not discommendable or unseemly, being spoken as sensibly as might be, the more firmly to persuade the truth of that, which although it be there as truly as though it had been seen, was yet hid and to carnal eyes invisible. But what needeth it here to allege the manner of speaking of the ancient and old fathers, seeing that you M. jewel and your companions our new masters and young fathers, use the same or not much unlike in your cisguised communion: And yet for all your terrible thunder bolts shot against them that being present receive not, you see never a one the more for fear thereof depart out of the church: yea he that I think should, were well like perhaps to hear thereof to his cost before his Ordinary. But there is not the simplest in a parish but he knoweth, that your meaning is not to drive them out of the church, as your words sound, but to stir them up thereby the oftener to come to your schismatical communion, and therefore they tarry still. Or else if this be not your mind, of so many that be present continually thereat and be not partakers thereof, why have you punished all this while no●●e. another cause that hath moved me thus to understand these fathers is, for that the practice of the church appeareth to have been in their time such, as that the people was willed even then, to be present at the church and to hear Mass (at the least on the Sundays) when they stood nevertheless at liberty, touching the receiving of the sacrament any oftener than thrice in the year: as appeareth by the council holden at Agatha in France about Chrisostomes' days, and by S. Austen near also unto the same time. Canon. 47 &. 18. S. Austin's words are these. In die verò nullus se a sacra Missarum celebratione separet, ne●ue otiosus quis domi remaneat. Sermo. 251 De ●empor. On the Sunday let no man absent himself from the holy celebration of the Mass, nor remain within the doors idle. And a little after he addeth: Adhuc quo●ue quod detestabilius est, ad ecclesiam aliqui venientes non intrant, non insistunt praecibus, non expectant cum silentio sanctarum Missarum celebrationem. that is to say: Besides all this, which is a thing more to be detested, some coming to the church entre not in, they pray not, they tarry not out with silence the celebrating of the holy Masses. And thus it appeareth (the use of the church being at that time such as the people was by order bound to hear Mass on the Sunday, whether they received or no) that in no wise these fathers can be so understand, as though they meant to drive them utterly from the Mass, whither the church had bound them to come, but only to put them in remembrance so to come, and so to be present thereat, as in times passed in that old fervency of devotion they had been wont. Thus much for the first answer: Secondarily to the places before alleged I say, that ●●●ing granted (which denied by us you shall never be able to prove) that in the primitive church such as would not receive with the priest were not suffered to be present at the mass: Year is it no good reason to say, that therefore it must necessarily be so now. Seeing that in those things which have by Christ been left indifferent (of which this is one) the spiritual governors have power, to change and alter as occasion giveth. Will you see it proved by examples? There was a time when to abstain from blood and strangled meats, Act●. 5. was a thing so necessary to be observed, that it was by a solemn decree of the apostles enacted: and as light a matter as some will perhaps make thereof, yet added the apostles thereto this weight and poise of words: Visum est Spiritui sancto & nobis, it hath seemed good to the holy ghost and to us. Yea the text hath that they accounted such abstinence inter necessaria, in the number of those things that were necessary to be observed, even as to abstain from fornication. Of the continuance of this decree in his force, the place mentioneth nothing, so that thereof can be gathered no other, but that it was a law made to endure for ever, although at this day it be not practised well you wot pardy. Were it well done think you now to reason thus: In the apostles time the church abstained from bloudinges and stifled meats: Therefore we must in these days do the like? yet were this truly a stronger reason drawn from an ordonance and commandment of the apostles, then is yours leaning upon examples (if you had any such) which as they never had their beginning of any commandment or precept of the holy scriptures, but by them left at liberty were by the spiritual governors as the present time required drawn to a necessity: so by the same upon contrary, occasion may at all times be released. But you have at all no such commandment in the whole scripture that soundeth that ways, No Scripture forbiddeth the priest to receive alone, or the alley man to be present thereat when he communicateth not. that the priest may not say Mass and receive the sacrament alone without company, or that no man may be present with the priest at his Mass there with him to communicate spiritually, unless the same will also communicate sacramentally. For that you allege most fond for the proof of the contrary, that Christ gave this holy sacrament not to one alone, but to many being together, and that he said farther by the way of charge, In his Sermon. fol. 34. Do this, that is you say: Practise this that I have here done, and that in such order and form as you have seen me do it, it serveth nothing for your purpose. For who seeth not, that these words of Christ enforce no more a necessity to have this sacrament ministered to company, Math. vl●. than his other words to his apostles and disciples at other times spoken in the plural numbered, Marci. 16. of preaching to all the world, of baptizing, of losing and binding of sins, do imply a necessity to have a company of priests together at these days, to execute either the one function or the other. If the priest alone being thereto disposed may not receive the sacrament, because Christ delivered it to many: why say you not also, that the same may not minister the sacrament of baptism alone, because Christ gave that authority to many together, or preache●, or absolve, all which powers he gave to no one alone? Yea how dareth one of you alone minister your communion, seeing the words by the which your warrant (if you have at all any) taketh his strength, are uttered in the plural number? Lucae. 22. 1. Cor. 10. for Christ said not, hoc fac do thou this, but hoc facite do ye this. Must there be now M. jewel, if not twelve, yet at the least in every parish two ministers, to stand at the communion table to minister the communion together? Truly I account him not wise that seeth not to what shifts you are driven, that grasp after such sclendre hold of these words of Christ, Take ye, eat ye. Of your second objection follow many absurdities. For if Christ had meant as you say the words Do this, import: that is that they should practise that which they saw him do, in such form, in such order as they saw him do it: then beside the number of communicantes that you demand, I can not see how you can discharge yourself, in ministering it to a less number or greater either, than the same that Christ himself first observed. For if you do, then where is hoc facite, do this, that you cry out upon so much? how do you it then in the same manner and after the same sort that he did it? If you say as in deed the truth is, that the presence of that company at Christ's last supper, was no part of his action, but that the same consisted in taking bread, in blessing, in breaking, in offering it to god the father as the sacrifice of the church (as witnesseth the blessed and holy martyr S. Cyprian) and that the distribution thereof to other, Lib. 2. epist. 3. was no more of the substance of that action, then as there was company r●ady and disposed to be partakers thereof at that time: The which as when like occasion is we may in no wise omit to do: Lib. 3. de civitat dei lib ●. contraduersl ●eg. & proph. cap. 20 Serm. 6. de Pasch●t. so if no such offer itself, we may not suffer that the first use of this sacrament which was as S. Austen and Leo say, to be a sacrifice to succeed in the place of the sacrifices of the old law, should hang all together upon the second use thereof, which is to be meat and drink to the faithful. If I say you say thus, then say you truly and speak against us nothing. But if you will needs stick to your tackelings, and still cry out that we must in all points do even as Christ did, and although you can give no reason, why you should in giving to fewer or to more than he did, not be said to do otherwise then he did: if the words Do ye this, you will still maintain to be to be understand not in offering that sacrifice as Christ did, Vbi supra. and S. Cyprian understandeth them, but in observing the time, the place, the sex, the number, the qualities of the parsons with such like: how can you then I say excuse yourselves, that you have not swerved and yet do from Christ's example, and done otherwise then he did, that ministre that in the morning which he gave in the evening, and to men fasting which he gave to them immediately after supper? How have you observed the place in delivering it in the church, which Christ did in a profane house? how the sex, that for only men give it also to women? how the number (as I said before) that for just twelve, stick not at one time (if so many there be that desire it) to give it to twelve hundred, or to bare two if there be no more that will, or to as many above or as few under as you list? how the qualities of the parsons, when you give that to all lay men, which Christ did to only priests? when you put from this table notorioùse sinners, whereas Christ repelled not the traitor judas? Is this hoc facite? Is this to do all things in such form and sort as Christ did, whereas in some things you do more, in some things less, in other some clean contrary to that which he did? Thus while (I doubt not) you see, that for the avoiding of a number of absuroities, which otherwise yourselves shall in your procedings necessarily fall in to, you must of force confess, that time, place, number, sex, with the rest, are in the ministration of this blessed sacrament no part of the substance but only mere accidents, and may be present or absent, used or left of, as to the church shall seem best to take order, Epist. ad januar. 118. as witnesseth S. Austen: you must also in like manner grant with us, that Christ in the institution of this sacrament or else where, never made mention of any number to communicate together, nor ever forbade his action to be practised without company, and last of all, that these words: Hoc facite, do ye this, include not the using of every circumstance which Christ used, but only give authority (as I proved before by S. Cyprian) to offer this sacrifice, which is Christ, as he himself first did. So that now to return to your argument: In the primitive church it was so. Erga it must now also be so: we may be bold to tell you once again, that although the first part of your argument the antecedent, were most true, yet the consequent deduced therefrom is most false and untrue. Forasmuch as the matter whereof we entreat being indifferent, may by the church at all times be changed and altered, especially when new occasions shall vary the old circumstances. Which as it hath been proved to you to have been done by the church in the apostles decrees and ordinances: so are we able also to show, that the apostles have changed Christ's own commandment, and that the church hath altered that and restored the first again. Did not Christ command his apostles, that in baptesme they should use the name of the father, Math. vl●. the son and the holy ghost? Changed not the apostles this commandment when they baptized in the name of jesus? Ast 8. &. 10. The primitive church forbade the sacrament of baptism to be ministered at any other time, then at Easter and whitsuntide, except in case of necessity where the infant were like to perish without it: yet now the church permitteth to baptize at all times. And your congregation M. jewel is content also, to go from the old manner and to baptize on the Sundays and holy days, whether there be any necessity or none. If all this satisfy you not, but the church must needs appear coram vobis in your L. consistory, to give a reason why she forbiddeth not all men now to be present at the mass saving those that will communicate, as once you say she did: although he should offer you no wrong, that should first bid you prove that she were subject to your jurisdiction, and then afterward to propose your interrogatories, yet will she not deal with you after that sort, but is contented (because she is illustris persona and can not be compelled by the law personally to appear) to send you her advocate S. Austen, Lib. contra Faustum. 32. cap. 14. & Confess. lib. 3. cap. 7. who answereth for her in this sort. Sicut aeger non debet repreh●ndere medicinalem doctrinam etc. Even as the sick man ought not to reprehend the physicians prescripts, commanding him one thing to day, an other to more we: yea forbidding that which before he commanded (for so required the health of his body to have it) Even so man kind, from Adam unto the end of the world, so long as the corruptible carcase being sick and wounded annoyeth the soul, may not find fault with god's physic, if in this it command one thing, in that an other, one thing first, the contrary after. Lo M. jewel I trust you see, that laws may be in the church altered and changed as the time and manners of men require, and that no man ought to grudge or murmur at the change thereof. And by this also I trust it appear unto you, that it was not so unhandsome a comparison as you said it was, that M.D. Cole made when he resembled the state of the church in the apostles time, to the age of infancy. The which because you saw yourself you could not well deny, and that by the granting thereof your part would be the worse: you turn his words an other way (because you would seem to say somewhat) and impudently father upon him, that he should call Christ and his apostles enfantes. But I pray you good sir by the way, let me be so bold to ask you being a merchant of logic, and sent from the wisdom of your father to scoff at all other men's reasons that went before you, amongst whom you have not spared S. Austen, In quaest. ex nou. testam. q. 75. although either of malice, or of ignorance you attribute his reason of Peter's primacy, and so by a consequent the B. of Rome his, to Roffensis: what price bare logic which at other times was you say so good cheap, when you made this argument? he saith the church was in Christ's and in his apostles time in her enfancie Ergo he calleth Christ and the apostles enfantes. Truly I think the market was risen and good stuff very dear, when my L. bishop thought to utter such homely ware as this is. If a man had said of the famous university of Paris in Charles the great his time, when it was first erected, that it was then in her enfancie, had he called Alcuinus that great clerk, and all the rest of the learned doctors called thither to plant good learning, babes and infants? If of your scattered congregation one should say, that it were yet under that age of infancy, I ween no man would think that john Calvin (if he now lived) were called a babe. No he were like to keep his old name still for all that I warrant you, and the rest of your pillars to? But here it is a world to see, how through ignorance you be shamefully deceived in taking one for an other. If you had readen S. Austen so diligently as reason would you should, both him and the rest of the doctors toe, before you had made your challenge: You should have found, that you reprehended not so mu●h M. Cole, In psalm. 