〈…〉 Partly of such, as he hath Slanderously 〈…〉 Harding withal: Partly of such other, as 〈…〉 committed about the trial thereof, in the Text of the four first Articles of his Reply. With a Rejoindre upon the Principal Matters of the Reply, treated in the third and fourth Articles.  
By Thomas Stapleton student in Divinity.  
Magna est Veritas, & praevalet.  
Great is the Truth, and it prevaileth.  〈…〉 
SPES ALIT AGRICOLAS  
Printed in Antwerp, by john Latius, At the sign of the Sour. 1566. With Special Grace and Privilege.   

〈…〉 Maiestatis Gratia Speciali 〈…〉 est Thomae Stapletono 〈◊〉 inscriptum, A Return of Untruths upon M. jewels Reply etc. per aliquem Typographorum admissorum tuto & libere imprimendum curare, & publicé distrahere, nullo prohibente. Datum Bruxellis .26. Aprilis. Anno .1566.  
Subsign. Pratz.   

A TABLE OF TH● PRINCIPAL MATTERS, BY THE ORDER OF THE ALphabet, Wherein, Art. signifieth the Article. Fol. the leaf. a. and. b. the first and second side.  

A.  
Asia the less (in great part) understood not the Greek tongue. Proved out of Strabo against M. jewel. Art. 3. fol. 64. b. 65. a. & b.  
Altars in the Apostles time. Art. 3. fol. 118. b.  
S. Augustin our Apostle defended from the Reproaches, Lies, and Slanders of M. jewel. Art. 3. fol. 129. b. 130.131. and 133. a. & b  
S. Augustin our Apostle commended by Venerable Bede. Art. 3. fol. 129. a. & b. by S. Gregory fol. 132. a. & b  
Athanasius facingly belied of M· jewel. Art. 4. fol. 27. b  
Athanasius ad Marcum Papam defended. Art. 4. fol. 26. b. 27.39.41. b. and 42. a  
Athanasius thrice banished, and thrice restored. Art. 4. fol. 159. b. & 160. a  
Of the Africanes dealing toward Pope Zosimus, and of their Copie● of the Nicene Council. Art. 4. fol. 47. b. and 48. a. & b  
Appeals to Rome decreed in the Nicene Council. Art. ●. fol▪ 〈…〉 73. Also in the Council of Sardica. fol. 74.  
Appeals to the Pope: of Chrysostom to 〈…〉. Art. 4. fol. 82. and in many following. Of 〈…〉 Iul●us. fol. 89.90. and 91. Of Flauianu● to Leo fol. 92. a. Of The 〈◊〉 to Leo also fol. 102. b. Of john Talaida patriarch of Alexandria, to 〈◊〉. fol. 109. a  
〈…〉 prove a superiority in him, to whom the Appeal is made. Art. 4. fol. 〈…〉 104.  
The Appeal of Donatus to Constantin the Emperor misliked and reproved by S. Augustin, by Optatus, and by Constantin himself. Art· 4. fol. 104. b. 105.106. a  
No Appeals made of Ecclesiastical matters to any Prince lawfully. Art. 4. fol. 104. b. & seq. 107·S and 108.  
Appeals made to the Pope, when the Emperor took the contrary part. Art. 4. fol. 108. b. and 199. a  
No Appeal removed from the Pope to any other judge lawfully. Art. 4. fol. 110. a. and b.   

B.  
S. Basils' place touching the number of Communicants expounded. fol. 7. a  
Brittanny received their first, open, and settled Christendom from Rome. Art. 1. fol. 19 b. Art. 3. fol. 124. and 128.  
Broth●r● be not always names of equality. Art. 4. fol. 119·  
Confirmation of Bishops by and from the Pope· Art. 4. f. 126. b. 127. b. 128. b. 129.  
Bishops restored by the Pope. Art. 4. f. 158. b. & seq. Reconciled to the Pope. fol. 165. b. & seq.   

C.  
The Communion of England differeth from the Order of the Mass● Recorded in S. Dy●nis●. Art. 1. fol. 3. a. And in S. basil and Chrysostom. Ibidem. b. Likewise in Cyrillus bishop of Jerusalem. Ibidem. fol. 4. a.  
●Vh●re Sacrifice the Communion book lacketh. Art. 1. fol. 5. b. & 6. a. In the Communion of England there is no Consecration: Ibidem.  
Th● Number of Communicants at a Mass or Communion is no part of Christ's Institution. Art. 1. fol. 7. a. and. b. Item fol. 8. a  
Communion between those that never saw, one the other. Art. 1. fol. 10. a. Item between those which were absent one from the other. Ibidem fol. 14. b. and 15. a. Such Communion in distinction of places proved. Art. 1. fol. 15. b.  
The vanity of M. jewels Challenge. Art. 4. fol. 186. a  
The Intent of M. jewels Challenge. Art. 1. fo. 34. a. Art. 4. fo. 181. b.  
Communion under One kind proved out of holy Scripture. Art. 2. fo. 49. b. & seq.  
The words of Christ, Drink ye all of this, do not force the lay people to Receive the Communion under both kinds. Art. 2. fol. 44. a. & b. & seq.  
M. jewels Challenge is answered, but he altereth the Question, three sundry ways. Art. 2. fol. 55. a  
Calfhill and M. jewel in contrary opinions. Art. 3. fo. 103. b. & 126. a. & b  
Constantinople subject to Rome in spiritual jurisdiction. Art. 4. fol. 19.20. and 21.  
Chrysostom's Appeal to Innocentius th● Pope. Art. 4. fol. 84. b. 85.86.87. & seq. Item. 94. 95.9●.  
Four Conditions ●●quired to a compromisse. Art. 4. fol. 101. b  
Dedication of Church's in the yer● of our Lord. 346. Art. 4. fol. 134. b  
Councils Confirmed by the Pope. Art. 4. fol. 134. b. to the leaf 157.  
The Chalcedon Council allowed and defended Art. 4. fo. 174. & seq.  
How Constantinople obtained the second place after the Bishop of Rome. Art. 4. fol. 155. b. 1●6. a. and. b.   

E.  
What were the Syrian psalms of Ephr●m. Art. 3. fol. 93. a  
England received their first Faith and Christendom from Rome, not from greeks or hebrews. Art. 3. fol. 127. and in many leaves following, all M. jewels Arguments to the Contrary dissolved.  
The Communion of England, See C.  
The Service of Engl●nd in many points contrary to the Catholic Faith. Art. ●. fol. 133. b. 134. a  
Emperors never judged over bishops in matters of the Faith Art. 4. fol. 92. b  
Bishops oft the East subject to the See of Rome. Art. 4. fol. 14. b. to the leaf. 20. 〈◊〉 fol. 117. to the leaf. 126.   

F.  
Why the Sacrifice is not Celebrated upon good friday. Art. 2. fol. 54. a  
The first preachers of the faith in France. Art. 3. fol. 67.  
The latin Service in France, not understanded within the first 600. years Art. 3. fol. 100   

G.  
How S. Gregory abhorred the name of Universal Bishop▪ and yet practised himself an universal Supremacy over the Church Art. 4. fol. 7.8.9. and in many leaves following