36. co●. c. 3. as you did unwares S. Austen. Whose words agreeing with his I have thought good here to allege, that all men may see how ignorance hath deceived you. The words are these. Dominus enimipse in corpore suo quod est ecclesia, junior fuit primis temporibus & ecceiam senuit. For our lord (that is to say) himself was in his body that is the church young at the first, and now lo behold he is becomen old. And a little after. The church hath her times of growing. autem Christi quod est ecclesia, tanquâm unus quid am homo prim●o junior fuit, & ecce iam in fine seculi est in senecta pingui. The body of Christ which is his church, was as it were a man, at the beginning young, and now behold in the end of the world it is in a ripe or f●ll age. But leaving this as wide of my purpose I shall return thither from whence I have digressed. Well let it be granted you will say, that the church hath power to alter and change things indifferent upon occasion, and as necessity requireth: what such occasion was there here to revoke that old commandment, that all that were present at the mass should receive with the priest or else depart. Will you know? I shall show you an occasion. If the church then, when although all would not, some yet there were that failed not daily to communicate with the priest, forbade those that would not, so much as to be present with other that did, thinking thereby to draw the worse to the imitation of the better, found at the length by experience, that not only by this restreinte they were nothing amended, but by abstaining from that communion in the which oftentimes before they were wont spiritually by the sweet remembrance of Christ's death and passion in those holy mysteries, to join with the priest, in their manners and lives not a little impaired: If the church I say upon these considerations bearing like a good mother with the infirmities of her children, willing rather to hold herself contented with a little with their good wills, then to lose all devotion with their evil, released the former commandment, was it not trow you cause sufficient? But all this M. jewel I must desire you to take as spoken under an if, that if you can be able to prove any such commandment of the church, you may have a reason why the same hath been abrogate and taken a way. To make an end and to knit up the knot of this present article, I have here thought good M. jewel (that if you mind to write again you may find in few words couched together the some of all that hath been said touching this matter before) briefly to show the catholic doctrine in this point, which is this. First the catholics forbidden no man meet for the holy mysteries to receive with the priest, The catholic doctrine touching private Mass. when and as often as he listeth, but wish and heartily pray that all men would so put themselves in order as at every mass there might be, that would communicate with the priest some. secondarily they teach, that this sacrament ministered in the mass, Two special uses of the Sacrament. was chiefly instituted to be a sacrifice, to be offered up to god by the priest for his own sins and the sins of the people, and next to be a spiritual food for all Christian people, and next to be a spiritual food for all Christian people to feed upon, and that as the first use of any thing may not depend upon the second, but contrary wise this upon that: so in this sacrament, the oblation which is the chiefest use thereof, and whereunto the priest is bound, may not so depend on the people's communicating which is the second, and whereunto (touching so often receiving) they are not bound but stand at liberty, that without their devotion serve them to receive it, he may not do his duty, that is to offer it. thirdly, that although for lack of company the priest do receive alone, the sacrifice is yet never the more private or less common. For as no man is so mad to say, that a great rich man keeping a common table for his poor neighbours hath left his old accustomed wont and maketh now his table private, if the gates of his house standing wide open as they were wont to be, his tables furnished with plenty of meats, and all things in a readiness, his guests forbear to come: even so it fareth in this case, where the table is laid, the gates be open, the goodman of the house (the priest supplying the place of Christ) abideth looking for his guests, who only refrain to come. Is this table private? is he a niggard? or shall he not eat that would, because they will not that should? Is a conduct builded in the midst of the open market place of a town, the less public or common if the inhabitants for whose ease it was made refuse to fetch water thereat. Last of all we say, M. jewel hath not brought so much as one proof against private Mass. that hethertoe you have not discharged your promise, which was to prove, that within the first six hundred years after Christ there was never Mass said, nor might be, without a number to receive with the priest. So that now we may say unto you, Vbi est illa sevitia? ubi est ille fremitus Leonis? Nun sagittae infantum factae sunt plagae eorum? Where are now become your cruel words against the Catholics? to what end is your Lions roaring, In the Sermon fol. 43. O Gregory, O Augustine, O Jerome, O chrysostom, O Leo, O Dionise, O Anacletus, O Xistus, O Paul, O Christ. If we be deceived you have deceived us: Psalm. 63. to what end I say is it brought? Nun sagittae infantum fact●e sunt plagae eorum? Are not the wounds that you have given us such, as children's cockeshootelles are wont to make? Well these be the points that the catholic doctrine standeth upon in this article. To the which if your stomach serve you to reply, and that you have digested that which you have already received, I most heartily pray you to keep you, without straying from the matter or alleging proofs impertinent, as close as you can. So shall you do both to yourself in writing, and to me in answering a very great pleasure. while I am sure your evidence is so much, that six lines (I speak with the most) will receive with ease all that you shall have to write. THE CONCLUSION CONTAINING. 12. CAUSES, ABLE AS THE AUTHOR JUDGETH either to stay the wavorer (in matters of religion) or to call back the wanderer in these perilous times Hitherto have you hard M. jewel for the confirmation of four articles, the chiefest in a manner of all the rest that are at this day in controversy between you and us, the scriptures, the counsels, the Doctors and examples of the primitive church: not their bare names as apothecaries set forth their empty painted boxes, but full even to the top of most wholesome treacle and precious preservatives, against the venom and contagion of your poisoned and pestilent heretical doctrine. So that now there remaineth no more, but that even as of late you have been warned already: so now by me you be put in remembrance once again, according to your promise to return from your heresies, to your mother the Catholic church. The which to persuade you the rather and with the better will to do, I have thought good here, to communicate with you such causes and reasons, as by part whereof I have by experience found myself, against our common enemy the crafty serpent's assaults, at such times as he hath laboured to draw me to your part, not a little strengthened and confirmed in Christ's true religion and his catholic faith. FIRST I beseech you consider and weigh well with yourself, The first cause. whether Christ at his departure from us men, left behind him here in earth a church or none: Whether he promised to aid the same and to be present with it to the end of the world, to defend it in such sort, as if hell gates were set wide open, and all the devils there sent abroad to vex it, they should not yet all of them be able to prevail. When all this shallbe well considered, and found to be true: then march yet one step farther I pray you, and ask as it were of yourself how this church prospered afterward: whether (as if according to his promise he have been continually present therewith all it needs must) it multiplied and increased, or by his absence therefrom decreased and went backward. Here wot you well you must needs say either th' one or the other. If you say that it hath always hitherto either increased, or been at the least so maintained, that no enemy, no heretic, no devil himself, no not all the devils with all the power of the world joining together could ever yet prevail against it: then must you also grant, that at all time's sense Christ's departure from hence, there hath been a church visible, such as of all men might both be seen and known (for such a one left Christ behind him to us, his xii apostles besides the number of disciples) to be a pillar for them to lean unto, 1. Timoth. 3. that through infidelity should be in danger of falling, and a house to harbour and secure them, that otherwise should be like in the tempests and storms of heresies to lie without the doors. If you say thus, and that he hath never forsaken his church but always nourished it, at all times in such sort defended it, that never was there time yet, in which for fear of all the tyrants in the world, for dread of burning, hanging, hedding or other torments what soever, it could be forced to hide itself, to seek means to lurk in clouds or walck invisible: but hath always to the contrary well declared itself, Psal●. 18. Math. 5. to be that tabernacle placed in the clear shining son, that city builded on the top of the mountain, that candle which giveth light to all that are in the house: them demand (I heartily pray you) of your own conscience, where fifty years a go that schismatical church which you call the true church and boast yourself to be of, was in the compass of all the wide world to be seen or hard of: where your bishops had their consistories, where your pastors and doctors were resident, Contra Luciferianos. where your religion was preached and Sacraments ministered, in such sort as you preach and ministre them. S. Hieron saith where is no priest there is no church. S. Paul teacheth us, Ephes. 4. that in Christ's church be placed apostles, Fol. 26. of that book which being last printed hath no place named where. prophets, evangelists pastors and doctors. Bring forth your priests, show where were your doctors and preachers. If you can not, as in deed by the confession of your apology, where you confess that forty years a go the truth which you teach began first to spring, that then it was by Martin Luther, and Hulderick Zuinglius first, The protestants confession concerning the antiquity of their religion. as never before hard of (for you call it inauditam veritatem) brought to the knowledge of men, you are not able: confess then at the length that you had at all no church: join yourself to them, which can of all times and of all ages bring forth good testimonies and evident proofs, where the religion which they profess, the doctrine which they preach, hath been preached and taught, and the sacraments which they ministre ministered, in such sort and manner as by them they presently are. Thus much if you grant to us that Christ's church according to his promise hath prospered, hath prevailed against all enemies and back friends, hath always sense his departure hence been visible and to be seen of all men. But if now on the contrary part you say not thus, but for the city that should stand on the top of the mountain to be seen of all men, you will lead us to a ragged cottage standing in some dark hole and obscure cave, able to be seen of no man or very few: if for the tabernacle placed in the bright son you point us to a doghole in some cloudy cellar or rotten barn, and tell us that there your church hath lurked, and all this long while lain hidden for fear of persecution: then must we tell you in plain English, that although you were able to find out some such luskes co●ner where your conventicles had been assembled (as if a man should ask you but of the year before Luther's time you can not): yet this would in no wise serve your turn, as being the strange voice of those false prophets, of whom in the gospel our saviour gave us a watch word to beware and take heed. Math. 24. For Christ, and so by a consequent the body which must follow the head, Christ's church universal. the church I mean, is not in parts here or there, and therefore you deserve no credit when you so say. He dwelleth not in the desert of singularity, but in that well peopled city, cuius participatio eius in idipsum, Psalm. 122 which is at unity with itself: and whither the multitude ascendeth, not by one and one alone, but by whole tribues and companies together. And therefore when you tell us that his abiding is in deserto, in the desert or wildrenes: we may not go out of that populous city, nor step out of the common beaten way there to seek him, no more than we may believe you when you cry in penetralibus, that he is in the secret and privy places of the house. Thus told S. Austen (than whom the church had never yet a champion more exercised or better practised and acquainted with the manners and fashions of heretics) Petilian that heretic. Coutra literas Petil. lib. 2. cap. 16. his words are these. Sed haec interim sepono, tu ostende ecclesiam. I am vox illa mihi sonabit, quam in pseudoprophetis Dominus vitandam praemonuit ostendentibu● parts, & ab vniuerso alienare conantibus: Ecce hic est C●ristus, Ecceillic. Sed usque adeò putas veras oves Christi cor non habere, quibus dictum est nolite credere, ut lupum audiant dicentem: hic est Christus, & pastorem non audiant dicentem per omnes gentes incipientibus ab Jerusalem? Lucae. 24. That is to say: But these things I lay all a side and slip over: show me the church. Here will that voice sound in my ears which our lord warned us to beware of in false prophets, showing us parts, and going about to draw us from the whole, saying: Lo here is Christ and there is Christ. But thinkest thou Petilian that the true sheep of Christ, to whom it is said believe them not, are so hartelesse, that they will harcken to the wolf howling that here is Christ, and will give no ear to the shepherd saying, through out all nations beginning at Jerusalem. Thus taught he us in an other place to discern true preachers from false: Libro de cantico no●o. cap. 5. Si quis tibi Christum praedicat, attend & considera qualem praedicet, ubi praedicet. Christus enim veritas est, per scripture as sanctas praedicatur, non in angulis, non occultè, sed palam, publicè. In sole posuit tabernaculum suum, hoc est in manifesto collocavit ecclesiam suam. S. Austin's rule to know the true preacher from the false. If any man (that is to say) preach unto the Christ, mark and consider what manner of Christ he preacheth, and where he preacheth him. For Christ is truth, he is preached by the holy scriptures, not in corners, not in hocker mocker, but openly and publicly. He hath pitched his tabernacle in the son, that is to say, he hath placed his church in the open sight of all men. The same S. Austen told Severinus a kinsman of his, Epist. 170. that the church was civitas supra montem posita, a city built on the top of a hill, and that therefore it was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, because it was diffunded through out the whole world, and finally that for that cause according to the word of god, it could not be hidden. To this that hath been alleged may be added, that if ever Christ's church should have been brought to such extremity, at any time after the foundation thereof once laid, that a man might have sought for it and not have found it, that no one du●s● put forth his head to keep the possession and right thereof: that then it had been utterly overthrown, that hell gates had prevailed against it. And how had than David's prophecy been true spoken before hand of the church: Psalm. 71. Dominabitur a mari vs●ue ad mare, & à flumine vs●ue ad terminos terrae? It shall rule from sea to sea, and from the flood to the end of the world. How had the church ruled and governed, that should have been so brought under and vanquished? Or how could Daniel, have called it the great stone that grew and became a huge mountain and filled the whole world? Daniel. ●. Yea how had Christ acquitted himself of his promise to be always present with his church, if it had ever been brought to these terms? Great persecutions the church (we confess) of Christ hath suffered, but yet never was there any so vehement that could make all to hide their heads, that some there were not, who even to the teeth of the proudest tyrants of them all, standing at defence upon the walls, defended not stoutly Christ and his church. For if it had been otherwise, then had the devil (as before hath been said) gotten the victory, and Christ taken the foil, than had the church which at Christ's departure hence was both seen and known (whereas by this means it should be neither) not only have been nothing at all advanced, but also in deed much abased. By this that hath been alleged I trust you see M. jewel and will easily confess, Lib. 4. Instit. cap. 1. if not with me with Calvin yet your late captain, that Christ's church must needs be visible, The church is visible. that (as his reason is) we may know it to join ourselves thereto. For a poor pillar should it else be to lean unto, and as homely a house for secure to fly to, if when a man should stand in distress and need thereof, he were sure never to see it or know it, by which means he should find it Next after this you will grant I hope, It erreth not. that this church of Christ hath always kept with it, the truth of god's word and right use of his sacraments, and in few words to comprehend all, that it never yet erred in any necessary point of doctrine. For if it have (as in your apology you labour in vain to prove it may) than shall you hear once again, and as often as you so say you must not think much to hear, that Christ hath not kept touch with his church: that he was from home when the devil was there: that hell gates, by which one right well understandeth heresies, have prevailed against it, the contrary whereof, after the scriptures S. Austen amongst the ancient writers most plainly affirmeth. De ●iuitat. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 8 It is universal. Thirdly it hath been proved, that this church of Christ is not in parts, but dispersed over the whole, and therefore called catholic, as much to say, as universal. Last of all the truth will compel you to confess, that there is no certain number of years limited or prefixed for the church to be visible, after which time it should be darkened and not be seen: no more than Christ's promise made to aid it for ever, can berestreined to any such certain or determinate time. Which being true, then followeth it that the church hath been aswell visible, and preserved from errors these nine hundred years last passed, as it was in the six hundred before. And then if it be so, in what a plight you be, which confess for us that for nine hundred years the practice of the church hath run on our side, we proving for ourselves that for the six hundred years before it hath done the like: I pray you well to consider, to lay your hand upon your heart and think upon it seriously. This foundation laid, let now you and me imagine together (which I have oftentimes done with myself alone) that we were fifty years ago both men living together in this world, of good years and discretion, that beginning then to mislike and suspect the religion through all the world used, we sought for the church of Christ (which we were persuaded not to be amongst them who preached the word and ministered the sacraments as they did) such a church for example as now is in England to be seen: where the head should be a lay man, a woman or a child, in no wise a priest: where should be but two sacraments: where there should be no sacrifice, yea the very name should be odious: where in the sacrament of the altar should be said to be nothing but bread and wine: in the which there should be no invocation of saints, no praying for the dead, no abstinence from meats on prescript days: where only faith should be taught to justify, good works to be nothing available or meritorious to the doers: and finally in all points qualified according to the direction of your communion book. Let us I say imagine (that all ways presupposed that such a church as I have described is the true church of Christ) where we should in those days have sought after it, where we should after long seeking to join ourselves thereto, to harbour ourselves therein, to rest our backs thereat, being all forwearied with wandering from opinions to errors, from errors to heresies, have at the length found it. Or let us discourse with ourselves, when after all this busy search and diligent inquiry therefore it appeared in no place, what we had been likely to have said the one to the other. Truly what we would have said I know not, but what we both should I know right well. We should first have entered in to a marvelous mislike with our own wits, who being in number but two, in learning and wisdom not the most excellent in a country on th' one side, against the whole wisdom of the world on the other: had ever fallen in to any such foolish fantasy or furious frenzy, as to condemn the doings of all the rest to bring in place our doltish dreams, to think ourselves only to see and all other men to be blind, to believe that the most learned, Contr. epistol. Parmeni●ni lib. 3. cap. 5. the most virtuous should err, and we only privileged that we might not. We should have remembered ourselves, and with S. Austen have said: Qui non vult sedere in consilio vanitatis, non evanescat typo superbiae, quaerens conventicula justorum totius orbis unitate separata, quae non potest invenire. justi autem sunt per universam civitatem, quae abscondi non potest quia supra montem constituta est: montem illum dico Danielis, in quo lapis ille praecisus sine manibus, crevit & implevit universam terram. He that will not sit in the council of vanity, let him not vanish away with the shadow of pride, seeking after conventicles of just men the unity of all the world being severed, which he shall never be able to find. For the just are dispersed through out that universal city, which can not be hidden, because it is founded upon a hill, even that hill that Daniel speaketh of, in the which that stone that was cut forth without hands grew, and filled the whole world. Besides this, we should have judged ourselves men altogether faithless, that giving no more credit to Christ's promise, we would think his church to have been by him at any time forsaken, and the whole world involved and wrapped in an universal darkness. Whereas true faith and good reason ought on the contrary part to have persuaded us, that we had ourselves rather been stark blind not able to see, than that conspicuous city on the top of the hill seen of all other men, should be removed or quite overthrown, and Christ false in his promise. If we should have thought and said thus then M. jewel, as I see no cause why we should have omitted so much as one word▪ let us now I beseech you, as you tender the common quiet of the church, as you regard the health of your own soul do the like. your own selves confess within the term of years by me mentioned, of the beginning and continuance of your religion: your Apology alleging. 40. years for all the universal world: M. Haddom to Hieronimus Osorius standing more stoutly then wisely upon the quiet possession of thirty years, six excepted, in which the course thereof was interrupted within our realm of England. So that you can not say that I have here imagined a case impossible, but by your own selves confessed, and by many a man alive if you would deny it, easy to be proved. To conclude, if all that hath been already said satisfy you not: let yet Tertullian persuade you in this point, whose words touching this matter written against the heretics of his time, ●ib. de prescript. adversus hae●es. follow in english after this sort. Well let it be granted that all have erred. Hath the holy ghost yet all this while regarded no church to lead it into the truth, being sent for that purpose by Christ, being therefore expressly demanded of his father to be the teacher of all truth? Let it be so that god's bailif and Christ's vicar have suffered the churches to understand otherwise then he taught by his apostles: Is it yet likely that so many and famous churches should err in one faith? And a little after he addeth these words: The truth belike looked for some Marcionites and Valentinians (the heretics against whom he wrote) to deliver it, in the mean season till whose coming, the gospel was not rightly preached, so many thousand thousands baptised amiss, so many works of faith evil ministered, so many virtuous cures and gifts wrongfully wrought, so many priesthodes and ministrations naughtily executed, so many martyrdom; to make an end suffered in vain. Thus far Tertullian. To whom it seemed a thing absurd and unlikely, that the holy ghost should fail the church, in the revealing and opening to the same of any wholesome and necessary truth, that gods bailiff and Christ's vicar should suffer so many churches to fall in to an erroneous and wrong belief, that so many agreeing all in one faith should err, that no chance should at one time or an other have varied the order (had it been nought) of that doctrine which so many churches taught This wrote he when Christ's church was yet in herba, when it had continued little above two hundred years. What would he have said were he now alive in our time, to hear that all the churches in the wide world, the same where the apostles themselves governed, from whence as from a spring all scripture, all true religion next after god, flowed in to the rest of Christendom, should be noted agreeing all in one faith to have perniciously erred, not one hundred years or two, but by the continual space of fifteen hundred. Or if that confession fell from you in your Apology unwares (as in a book set forth with such public consent first, commended to the world next, as the common and certain pledge of your religion, and last of all vaunted to be placed openly in the eyes of all the world, and such as no one of your adversaries were able to refel, it is not easi to be presumed:) yet for the term of nine hundred years at the least. For, for so long continuance the most part of you grant, that we are able to bring proofs and witnesses of our religion, and therefore you challenge all the writers that have written within that compass. Would he not now have cried out, and have asked where was become the holy ghost appointed by Christ, demanded of the father to lead the church in to all truth? Whether it were likely that so many and notable churches agreeing all in one faith should err? would he not think we take up our new doctors, you and your companions, telling you that the truth lay ever bound and could never be loosed till friar Luther and his brother Zuinglius came and set it at liberty: and that in the mean season the gospel was never preached aright, baptesme evil ministered, with such like functions in the church? But leaving Tertullian and coming nearer to our own time, will not think you Hieronimus Osorius laugh in his sleeve, The year of our lord. 182. when of thirteen hundred years (for so long is it and more sense we English men first received the faith at the hands of pope Eleutherius) M. Haddon his adversary, M. Haddons confession of the continuance of the Gospel in England. after so much turning and tossing, troubling and vexing, of Cicero his master and chiefest author of his divinity: could at the length with much ado, find but .24. years that our country had continued in the doctrine of the gospel? Is he not like think you to serve him again with this tennis ball: Hoc est tuum Gualtere nescio stupidius an improbius ad Hieronimi epist. responsum? And will not some other trow you, cut him short of this account eleven years, and bid him for .30. lacking six, to write .30. lacking .17. Except he will fly to this to justify his reaconing, that as soon as the pope was once banished, although Mass, Matins, and all other service continued till the death of king Henry: that yet was all as it should be and according to the doctrine of their gospel. How ever it be, four and twenty or .13. years, hath not the Queen our gracious lady trow you, and the whole realm good cause to decree and appoint a perpetual salary out of the common coffers to such a patron? But because Osorius, is well known to be man good enough for M. Haddon, and therefore both can and will if he think it needful to reply upon so fond an answer, defend himself: I will leaving to write any more thereof as pertaining not principally but incidently to my purpose, conclude here this first cause, with my earnest request to you once again, that you considre it diligently and seriously, not lightly or scornfully. THE second cause that hath weighed much with me, The .2. and may also justly do the like with you, is the same that S. Austen disputing with the Manichees, affirmed to have kept him in the lap of the catholic church, that is the authority of the same church, by which we are taught to give credit unto the gospel. Contra epist. quam vocant fundamentum. cap. 4. For as he reasoned thus against Manichaeus: Quibus ergo obtemperavi dicentibus etc. Those therefore whom I believed bidding me believe the gospel, why should I not give credit to the same men warning me not to believe Manichaeus: so may you or I say to all such factious men as labour to bring us from the obedience of the catholic church of Rome to their part: The church of Rome the mother and chief of all other, taught us English men first to believe the gospel, and other knowledge thereof than which we had from that church, we have none. Why should we not therefore believe that church willing us to give no credit to Luther, to Zuinglius, to Calvin and such like, seeing we obeyed it commanding us to believe the gospel? If it deceive us now in counceling us not to believe them: What more assurance have we that it might not do the like in delivering to us the gospel? thirdly your inconstancy in misliking one day that which you praised th' other, The .3. in changing your opinions as maketh best for your purpose, in using now in many things the reasons of the Catholics which once ye condemned: When in the old writers I find that this was the very manner of the old heretics, and consider on tother side how the Catholics remain always settled and stayed, without change or innovation, how so ever the course of time turning about alter many things to their disadvantage: this I say hath moved me not a little, to rest rather with them, then stray with you, neither you nor I wots whither. And because you shall perceive that I go not about by false and slanderous reports to bring you in hatred, but have noted truly the manner of your proceeding that you may the rather detest the same: Call to your remembrance the changing and turning in and out of your communion book: how the first was praised for uniformity to be agreeing with Christ's institution, and the usage of the primitive church, and yet in how short a space that being taken away, you brought in a new to the first in the principal points clean contrary, to Christ's institution and the order nevertheless of the primitive church as agreeable just as was the first. And yet that, whether it be in all points as ye mind to have it, squared and trimmed, yourself and your companions perhaps can tell: wise men that know the nature of heresy, and have observed the practice and order of your procedings think vereily no. And whether you yourself M. jewel have at any time by private letters to Francis Baldwin cast out any by words to that effect of changing some such things which yet you take to be but grenelie handled upon better leisure, you know best yourself, at the least he hath so reported of you. But because what you will do hangeth but upon uncertain events, I shall leaving that as likely whereof you have given vehement presumptions, put you in remembrance, that there was a time when your number was yet but small, that the Catholics laid to your charge, that their doctrine was v●iuersallie received of all men and in all places: which no doubt Christ assisting always according to his promise his church, and not suffering hell gates (which one right well interpreteth to be meant of heresies) to prevail against the same, could never have been had their doctrine been false: and that yours was such as coming suddenly no man witted from whence, had only found entreteinemten at the hands of a few miserable men, who either for the loathsomeness of some straight and painful profession that they before had bound themselves unto, greedily desired now to walk in the wide fields and broad way of that large and lewd liberty which they saw to be openly proclaimed by you: other else through plain desperation of thriving in their present state, looked after some change, which as they trusted might better the same: so were they sure could impair it never. At which time ye could glory in your fewenes, with boasting on the scriptures wrongly understood, that Christ's flock was but little, that many were called but few chosen, with such like. Now behold your inconstancy I pray you. After that your heresies have gotten in a great part of Germany, in England, France, Scotland and else where, some more liberty and freer passage, as though all the world were on your side, you vaunt yourselves of your number, and make in your Apology a necessary argument, that your doctrine must needs be true and sound, which notwithstanding so many enemies, such a number of back friends as from the beginning it hath had: hath yet at the length found such happy success▪ as that now it ruffleth in the courts and palaces of noble men. O you that triumpheas ye do of this little (which yet o god is by all were thy will otherwise to much, and yet in deed compared with the rest of the Catholics, or with that number and power that in his time Arrius his heresy was of, very little): what would ye then have said, how would you have taken up, the Catholics reasons of generality and consent, (which now ye set so little by) if you might once have gotten that advantage by th' end, which now of your small scattered company brag and boast so much? Even thus did as S. Austen rereporteth of them, those pernicious heretics the Donatists. Who when at the first they were but few bragged therein, afterward when they were grown to be many, triumphed likewise in their number. The Arrians also when th●ie were so now increased, that they had gotten the emperor of the world, besides a great number of bishops and priests, almost all, to take part with them: had they not trow you M. jewel as good cause, (if happy success against all enemies and gainesaiers be a cause) to triumph then as you have now. Yea truly in all men's judgement they had. De synod. adu●rsus Arriano●. But even as of them Hilarius the bishop said: Antea in obscuro atque in angulis D. Christus Deiesse secundum naturam filius negabatur etc. In time's pastor lord Christ was denied to be the natural son of god, and was preached having no part of his father's substance to have had his beginning common with other creatures of nothing, and thus much only in hocker mocker. But now heresy breaking in upon us by the help and favour of public authority, triumpheth of that like a conqueror which before she whispered in corners like a micher: so may we at this time justly say of you. And therefore we envy not your sorry joy wherewith you would seem to make yourselves merry, but contrary wise do pity much your case, who seeing how you are daily driven to such miserable shifts, that you are feign after the manner of such old heretics as have heretofore vexed the church to change with the time your opinions: have not yet the grace to perceive the same, and to mislike that doctrine which can not come forward but by such means as heresies have doen. When it served your turn you defended stoutly with tooth and nail, that a woman might not govern a realm lawfully descended unto her, no not in civil and politic matters. Within how few years, yea months after, taught ye (the time so serving for your purpose) and yet do, that a woman may rule, not a realm in temporal things, but the church in spiritual? I am not ignorant of your excuse in this behalf, which is to cover your malice with the cloak of a stranger and so to convey the fault from yourselves to an other. But the truth is well known to be far otherwise, both by him who for that that he was a principal doer therein lurketh presently in Scotland, and also by that other who so ever he were that made the book entitled the harborough for faithful subjects. Who intending to lay all the burden upon a strangers back, having forgotten by misfortune the chief rule of his art, that a liar should be mindful, even in the first leaf of his book declareth him to have been an Englisheman, when in begging as it were a pardon for him, he useth these words: considering the grief which like a good member of that body which then suffered, he felt. and afterward he declareth that that body was England and no other. You may remember it is not so long sense, when to put men to death for religion was a thing horrible you said, and expressly against the word of god, and charity of the gospel: Now the sword being as you think in your hands, you teach in your lessons, you cry out in your sermons, and never left crying till you had brought it to pass that it was decreed by public authority, that such as in religion believe not as you do, both may and aught to suffer death therefore. And surely if the Queen our most gracious lady would alter the present state of religion, you would not fail shortly to sing your old song again, that for religion no man ought to be punished by death, and I fear me assay either with some such feditiouse book as against Queen Marry ye made, or by some other practice (of which your part lacketh no store) to remove her from all manner of government both spiritual and temporal. For if your liberty in the lord be such, as against your prince that pleaseth you not you can say nothing to much (as the author of the harborough saith, he could not that wrote the blast against the government of women, had he kept himself in the particular parson of his sovereign lady Queen Mary) who doubteth but that you would use it? And for the better proof hereof, I refer me to that book of late made by your companions of the succession, whereby every man that wit hath may easily perceive, upon such premises what conclusion was to be looked for: none other forsooth then the speedy dispatch of her, whose clemency (being our gracious and sovereign lady) because it could be brought by no means to serve your furious spirit, you thought to work by other means and to provide for the maintenance of your kingdom yourselves. But this power are ye grown unto (whereof I marvel also that ye make not your vaunts) that ye can make kings and depose them when ye list. This mutability and inconstancy in your own doctrine in so short a space: in your communion first, one while decreing that it be ministered in common and leavened bread, by and by revoking that and bringing it to unleavened: at one time commanding that your service be in all places used in the English tongue: not long after changing the same in some places in to the latin, and yet that rejected once again and the English restored and all this within the space of little more than a year. This day your communion table placed in the midst of the quire, the next day removed in to the body of the church, at the third time placed in the chancel again after the manner of an altar, but yet removable as there is any communion to be had: Then your ministers face one while to be turned towards the south, an other while towards the north, that the weathercock on the top of the stieple hath been noted not to have turned so often in the space of one quarter of a year, as your ministre hath been caused beneath in the bottom of the church, in less than one month: as though you could not sufficiently declare how restless an evil heresy is, except you must make your communion table to run about the church, the ministre first after it and then round about it, to express the same. This inconstancy I say and tottering in and out, first about the order of your communion, and then in other things before noted, causeth diverse men and amongst the number myself, to suspect your doctrine of newness, because naturally we see this, and shifting in and putting out, to chance in things at their first beginning, and contrary wise never in those that have been of long and settled continuance. If such a communion as you now have devised, had ever been before, you should have found presidents, and forms thereof that should have directed you so certainly, that you never could have fallen in to this inconvenience of making and marring, building and pulling down. But you had no such form, and therefore I marvel not if it happened unto you as it hath. THE fourth cause or consideration that hath moved me hath been this, The. 4. that besides your own misliking with your own doings, I find (which is a sure mark whereby to know the false and malignant church) that you are at dissension amongst yourselves one with an other: which hath not neither begun of late, but (even as the poet feigned of Cadmus' men) sprang up together with that unhappy seed of your devilish doctrine. What should I hear trouble your ears with the unpleasant remembrance of that implacable dissension (for which even at this day their offspring are one with an other at deadly food) of your first parents Luther and Zuinglius, or of your elder brothers Calvin and Oecolampadius? What should I remember your own good agreement at home, which your last assembly in your convocation hath made to all the realm so manifest and well known? And yet is this dissension of yours not in owtewarde ceremonies or trifling matters, as you we would have men to believe, or in the diversity of apparel as wherewith for lack of other stuff, to the great defacing of your part, you are constrained to charge us: but in the highest mysteries and greatest points of our religion. For how many opinions are there amongst you concerning the justification of a Christian man? how many of the value of good works? how many about baptesme? how agree you with your late head that calleth god the author of their damnation that are damned, Calvin. lib. 3. Instit. cap. 23. except you call him so toe? how can you be said to agree, who call that lawful, which the chief of your company calleth blasphemy? how agree you with yourselves in that high mystery of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, Calvin. in 1. Osee. ● 7. Amos. of whom some of you, and the better some to if learning and honesty may take any place, defend with Luther Christ's real presence in the sacrament, other some with Zuinglius deny the same. My leisor serveth me not M. jewel, or if it did my purpose is not here (which a just volume would scarce receive) to heap together all the contrary opinions, which sense the first hour that your father Luther opened the wide doors of his wicked schools, either he in his life time, or his scholars sense his death, have either taught contrary to themselves or one to an other. It shallbe enough for me friendly to warn you, to take good heed thereof in time, and for the surplus to advertise you to resort to the works of Hosius, of Lindanus in his tables, Fredericus Staphylus, Georgius Wicelius, both some times infected with your heresies, Martinus Cromerus, and diverse other: where if you list you may more at large see, this dissension lively and at the eye deciphred. Although I fear me you be not ignorant thereof your own self, apology. which in your Apology of the church of England (for of the penning thereof at the least you bear the name) to discredit and utterly deface that infallible mark of Christ's flock, The late Apology reasoneth against unity. which your own conscience of all likelihood told you appertained not to you, unity I mean, reported thereof that the devils lack not that. But long shall it be M. jewel before ye shall make any wise man to forsake the unity of Christ's church, to come to the confusion of your seditious synagogue, I trust, upon the warrant of such wise reasons as this is. Think you because your pleasure is to call by the name of unity, the devils wicked agreeing in vexing and molesting of mankind, that therefore they that consider how the apostles began their doctrine therewitheall, how they continued with the ●ame, (for of them is it written that th●ie had cor unum, & animam unam, one heart and one mind) how S. Paul commended it to the Ephesians, Cap. 4. 1. Cor. 14. joan. 13. how god is called the god of peace, and not of dissension, how Christ finally gave it as a badge to his disciples to be known by: and never yet in any age would suffer, that the adulterer should be able with all that he could do, to pull from the finger of his dear spouse that precious ring of unity: think you I say, that against these weighty considerations, by your malicious cavilling they willbe any thing at all moved? Truly I nothing doubt but by such despiteful reasons, a●l good men will in their faith be the more confirmed and staid. And thus much touching the fourth cause. THE. 5. The. 5. cause that may persuade you to mislike your religion, may be the reckless company of your adherentes and confederates. Which is such, that begin at the one end of the realm, and pass through all the shires, all the cities, all the towns, and all the villages between that and the other, and generally as every man is to all mischief most prone and inclined: so shall you perceive it to be true, that he embraceth your religion soonest. And contrariwise as he is the most simple, the most quiet, the farthest from all evil conditions, so is he in disposition from the same most abhorring. If he never come to the church to pray, if he fast never, if he be a common Ruffian that sweareth, that stealeth, that blasphemeth, that picketh quarrels with his neighbours, that breaketh all good order: he is as I said before, generally yours. For otherwise I know, that both some honest natures there are through simplicity (the more is the pity) by you abused, and other some also ●●●ngest us, who (although through the goodness of god they be staid from erring in their faith) err yet notwithstanding in their manners most perniciously. And therefore I say generally and for the most part. So that I thinks I may be bold to say, for one found out on either part such as I have described, if ye made the progress that I tell you of, you should find forty on tother: and if it would please you by the way to visit the gallows, the gibbettes and other places appointed for the execution of justice, a far greater number toe. O merciful lord is there any man so ignorant of thy righteous judgements, and infinite mercies, that he will rather think that thou hast more regard in the revealing of thy holy spirit of truth, to such hell hounds and wicked men, Ast. 13. &. 14. who never fast, who never pray for the obtaining thereof (as did thy apostles before they received it) then to a number of quiet, modest, and harmless men: who by prayer, by fasting by almoise deeds, by works of mercy, by all virtuous means labour to obtain the same. But here I wot well some one of you will say, that Christ of a persecutor of his flock made Paul a diligent sheppherd, that Marie Magdalen a great sinner, became of virtue an earnest follower, and that such changes daily you have in such as come to your religion. Truly if it were so then said you some what, but experience hath well taught us the contrary. For of many that before they came to you had some honesty left, or were but meanly evil: as we have perceived diverse that straight ways became unhonest, and spreading their sails abroad have launched into the deep gulf of all mischief: so have we hard of very few that being before evil, your doctrine hath at any time persuaded to be good. For proof whereof, and that it may the better appear that this is not only true in our country of England, but a mischief that rageth universally, where so ever your false gospel is preached, not grown of late as though time which corrupteth even the best things had wrought any change therein, but sprung up with the same at the very beginning: I shall here lay before your eyes the testimony of him, who because he lived amongst the first fautors of this your counterfeit religion could not be ignorant of their manners, because he was vehemently suspected, and in some things also uttered himself to favour your doctrine, can not be by you challenged as not indifferent, The testimony of Erasmus concerning the new gospellers. In Epist. in Pseudoevangelic. Erasmus Roterodamus. His words extant to be seen touching this matter are these. Circunspice mihi populum istum evangelicum, & obserua num minus illic indulgeatur luxui, libidini, & pecuniae, quàm faciunt hi quos detestamini? Proffer mihi quem istud evangelium ex commessatore sobrium, ex feròci mansuetum, ex rapaci liberalem, ex maledico benedicum, ex impudico reddiderit verecundum. Ego tibi multos ostendam qui facti sunt seipsis deteriores. That is to say: Look upon this evangelical people, and mark whether there be amongst them less riot, less sensuality, less covetousness, then is amongst them whom you detest so much. Show me whom this gospel hath made of a ravenous gloot on a sober absteiner, of cruel gentle, of covetous liberal, of a slanderer a good reporter, of an ●nchaste sinner a virtuous liver. I will show the many that have been made worse than themselves. And a little after. Nunquâm eorum ecclesias ingressus sum, sed aliquando vidi redeuntes à conci●ne, veluti malo spiritu afflatos, vultibus omnium iracundiam ac ferociam miram prae se ferentibus. Sic opinor, discedunt milites à concione ducis ad praelium exhortati. Quis unquam vidit in eorum concionibus quenquam fundentem lachrimas, tundentem pectus, aut ingemiscentem? I never was (that is to say) in any of their churches but some times I have seen them coming from the sermons as possessed of some evil spirit, the countenances of them all declaring a certain anger and cruelty. So I ween use the soldiers to depart from the oration of their captain, when they have been exhorted to the battle. when ever saw in any of their sermons any of them weeping, knocking his breast or yet sighing? Thus much hath Erasmus touching your new gospel. I pass over here in silence the infamous company of common minstrels and entrelude players, Ministrelles and players chief ministers in publishing the new gospel. who be all brothers of your fraternity, members of your corporation, and in so good credit amongst you, that they have their charge of dispensing the word as well as you. So far forth, that in your filthy and dirty dunghill of stinking martyrs, you call players one of the engines set up by god against the triple crown of the pope to bring him down. Fol. 750. Let the civil laws note such merchants with infamy: ●l. quod ait praetor § ait praetor ff. De his qui not infam. Concil. Ca●thag. 7. Cap. 1. yet amongst you they may go for honest men. Let the canons forbid them to accuse even them that be faulty: yet your church admitteth them to blaspheme Christ's sacraments, to slander and speak evil of his ministers. I mean not here bishops only and priests, but princes also and other magistrates, to whom under god the charge of the common wealth hath been committed. Lib. 1. epist. 10. ad Eucratium. Finally let S. Cyprian say as long as he list, that it is neither agreeable to the majesty of god, nor discipline of his gospel, that such be admitted to the holy communion, whereby the honour of the church should by their filthy and infamous contagion be defiled: yet is not your communion so pure, but that that honest kind of men may be●re you company and sit with you even at one mess, nor your church so honourable, or doctrine ●o perfect, that you need to fear the blemishing thereof in to whose hands or mouths so ever it shall happen to come. But all this I say I pass over, and shall go forward in prosecuting of other causes that make me to abhor your doctrine. THE next cause hath been upon the consideration of the parson of him that you boast to have been the author and founder of your religion. The. 6. Was not he a lewd lecherous friar? The first author of the new gospel. an apostata? Married he not (if by so honest a name I may call so filthy a deed) a nun, an act besides the commandments of the scriptures so understanden by the church, L. Si quis non dicam C. de episcop. & cleric. by the civil laws also by jovinian the emperor twelve hundred years ago lacking three, under the pain of death most severely forbidden? Was he not one that passed all other in pride? Deserved he not trow you for these qualities that favour and good grace at his father's hands, Libr. de Missa angulari. of the obtaining whereof in diverse passages of his works he rejoiceth so much: Luther persuaded by the devil to ha●e Mass. as of the conference that he saith he had with his said father the devil, when by force of his reasons he was constrained to write against the Mass? of the familiarity that he showed him when it pleased him to keep him so many years company, as between them many bushels of salt were eaten? The which time we may not think neither to have been idly spent betwe●ne them, but as first in the Mass, that so afterward he instructed him sufficiently in the rest. Amongst which instructions was it not trow you a lesson meet for such a schoolmaster: Si uxor nolit aut non possit, ancilla venito. If the wife will not yield to her husband the due debt of marriage or be not able, let the maiden come? And again for the husband on the other side, In a sermon of matrimony printed at witem berge first Anno. 1522. after ward An no. 1553. Tom. 6. German fol. 177. that if he be in that case that he can not render to his wife the same: that she shall first ask leave of him to repair to his brother or some other of his blood for such carnal company, and that finally if she can not obtain it, she shall get her a way and marry clam? Is not this trow you proof good enough that your doctrine cometh from the devil, while yourselves grant to have received it from Luther, and he both by words and deeds that he had it from him? Boast now of him as long as you list, call him the man of god, claim him for your patron and founder: term him prestantissimus vir, & ad illustr andum orbem terrarum a deo datus. the most excellent man, and sent even from god to lighten the darkness of the world, as in your Apology you do. For as we envy not your fortune: so persuade we ourselves, that had all the world till his coming been as you would bear us in hand it was, overwhelmed with errors, god would yet have chosen an other manner of piece to bring it in frame again, than he either in his life or doctrine showed himself to be: and that he which should have done such an enterprise, aught to have conferred with the holy spirit of god, not with the cursed and wicked spirit of Satan. THE root of this your doctrine, The. 7. was it not avarice mixed with enuiou●e hatred? whilst Luther the author thereof, partly for that the office of publishing certain indulgences granted by Leo then pope, was taken from the order of the Augustine friars of the which he was one, and committed to the friars preachers of the order of S. Dominicke (wherewitheall no small gain went also await together from them) partly of envy, that they of that religion should be thought metre for the execution thereof then he or his? And of such roots shall we look for good fruit? Cast your eye upon other countries where your religion is now embraced. consider diligently by what means it found first there entreteinement, in some upon desire of revengement, in other by covetousness, by lechery and such like vices, and in none by charity: and yourself I trust will say with me, that I had good reason to be moved by this consideration. AN other cause why I have abhorred your doctrine and yet do, The. 8. is, for that I find by the ancient histories, and allowed records of the father's writings, that in many points of the same, and in your manners beside, you agree with the old heretics that have heretofore troubled the church of god, with the jews, with the ethnics and pagans, with tyrants and infidels, with Antichrist, yea with Satan himself. If you demand of every one of these several examples, behold here they follow. Simon Magus. To begin first with Simon (whom for his knowledge in Magic the histories have called Magus) for as much as of all heretics he may be rightly called the father, I●inaeus. lib. 1. cap. 20. as he that living in S. Peter's time, That go●d works be not meritorious, an here●y of Simon Magus. first maintained that we read of, any heresy against the truth: have you not borrowed this wholesome doctrine of yours, that such good works as god giveth us the grace to do, merit for us nothing towards our salvation? Novatus. Novatus whose heresies raged in the church in S. Cyprian his is time, Cornelius being then pope about the year of our lord. 249. withdrew him a Histor. trip. lib. 8. cap. 9 self from the obedience of the See of Rome: b Nicephor lib. 6. cap. 30. The pope renounced. he exacted a solemn oath of those that received the blessed sacrament of the altar at his hands, that they should utterly renounce the obedience of the pope which was at that time Cornelius, as I said before. Do not you the like? Manichaeus in the year of our lord. 271. The Manichees denied that man hath any free-will. c Hieron. in proaem. dialog. adder's. Pelag. August. de haeresib. cap. 45. They refused to fast on such days as the church had appointed and prescribed, and therefore they fasted not the wednesdays and fridays as all Christian men beside did, Free will. Fasting. days. but the sundays, as witnesseth S. d Epist. 86. ad Casulanum praesbit. Austen. A●●rius. almost. 1300. years ago. A●●rius did not only refuse to observe the prescript and appointed fasting days, alleging for him ●elf that so he should be under the judaical yoke of bondage (a reason also of yours M. jewel and your companions when ye claim the liberty of your new gospel) but he was an enemy also to sacrifice and prayers for the dead, e Epiph. lib. 3. ●aeres. 75. Sacrifice and prayers for the dead. and defended that they were unlawful. iovinianus in the year. 388. If you agree not justly with the Manichees and the A●erians, it is because you have overrun them. For you deny not simply with A●ērius the offering up to god of sacrifice for the dead, but you (which they were not so impudent to do) condemn all manner of sacrifice both for the quick and the dead. You are not contented barely to deny the solemn fasting on certain prescript and appointed days, but going farther condemn with jovinian the f August. de haeresib. cap. 82. Abstinence from meats. heretic, all manner of fasting and abstinence from meats utterly. A●erius and Manicheus although they would be bound to no certain time, fasted yet at some time: only you will fast at no time, so religiously do you keep, and so fast do you hold the fast learned of jovinian your ancestor. He taught that all sins were equal: No difference of sins. you put no difference between venial and mortal. The virginity of noonnes, and continency of men choosing to live single, Virginity and marriage. he counted no better nor more meritorious, than the chaste marriages of other men. For so reporteth S. Austen of him by these words. Virginitatem etiam sanctimonialium, & continentiam sexus virilis in sanctis eligentibus coelibem vitam, coniugiorum castorum atqueve fidelium meritis adaequabat. August. lib. 2. Retract. cap. 22. De peccat. merit. lib. 3: cap. 7. The vows of chastity he animated and encouraged those that had made them to break them. His wicked persuasions were, to the men, by ask them whether they thought themselves to be better than Abraham and other the holy fathers that were married: to the women, whether they durst compare themselves with Sara, with Su●anna and such holy women, that were also married and had husbands. Whether you agree in this point with jovinian, let the hearers of your sermons and readers of your books judge. Or if you will not put the matter to judgement but yourselves confess as the truth is, that you received this doctrine from jovinian: if you will needs stand in defence thereof that it is both sound and good: then expostulate with S. Austen, why he called jovinian the first author thereof a monster, why he termed the doctrine itself heresy, when numbering it amongst other heresies he wrote thereof in this manner: Citò tamen ista haeresis oppressa & ex●incta est, Heres. 82. nec vs●que ad deceptionem aliquorum sacerdotum potuit pervenire. This heresy notwithstanding was quickly repressed and soon extinguished, nor ever could it come to be able to deceive any priests. Hear you not here S. Austen, calling this doctrine of yours heresy? Hear you him not as it were rejoicing of the sudden decay thereof, and that although the author deceived therewith some silly simple women, he was not yet able to entrap any priest? Oh had he lived in our time when Martin Bucer taught the same doctrine that jovinian did: if he had seen Peter Martyr not a priest only but a monk also, so far deceived that he should be yoked in counterfeit marriage to a nun: What think you he would have said? What metal would (may we judge) M Haddon his pair of golden old men have been tried out to, be if they had been touched by S. Austin's touchstone? Thus much of jovinian. Vigilantius in the year. ●98. Vigilantius the heretic against whom S. Jerome wrote, Hiero●. contra Vigi●a●iū ad Exuperium. murmured against the tapers and lights that burned in the church, he spoke against the worshipping of saints, and despised the holy relics of martyrs. Lo M. jewel an other of your fathers. Eutiches in the year, 453, Leo the pope the first of that name, Epist. 75. complaining by his letters to Martianus the emperor, of such outrages as were committed in Alexandria by the fury of Eu●iches and his companions, who denied that our Saviour had any more than the divine nature: amongst other words hath also these: Intercepta est sacrificij ob●a●i●, defecit Chrismatis sanctificatio. the oblation of the sacrifice is by their means kept from the people the hallowing of the chrism faileth. Who keepeth from us in our country the daily sacrifice? Who letteth the sanctifying of that chrism, the lack whereof in the baptizing of Novatus that heretic, Corn●lius a bishop of Rome and a holy martyr, writing to Fabianus the bishop of Antioch, judged to have been the cause as Eus●bius reporteth, Lib. 6. Cap. 33. why he never received the holy ghost? who but you treading the steps of Euti●hes and his followers going before you? I might here allege diverse other heretics from whom you have borrowed a great part of the rest of your wicked and pernicious opinions, were it not that I hope, that this which already hath been brought, shallbe sufficient to make you either to mislike the other, or to give you at the least just occasion to seek therefore yourself: and also for this, that in the prosecuting of your agreement with them in their manne●s, many other of their opinions are like in that discourse to come to light also. Of the Protestants agreement with the old heretics, with the infidels, with Antichrist, with Satan himself. Paulus Samosatenus The year. 273. Eusebius writeth in his ecclesiastical history, Lib. 7. cap. ●6. that Paulus Samosatenus (whose heresy was that Christ the son of god never came from heaven) trained up after that sort his hearers, that at his lessons and sermons they should both men and women give great shouts, in token of that liking and pleasure that they took in their masters doctrine. Si quis verô auditorum honestius & verecundius agens a clamore nimio temperasset, velut iniur●am faciens pati●batur iniuriam: If any of his hearers (saith Eusebius) behaving himself honestly and shamfastly had abstained from outeragiouse crying: he, as though he had done an injury, received one. Do not you and your fellows follow in this point Paulus the heretic? Is he not noted by you for a papist, and in danger of a shrewd turn that being present at your sermons answereth not Amen, to your blasphemies uttered against the most holy sacraments? to your execrations against the catholics, to your frantic brags what you will do, how many men's lives it shall cost before your religion be altered? Look you not so indecently for this (as E●sebius said that Paulus did) that some of you have been noted upon your audience default in missing to answer at their cue, to have twice repeated the same thing, to have paused and made a stay, whereby they have given to all men to understand, how miserably they depend upon the blast of the people's mouths? Donatistae. The donatists a pernicious sect of heretics, Lib. 6. con●ra Donatist. committed (as Optatus that learned bishop writeth of them) sacrilege in overthrowing the holy altars of god, Altars overthrown. on which being (saith he) the seat of Christ's body and blood his members were wont to be sustained. Optatus. Lib. 2. cont●a Donatist. They gave the blessed sacrament to dogs: the crismatory with the sacred chrism they violently threw on the ground: being called to the council of the catholics, i August. lib. 3. scap. 4. 5. contra Crescon. Gramat. there to answer to their doctrine, they refused to come and kept themselves away. When they appeared one time at the council, k August. Epist. 15● to make their cause seem the better and to glory in the multitude of their bishops, amongst diverse that were absent they craftily packed in to the number the name of one that was dead before, affirming not withstanding that he lived and believed as they did. l August● Bonifacio comiti epist 50. Of those that were priests, of some they plucked out the eyes: of one bishop they cu● of the tongue and hand, and many they murdered. Behold I beseech you good Readers in this one sect of heretics the Donatists, how many points there are wherein our calvinists and they agree. m In demonstrat. advers. Gentil. quod Christ Sit deus. The altars (the building up whereof in our country of England chrysostom used as a demonstration to prove that we had received the strength of god's word) they overthrow as they did: and as Optatus said by the Donatists doing the like, they follow therein the jues. For as they laid hands on Christ being upon the cross: so do these upon him on the altar. If they have not given the blessed sacrament to dogs, yet have they trodden it under their wicked and worse than dogs feet. The holy chrism, that sacred ointment wherewith at their entering in to this world, and at their departure from hence, all true Christian men from the apostles time hitherto, have used continually to be signed and anointed: how villainously they have handled, it is to all men better known then that it needeth to be by me here rehearsed. The Councils, the lawful remedy left by almighty god in his church to repress heresies, it is a world to see how both the heretics of these days, and those of times past, have all ways sought means and yet do to avoid. Macedoni●9. Thus feigned Macedonius the heretic himself to be sick, Histor. tripart. lib. 5. cap. 34. when he was cited to appear at a council appointed to be holden at a place called Seleucia a town of Isauria. Thus lurked Dioscorus from the council of Chalcedon and would by no means appear. Thus did the Donatists being called to Carthage: Thus do the protestants being summoned to Trent. The Donatists to increase their number, and to make it seem the greater, feigned that diverse bishops who were absent, and one amongst the rest that was dead, did take part with them against the catholics. Impudent liars were they good readers in so saying, Epist. 152 and for no less did S. Austen note them. But how much more impudent are our new gospelers, who feign not this of men absent, but of them that were present, not of the dead, but of them that be living, not of them that being present and asked their opinions and sentences answered either feintly or nothing at all, whereby some manner of consent might seem to be gathered: but of them who standing moste stoutly in defence of the truth, chose rather to lose goods, living, liberty, life and all, then by giving their consent to the contrary, to betray the poor flock committed to their charge? Was there no other way M. jewel to banish the authority of the pope out of the realm, but to abuse the queens highness with this feigned supplication: Anno. 1. Reginae E● lizabethae. Most humbly beseech your most excellent majesty your faithful and obedient subjects the lords spiritual and temporal etc. Was this the only mean to persuade the people that your doings were lawful, to bear them in hand that the bishops who with all their power with stood it, were they that chieffely laboured to have the pope's authority abolished? 〈◊〉. 8. Well Diabolus est mendax & pater ●ius. The devil is a liar and so was his father before him, and therefore as I marvel not at your agreement in this point with the Donatists: so I will dwell no longer in the conferring of you in this point together. The cruelty used by the Donatists towards the catholics in cutting of hands, in plucking out of eyes and tongues, was great it can not be denied: but compare it with that rage of the calvinists practised of late years upon the poor catholics in France, and you will say that it was courteous dealing. For what? Contented they themselves trow you with the only cutting of their hands, with the spoiling them of their eyes and tongues? The cruelty of the calvinists in France. This they did I wot well, but alas their fury rested not here. For they besides this, tying halters about the necks of such innocent priests as god's providence suffered to fall in to their hands, first drew them dispituously after their horses, them picked out their eyes, cut of their ears, noses, or privy parts: beware their ears in their hats (to glory the rather in their malice) in stead of brooches, and finally either hanged up the miserable casses striving for life and death, or with the stroke of a pistolet dispatched them out of the way at once. Of some they hackled and mangled the faces: of other some to prove their force and strength they cleft the heads in two at one stroke. What should I here remember that horrible act committed by them upon an old religious man at Man's, more barbarous and inhuman, then that the histories and monuments of the time past can show us of all the cruel tyrants, of all the barbarous nations and savage natures that have gone before, any one, no not of julian the apostata, Theodorit. lib. 3. cap. 6. who as it is written of him of such women as had vowed perpetual virginity caused the bellies first to be opened, then after to be stuffed with barley, and last of all the innocent virgins to be thrown to the hogs of them to be devoured: not of him I say or any other so much as one example of cruelty, that may be able to match this. For who would ever think in men endowed with reason, and those especially whose mouths and tongues sound so commonly the Gospel the Gospel, Horrible cruelty. such inhumanity should have been found, as first to cut of the privy parts of their Christian brother, then to fry them, after to cause him by violence to swallow them down, and last of all to rip the stomach of him being yet a live, to see what was become thereof? Marvel not now good readers if at S. Macarius they buried the catholics quick, if they cut the very infants in two, if they ripped the bellies of priests and drew out by little and ●●ttle their entrails, winding the same either about some stick or tree. Marvel not if at a village called pat six or seu●n leagues distant from Orleans, they spared not so much as the innocent age of infancy: but whereas two little children had by chance gotten out of the belfry whither the residue to the number of twenty or five and twenty were for their safeguard fled: these cruel murderers not gospelers but manquellers, meeting with them in their flight brought them back again, and threw them in to the fire there to perish with the rest. If I should here particularly rehearse all the cruel and horrible acts done by the calvinists in France, a whole book truly should I make thereof. This which already hath been brought may suffice for the comparing of them, I will not say with the donatists only, but with the most cruel and barbarous tyrants that ever lived. Of the rest who so is desirous to have more perfect knowledge, him remit I to the book entitled Du Saccagement des Eglises printed at Paris, and written by Claudius de Saints: out of the which I have taken what so ever hath here been alleged touching this cruel dealing of theirs. Arriani. The next comparison is of our gospelers with the Arrians. Whose villainy and hatred towards the blessed sacrament of the altar was such, n Victor De perse●ut. Vanda●c. lib. ● cap. 3. that they trod it under their wicked feet. The churches in Africa they overthrew and made of them stables for their o L. ●. C. de off. praefect. praetor. horses. Of the vestiments and altar clothes they made shurtes p Victor lib. 3. and breeches. They burned the books, they spoilt the churches of their ornaments, as in an epistle written by the bishops of egypt to Marcus the pope it appeareth more at large. Finally as Gregorius Nazianzenus writeth, mysteria verterunt in comoedias. The mysteries of our religion they turned in to plays and comedies. What one thing is there of all these, Orat. ad Heron. Philosophum. that you and your companions have omitted to do M. jewel? wherein agree you not with them? Can you say that you have not abused the sacrament by treading it under your feet? That you have not overthrown churches and turned them to worse uses, then to stables? that you have not made breeches, shurtes, yea coats for players and dizzardes, of the holy vestiments and altar clothes? that you have not burned the church books and other ornaments, and most shamefully spoiled the temple of god? have you not to conclude, which I tremble as often as I remember, turned the mysteries of our faith, the sacraments of the church, the pledges of our redemption, into comedies and plays? I would to god you never had. But as it is more manifest that you have so done then that it can be denied: so seem you to give little token of repentance thereof, when you brag of your infamous company of players, that they are one of the three engines set up of god, to pluck down the pope's triple crown: as much to say although you plainly express it not, as to overthrow all true religion. julianus Apostata. the year. 365. julianus the emperor, who of a good and virtuous catholic prince became suddenly a cruel wicked and tirannouse persecutor of Christ in his members: began the foundation of this goodly new religion of his, with the q Theodoritus. lib. 3 Cap. 6 robbing of churches and spoiling the clergy of their privileges. He banished afterwards the priests and faithful, he overthrew the altars and caused the sacrifice to cease, as in a sermon that chrysostom made of the two martyrs Iwent. and Maximus, who being both soldiers and men of arms, would he saith sacrifice and offer up themselves to god, seeing the sacrifice of the church ceased, it may most manifestly appear. He reproved the Christians as witnesseth Cirillus, r lib. 6. ●●ntra lu●i●n. The cross. and called them wretched men for doing reverence (as then was the guise of Christian men) to the cross of Christ, for making the sign thereof in their foreheads, for painting of it on the doors of their houses: s Lib. 10. contra julian. he reproved them for worshipping the relics of martyrs, for visiting their tombs, for praying to them at their graves and sepulchres, calling them dead men. He overthrew t Sozomen lib. ●. cap. 12. the image and picture of Christ: The ark or shrine wherein were religiously kept the bones of S. john Baptist he broke open, burnt them v The●do●●. lib. 3. Cap. 6. and dispersed abroad the ashes. Now to make the comparison: Whether you contemn as julianus did the cross of Christ, whether with him you call them wretched men that reverence it, that make the sign thereof on their foreheads, that paint it on their doors, keep it in their houses: let your burning and breaking of so many thousands, your banishing them out of the churches, your troubling and vexing of such honest men as being desirous to have with them some lively remembrance of Christ's death and passion to stur up their col●e devotion, to move their dull and heavy affections, keep them for that purpose: your judgements agreeing all on him whom entering in to a church falling upon his knees, you behold marcking his forehead with this sign (which was notwithstanding once as witnesseth chrysostom the manner of kings at their entrance in to the church) to be most assuredly an enemy to Christ's gospel: Homil. De pe●t●coste. Finally let that horrible act done in the late troubles in France by your companions, Michael Fabritius contra B●●am. who in the contumely of the same coming in to a church where was the image of Christ crucified, strangled first two priests and then hanged them up after on either side of it, be a most ample and sufficient testimony thereof. As for the rest, deny that you agree with him if you can. So little shall that displease me, that you shall I protest make me very glad to hear thereof, give me good cause to hope and occasion to pray, that at the length you will and also may, falling away from all other heretics and all their devilish heresies, draw home to the lap of your mother that sure sanctuary, from whence to your own harm and her great grief, you have so far strayed. ethnics. jues. The ethnics and heathen men broke the image of Christ as Sozomenus x lib. 5. cap. 21. writeth. The jews as Athanasius y lib. de pass imag. Christi. reporteth, crucified it on a certain time even as their fathers did Christ himself. They asked of him in whose house the image was found, how being a jew he durst keep the image of Christ. They accused him to their high priest therefore. I marvel not here that the Pagans and jews did this, but I marvel and never can be satisfied with marveling, how they that profess the name and faith of Christ dare do it. How the jews argument made to their fellow: Thou art a jew by name and faith, therefore thou dost evil to retain with the the image of Christ, holdeth: how the conclusion is inferred, I see well. But on the other side, how this argument framed in Luther's school: thou art a Christian, thou dost therefore nought to keep with the the image of Christ, how this reason I say concludeth I confess in good faith I wot not, nor in their new logic have learned as yet so far. Petr. Crinit. lib. 4. de honest. discipl. The ethnics had a peevish property although they could in no wise abide the image or picture of Christ, to make yet figures and pictures whereby to mock and scorn the Christians. And is not this the exercise that you put such of your brethren to in mocking and scorning the catholics, How the heretics occupy their igno rant and unlearned brethren. as being ignorant and altogether unlearned are for preaching or writing utterly unmeet? Do you not suborn them to poison after this sort such by the eyes, as they are not able by the ears? with their wicked hands, which they can not with their doltish heads and foolish tongues? Antichrist. Hippolytus an ancient bishop, He lived in the year of our orde. 220. a learned father, and constant martyr, of whom S. Jerome maketh mention in a book entitled De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis: writing of the coming of Antichrist and of the end of the world, hath of him these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sed ecclesiarum ●des sacrae tugurij instar erunt: praetiosumqueve corpus & sanguis Christi in diebus illis non extabit, ●iturgia extinguetur. But the churches that is to say, shallbe in Antichristes' time like cottages, the precious body and blood of Christ shall not be to be had: the sacrifice shallbe quite extinguished. Who is he that heareth this and seeth what you have done, that can yet doubt whether your doings be lawful, and you the foreronners of Antichrist? The Devil. With the Devil, to conclude, although by other diverse and sundry ways you have well testified your agreeing: yet in my opinion in no one thing more, either often or evidently, then in that hatred that you bear, and fear that you seem to stand in, of Christ's cross. Gregorius Nazianzenus and Theodoritus report both, In Orat. quam hab. contra jul. Lib. 3. cap. 3. that after julianus the emperor had renied his faith, he kept company with coniurours and sorcerours, With whom chancing to be on a time as a devil was raised ●p to do some feat, being a feared of that terrible and unwonted sight (more of a custom used in cases of fear when he was a Christian then for any devotion) he made on his forehead the sign of the corsse, whereapon the foul find vanished away. How fly you I pray you and your companions from him, how seek you by all means to avoid his company, how wary and circumspect be you that you entre in to no friendship or acquaintance with him, whom you once see demean himself after this sort? Hethertoe touching your agreement with the old heretics, with infidels and Pagans, with jews, with Antichrist and Satan: not so much I confess as some other of greater reading had been able to have alleged, neither yet so little for all that, but that you may if you be not a let to yourself, take some commodity thereby. For who is there of you so evil advised, or void of grace, that looking on the one side to the old heretics, Simon Magus, Aenrius, Manichaeus, iovinianus, Vigilantius, the Donatists, the Arrians with the rest of that company before rehearsed: and finding that they have heretofore been noted by the doctors and ancient writers for heretics, for molesters and troublers of the church of Christ, for maintening the same opinions and doing the same acts then, which you both maintain and do now: and casting his eye on the other side to all such other heretics as these latter times and days of ours have brought forth (the number whereof is infinite) and observing diligently, that what other heresies so ever they have proper to themselves, be they anabaptists, be they Adamites, be they Libertines, be they Swenckfel dianes, be they if you list David georgians, that yet they agree nevertheless with you in your doctrine: what such man is there I say, who weighing with himself all this, can think other then that he hath been and is deceived. At the least M. jewel, if you can not win of yourself so to think: if you have been so long nuzzled in this sweet company that you will needs continue therein still: yet blame not us if when you deny the merit of good works with Simon magus: if when you take away free will with the Manichees, bar the dead of the sacrifice of the church and suffrages of the living, as did Aenrius: if when you deny the worshipping of saints with Vigilantius: we call you with Irinaeus, with Epiphanius, with S. Jerome and with S. Aust●̄, heretics. Be not offended with us if you go about with jovinian to compare matrimony with virginity, to condemn vows, to overthrow fasting, if we use S. Austin's words spoken by jovinian that did the like, and call you monsters, and your doctrine heresy. Take it not in evil part if we note you of sacrilege for pulling down the altars, as Optatus did the Donatists when ●hey did the like: if we answer you when in your invectives against the blessed saints you call them with julian dead, that you offend therein as Cirillus answered julian, Lib. 10. con●ra julian. when he so said. If you break the image of Christ and tumble it out of the church with the ethnics: Sozomenus lib. 5. cap. 21. bend not the brows at us, if with the Christians we gather together the broken pieces, The image of Christ placed by the Christians in the church 1200. years ago. and place it in the church again. If you scorn and laugh at us for doing reverence to Christ's cross, cite us not to the long chapel in Paul's, if we weep for you according to the council of chrysostom, willing us for men laughing in such a case, to weep, as for them that be out of their wits. To conclude, if you think to continue in this company, Sup. Math. ●omil. 54. and yet enjoy the name of catholics, bear with me if I use to you the words of S. Austen, in a cause not much unlike by him spoken to the Donatists. The words are these. Epist. 186. Quae est ista dementia, ut quum malè vivitis, latronum facta facitis, & quum iure punimini, gloriam martyrum requiratis? What a madness is this quoth he, that being of evil lives as you are, doing the acts of thieves as you do, and being therefore lawfully punished, you challenge yet the glory of martyrs? What a world is this M. jewel, that scouring old heresies as you and your companions do, doing the acts of heretics, thieves, pagans, jews and devils, you yet challenge the glorious title of true Christians and good catholics? THE next cause hath been, The. 9 for that I find in your religion no certain rules or principles to build upon, but such as having hitherto been challenged by all the ancient heretics for theirs, may welbe called starting holes for your foxishe generation being sore pressed to flee unto. For proof whereof, grant to an heretic those principles, which you demand to be granted to you (of which these are part, that nothing is necessarily to be believed and followed as a truth, but tha● which may expressly be found in the letter of the scripture, that of the sense of go●des word and true meaning thereof there is no other judge then the scripture it ●elf, as of the which one place faileth not to expound an other, that Christ's church is invisible, with such like) and there was never yet heresy so absurd, but that he willbe able against you and all your companions to defen●e it. Whereas the catholics on the other side have for their part such contrary grounds, as wherewith the ancient writers have always contended against the old and ancient heretics. Lib. de Sp●ritu sancto. Cap 27. For they say with S. Basile, that many things have been delivered to us necessary to be believed by Christ and his apostles, whereof the scripture maketh no mention at all. They teach with S. Austen as you hard before in the first cause, that the church of Christ is visible. Contra Cres● con Gram. lib. 1. cap. 33. And with him also they are bold to say, that in doubtful questions arising upon the understanding of the letter, we must appeal to the church's determination. The. 10. AN other reason (in the prosecuting whereof also I must crave pardon at your hands if perhaps it chance me to touch your parson more nearer than you would I should: remembering always that eae maximè sunt salutaria remedia, quae acerbissimen dolorum faciunt) is, for that your● doctrine being first grounded and then continually after supported and maintained by lies, it can by no means be that it ever should proceed from the spirit of god. Which being the spirit of all truth, hath no need of the help of lies to be underpropped withal. Be not your lies M. jewel in slandering of men, in false translations, in wrong allegations, uttered the rather to deceive without cotations, in mangling and tearing of the Doctors and councils, as it pleaseth you and best may make for your purpose: so manifest and to the world so well known, that they can be concealed no longer? What opinion might think you the Council of late assembled (the most virtuous, learned, and wisest heads of the world) have of you and your doings, when in your Apology amongst so many lies, they found that of all other most gross and impudent, in which you slandered so wickedly, the flower of this age Hosius the Cardinal? What may your own country men think of your religion, when to place it the more easily there, you feigned (as I noted before in comparing you with the Donatists) that the catholic bishops had consented to the banishing out of the realm the pope and his authority? But hereof I forbear to write any more forasmuch as it hath by me already ben● sufficiently urged. Only of this I can not but warn you mine own dear country men, to take good heed, to have always a diligent eye to this lying and subtle generation, and to think ever with yourselves that they who in things so evident and manifest, done at home even at your own noses, have not refreined so impudently to abuse you, will make no curtosie, or have any conscience in things more more secret or privy to do the same. And therefore marvel not by the way, that M. Haddon hath borne Hieronimus Osorius a stranger, a Portugal, M. Haddon. a man ignorant of our affairs in hand, that religion was not altered in this realm, nisi conspirantibus ecclesiae proceribus, but by the consent of the bishops: or that he made him of our abbeys this account, that they were distributed, pios ad usus scholarum, A cademiarum, & Zenodochiorum: to the godly uses (that is to say) of schools, of vniu●rsities, and hospitals. That the pope for a certain ordinary tribute to be to him yearly paid, giveth his priests free licences and dispensations under his great seal openly to keep concubines without controllement, is it not an abominable lie? Of that reverend old man, and great learned clerk M. Doctor Clement, whom in your apology you have also to the world most shamefully slandered, what shall I hear speak? seeing that he religiously denie●h that fact, which you barely without proofs, without witnesses, lay● to his charge. Which denial of his I doubt not, shall amongst the better sort be taken, V●ler. Max. lib. ● cap. 7. to be of as great force against your false and untrue report, as was the answer of Aemilius Scaurus that noble Roman, made in few words to the long and odious oration of his infamous accuser Varius Sucronensis, uttered before the people of Rome in these words. Quirites, Varius Sucronensis ait, Aemilius Scaurus negat: utri credi●●●? That is to say. Varius Sucronensis O ye Romans' affirmeth, Aemilius Scaurus denieth: whether think you it best to believe? The which words were no sooner spoken (so well wer● their honesties both known to the people) but he was with great applause of the commons pronounced innocent, and his adversary condemned in his own action. If to establish your doctrine you use thus to slander and bely the adversaries thereof, two things will follow thereapon. First that you shall take from us all manner of marvel, why you so falsely report the old fathers, who were to this world so many a hundred year sense dead, seeing that even of them who be yet a live, whose books and tongues, whose bodies and whole lives manifestly bear witness of the contrary, you do the like. And secondarily you shall give men occasion to think, that such doctrine is very weak, the which to be underpropped must have such stays. What should we judge of your translation of the holy scriptures, who turn the word idolum, or simulachrum, in to the word imago an image, and this forsooth to make us believe, that all the passages of scripture that speak against the heathen and Gentiles Idols, speak also against the Christians images: as though between an idol and an image there were no difference at all. What meant you but to bring the order of priesthood in hatred, when in all places of your English bibles, where priests have been praised, where any thing soundeth to their commendation, you call them ministers abstaining utterly from the name of priests, whereas contrary wise where their behaveor hath been evil, you spare not that name but use it freely, Castalio, whose translation of the bible is so well liked by your part, when he came to that place in the gospel Dic eccl●siae, Math. 18. tell the church: so odious a thing was in his ears the name of the church, that for the word church, he gave the word Reipub. common wealth. Much like honesty showed an other of your companions, Musculus. in translating the Greek writer of the ecclesiastical history Socrates. Who making mention of certain letters sent by julius then pope, Socrates. lib. 2. cap. 17. to the bishops assembled at Antioch, wherein he reprehendeth them, that contrary to the canons and rules of the church, they had holden a Council not calling him thither: whereas by the order of the church, there may be no Council kept without the authority of the B of Rome: He turned the words (there may be no laws made or no council holden) into these, there may be no churches consecrate without the B. of Rome's authority. Which words if they had been so, had given yet no small pre-eminence to the B. of Rome, for whose licence to consecrate a church, they should be feign to run from the farthest part of the east church to Rome in the west. But seeing this could by no means be the mind of the author, who in that chapter mentioneth not one word of the dedicating of any church: and that the complaint of the bishop had been most childish and without all wit, to have said that they had done evil in not calling him to their council, because by the canons without his authority there might be no churches consecrate, and that also thereof he himself could not be ignorant: it must necessarily follow that he did it of wicked malice. In your doings and allegations M. jewel, is your faith the 〈◊〉 you and dealing any better? No truly. For if it had, 〈◊〉. Gardener B. of win ton misreported by M. jewel. never would you so falsely and untruly have alleged the words of that excellent and learned bishop of blessed memory, Stevin Gardiner B. of winchester, upon whom in your reply to M. Doctor Cole you father these words, as written by him in his book called Marcus Anton. Constantius: Quôd ait panem in sua substantia vel natura manner, ●ol. 71. vel substantiam sentit Accidente vel natur● proprietatem: and call it a strange phrase of speech to say Substantiam accident, as truly it had been if he had either so said or written. But because he did neither, you have well signified to the world, that it is no new or strange thing with you, to carry about in your unquiet head a lying slanderous tongue. The words of the bishop entreating of the place objected by the heretic out of Gelasius are these: Quòd addit in sua substantia vel natura manner: (he meaneth panem & vinum which words go before) vel subsistentiam sentit accidentium, vel naturae proprietatem. The which how far they differ from yours all men may see, and yourself can not be ignorant. This manner of dealing, to lay to the catholics charges words that they never spoke, used long ago Celsus the heretic, as Origene reporteth of him. But to let this pass, The council of Carthage mangled by M. Iu●ll. cap. 47. if you had meant (which of all other in god's matters especially you ought to have done) to deal plainly, simply and uprightly, would you ever have brought against the reading of saints lives in the church, the third council of Carthage? Would you have alleged the first part of the canon: Placuit ut praeter scripture as canonic as nihil in ecclesia legatur, that is: we have agreed that nothing be read in the church besides the canonical scriptures, and have left out the last, Sub nomine divinarum scripturarum, under the name of holy scripture? Whereby might have appeared, that the scope of those fathers gathered together in that council, was not to banish out of the church the legends of saints lives, but to agree upon such books of holy scripture, as (the authority whereof being out of doubt) they would have to be readen in the church for scripture and no other. And therefore in that canon, we find named for canonical scripture to be read in the church, the books of the Maccabees, the epistle of S. Paul to the hebrews, and also that of S. james, all though they be not enroled in your register of Gen●ua. And that this council meant nothing less than to forbid the reading of saints lives in the church, the other words that follow, if you had not guilefully suppressed them, would well have declared: where the same council by express words permitteth, that yearly on the martyrs days, their lives may be read in the church. Thus played you before with the decree of Anacletus, Anacletus guilefully alleged. except you will say that there you cut of the first part, and here you left out the last. Thus alleged you corruptly the words of Leo his epistle, Epist. 81. ad D●oscor. which being that the priest may celebrate Mass, offer the sacrifice, because you would not have those words stick in your reader's teeth, you were so bold to change with him, and as the english proverb hath, to steal a goose and stick in her place a feather. Leo falsified by M. jewel. Whereas for those words you say, that Leo permitteth the priest to ministre two or three communions in one day. Theophil. Alexander. Thus till you coat the place where you find those words will we say that you have served Theophilus Alexandrinus, as before in the article of communion under one kind I have noted. Thus alleged you once in a sermon that you made in S. Peter's church in Oxford in the Lent, a saying of S. Austen for the marriage of votaries: than which neither he, nor all the other fathers that ever wrote, have or can speak more directly against them. And yet you (so cunning a Master you are in your art) made it just to serve your purpose. August. de bono viduit. cap. 10. For whereas S. Austin's words are these: Quapropter non possum dicere a proposito meliori lapsas si nupserint foeminas, adulteria esse non coniugia. Sed planè non dubitaverim dicere, lapsus & ruinas à castitate sanctiori quae vovetur Deo adulterijs esse peiores. that is: wherefore I can not say that such women if they fall from their better purpose and marry, that this is adultery and not marriage: but this I dare be bold to say, that the falling and sliding away from holy chastity vowed to god, is worse than adultery: you divide the sentence just in the midst, and where he saith that he cannot call such marriages adultery, that sweet sop you keep for your own tooth: but that which followeth, that he dareth be bold to call such manner of dealing worse than adultery, that sour sauce you make no mention of at all, but leave it to such scrupulous consciences, as will not break their fast with your dainty delicates. Thus much touching your uneven dealing in Christ's cause. Whereof I can say no more, but heartily pray to god that both you and as many, take your part may earnestly repent and be heartily sorry therefore. your rebellion, The. 11. and open war proclaimed against your prince, your sacking his towns, your robbing his treasure, your murdering his people, your preachers riding with their pistolettes at their saddle bow, encouraging their soldiers to this holy battle against their own king: Theodorus Beza. What is it else then a most strong reason of the naughtiness of your religion? seeing that in all the course of Christ's gospel hethertoe, we never could find any one such example of Christ or his Apostles to be followed. So that no less was it truly then merrily said of one, that how ever S. Paul and Beza agreed in other things, yet herein they were far wide, that the one converted the Gentiles by epistles, the other labourred to pervert the French men by pistolettes. LAST of all, The. 12. beside the causes and reasons before alleged, confer I beseech you with yourself the present state wherein we now live, with that of our for fathers, not yet fully forty years ago. So shall you I put no doubt, seeing the effect that both the doctrines have wrought, be able a great deal the better to judge of the goodness of the same. Behold if you can for tears, the miserable face of your native country, sometimes (so long as it had not yet tasted of your wicked and poisoned doctrine) to the most flourishing common weal in the whole world nothing inferior. The subject in those days loved his prince with fear, and feared him with love. The vassal was to his lord loyal, the servant to his master obedient and faithful. Every man held him content with his vocation, no man was curious to meddle in an others. Charity, simplicity, sobriety, so reigned universally, that of us that time might welbe called, the golden age of which the poets dreamt. But oh lord god, after that old serpent who never since the beginning hath ceased to practise and exercise his hatred towards mankind, had now infected us once again with a new apple: after that first Luther, and then Calvin had set their feet on English ground, it is a world to see how suddenly all these things were changed, and as they never had been turned upside down. The love that was so loyal of the subject, turned into servile fear, and treason as occasion serveth: the faith of the vassal or tenant to his lord, in to fravand deceit: the obedience of the servant in to cotempt: the quiet contentation of every man with his own calling, in to that busy body curiosity in other men's matters. Finally, envy and malice have taken up charity's place, fraud and sotteltie, simplicities, and vice dwelleth where virtue was wont. Yea even yet, of this will all men bear me witness, if any sparkle of this good order remain, with them it is to be found which hate your doctrine most. That such a change in our manners hath chanced, yourself well I wots the thing is so plain can not deny. Hereapon will you demur with us, that your doctrine hath not been the cause thereof, and that I use a paralogismus, à non causa ut causa to deface you with all. The contrary hereof shall appear by examining in few words some such parts of the same, as I doubt not have wrought this change. You teach that man is from the beginning predestinate by god, to be either saved for ever or eternally damned, and that this order once taken, do what he will to the contrary, live he never so uprightly on the one side, or lose he the bridle to all mischief never so much on the other, that yet finally, his virtuous life that is you say so predestinate to be damned, shall not be able to defend him therefrom, no more than th'other's wicked behaviour shall have the power to remove him from the glory of heaven prepared for him. On this foundation thus once laid, you ground an other absurdity, and to maintain the first you teach, that man hath no free will to choose either good or bad, but that all that he doth he is forced to do maugre himself, be it right or wrong, lawful or unlawful: if it be good, to satisfy the eternal decree, that he may be saved which doth it and is predestinate thereto: If it be evil, that it may likewise be a mean towards his damnation prepared for him. And as one inconvenience is commonly the mother of many, to maintain this you ardriven to mount one degree higher, In comen. in epist. ad Ro. prioris aedit. and with Melanc thou to say, although he afterward recanted the same, that god as in the good man he is the author of all good: so in the evil he is the wor●er of all evil, not faith he permissiuè by suffering them so to do, but potestatiuè, even by his own power and working: and so by just consequence to affirm with your master Calvin, Lib. 3. cap. 23. that god is the author of their damnation who are damned, Sect. 4. as in his Institutions is to be seen. You teach also that by only faith we be saued, that we must here in this world take ourselves always for certain of god's grace and favour, without any manner of doubt or mistrust whether we be in the same or no, that good works such as god giveth us the grace to do; merit towards our justification nothing at all, with such like. The catholics on the other side teach the people, that they (notwithstanding god's predestination of the good, Genes. 4. and his prescience of the damnation of the evil, and reprobate) take nevertheless good heed to themselves, and walk uprightly in that vocation whereunto god hath called them, seeing that there is none so reprobate in god's foresight, that may not so behave himself by gods assistance, that he may be saved (as the mouth of almighty god when he said to cursed Cain: If thou do well shalt though not receive well most plainly doth witness) nor any so predestinate, but that he may so order himself that he may not be predestinate, and so be damned. The catholics teach that man hath given to him by almighty god free will, either by the embracing of his grace freely offered to all that demand the same, to be a worker with him towards his own salvation, either else by the refusal thereof, to choose eternal damnation. This confirm they by the example also of Cain, who notwithstanding his being in god's sight from the beginning a reprobate and cast away, yet to declare that that forknowledge worcked no constraint, Genes. 4. almighty god said in express words; that th' appetite of sinning was in his power, and that he should be able to rule it. They teach that all goodness what so ever it is cometh from above, given to man for the calling and praying therefore, jacob. 2. that all evil is of ourselves, by assenting to the devils malicious suggestions. They teach with S. james the apostle, that faith without works is vain and to no purpose, that faith must join with works by means whereof it is made perfect, that man is not justified by faith alone. They teach that so long as we be pilgrims and travailers in this miserable life, we may not sit us down and make our account, as though we were certainly sure that we shallbe saved, but that we must still labour and work our own salvation cum timore & tremore, with fear and trembling: Philip. 2. They teach men that for their sins they must not only lament and be heartily forie, which you say sufficeth, but that if time also and leisor thereto serve, they must take by penance, upon themselves vengeance as i● were therefore. De visit●●. infirm. lib. 2. cap. 4. They teach also with S. Austen, that to confess our sins to god onelieis not enough, but that we must lay them also in the lap of the priest, a mortal man and a sinner, as great perhaps as we ar. And this remission of sins by confession and penance, In Levitic. homil. 2. do Origen and ciril call a hard and a painful way. And truly so is it, and so should it be, and all yet little enough, and a great deal to little toe, to bridle that wild and untamed nature of ours from sinning. Now see you I doubt not M. jewel, whose doctrine hath wrought this disordre in the world, or if you do not, listen I beseech you a little to your fellows disputing after this sort upon their masters good instructions, and I trust you shall. If we be so predestinate (say they) to be saved or damned, that by no means it can be otherwise: if good works be nothing available to the doers: if only faith do justify, then let us cast them at the papists heads that teach them. To what end serve they that neither can (in Christ's death) save us from hell, nor help us to heaven? Or why labour we at all to do well, if we have not our will free to be the worker thereof? If sin be so easily forgiven as our masters bear us in hand: if one thought serve us to repent our life: if penance be needless: if we need not to confess our sins to the priest (which only thing made us for worldly shame full often to forbear the doing of many a horrible crime) then will we surly forbear no inch of our pleasure whilst we are here: then will we score on god's mercy, and reckon with him for all at the last. Thus much although they say not in express words, yet speak they in their wicked deeds. And therefore seeing in the comparison of these few points between you and us, I find so many occasions given by your doctrine to this disordre: seeing there be no such to be found in ours, but that contrariwise all that we ●aughte and you would overthrow, tended to the contrary: I can say no more, but to me it ●emeth a cause sufficient to abhor the same. These be the causes that have kept me in the catholic faith, these be they that may justly call you thither again from whence you are strayed, and will I nothing doubt if you fail not to yourself. For truly if you will but make an exchange of pride with humility, if you will lay down that proud peacocks tail of yours, esteem yourself somewhat less and other men somewhat more: you shall easily gain again that quiet haven of Christ's church, from whence the blustering tempests of pride drove you in to the main sea and dangerous gulf of heresies. Be not ashamed you which have hethertoe kept company with wicked heretics, to follow in your return the example of some drunken soul, who having perhaps in his drunkenness leapt some dangerous leap or passed some other notable peril, which no man having his right wits would have done, in giving the adventure whereapon the odds was great tha● he should have miscarried: being brought by his friends on the morrow, sober to the danger that he escaped the night before being dron●ken, and told of his adventure: first lifteth up his heart and hands to almighty god, whom he than●k●th most humbly for the preserving of him from so imminent and present a danger, next he maketh an earnest and solemn vow, to use after that such temperancy and sobriety, as he will never by the contrary minis●re any occasion to fall in to the like. If you had not been as dron●ken M. jewel with pride, as ever was any with wine, would you one amongst so many of your side, have made this challenge, which of the rest none would attempt to do? would you have ever called it blasphemy to say that Christ is in the Mass offered up to god his father, De civit. dei. lib. 10. cap. 20. which S. Austen affirmeth, Homil. 24. 1. Cor. 10 and Chrisosto● faith that Christ commanded to be done? would you have ever alleged this weak and feeble reason to have proved your saying, because contrariwise Christ presenteth up us, and maketh us a sweet oblation in the fight of god his father? Deci●itat. De lib. 10 cap. 20. whereas you find in S. Austen, Sacerdos est ipse offerens, ips● & oblati●. Christ is the priest himself which offereth this sacrifice, and the oblation which is offered: and in Chrisostomes' Mass, Tu es offerens & oblatus, suscipiens & distributus. Thou art he which offr●st and art offered, which receivest, and art distributed. By which places it appeareth, that it is no such absurdity as you would have it to ●eme, that Christ should in this sacrament both offer and be offered, This being therefore a clear case, that you have showed yourself in this challenge of yours, a man if not drunken, truly stark mad: look on the dangers that in the mean season by the goodness of god you have been preserved from, look I say upon and behold that deep pit in to the which with so many heretics before you, had not the merciful hand of god staid you and holden you up, you had long ere this fallen. Thank him of his goodness therefore, which hath so mercifully borne with you, and not taken you as he might if he would at the worst. Propose for the love of god with yourself, never hereafter to commit the like (I wots not whether to call it) either dron●ken or frantic part. If the causes above rehearsed do nothing move you thereto, if the fear of god, if your own conscience prick you not: let yet this persuade you to leave those vain brags (at the which your friends blush, wise men laugh, and the adversaries of your doctrine themselves utterly contemn) at the least, for that your impudency being discovered, your credit is lost and your estimation gone, so that ye shall but waste words in vain, which evil spent might better be spared. Cry out as Dioscorus that heretic did, being condemned by the council of Chalcedon as long as you list, even till your voice if you will fail you: Ego testimonia habeo sanctorum patrum, A thanasi●, Gregorij etc. Ego cum patribus cijcior, Ego defendo patrum dogmata, non transgreaior in aliquo. I h●ue for my part the testimony of the holy fathers A thanasius, Gregorius: I am cast out with the fathers: I defend their doctrine: I violate no part thereof. East ●ib. 1. Apologetic advers. Eunom. Brag with Eunomius the heretic that you square all your doings by the ancient tradition and doctrine of the fathers: yet when you have all done, you will be taken for an heretic as they were, and in calling them your fathers that never could abide the sight of that malignant church the strumpet your mother, and ●n refusing them which in deed begot you as before in the eight cause it appeareth, to have proved yourself an impudent liar on the one side, and an unnatural child on the other. FINIS. Quoniam Liber iste a Thoma Dormanno Anglo, sacre theologiae Baccalaureo compositus, a viris doctis, probis, & Anglica linguae peritis, apud me fide dignissimis, diligenter est examinatus, probatus & utilis iudicatus qui ewlgetur, libenter e●rum sententiae subscribendum esse judico. Cunnerus Petri, pastor Sancti Petri Lovanij. 9 julij anno 1564. Faults committed in the Printing. The leaf. The side. The line. 2 Country self. read country itself. 2 5 7 worldly. Worldly. 2 28 8 interpretation. interpretation. 2 16 8 Hereaster. hereafter. 2 22 15 Le●t. left 1 8 22 asnwer. answer 1 25 24 Ecclesiaflica. ecclesiastica. 2 24 24 Them. those 2 30 29 Cuhrche. church. 2 24 31 inrerpret. interpret. 2 31 32 Intetpretation. interpretation. 1 30 43 Infidleles infidels. 1 9 45 Might not be. might be. 1 3 54 strog. strong. 2 7 55 Immedatly. immediately. 1 4 65 thick. think. 2 26 66 And. An. 1 15 90 Paiers. prayers 1 17 101 Tarito. tarry to 1 30 134 acerbissimem dolorum. acerbissimum dolorem. 2 3 136 Subsistentiam. Substantiam. 2 8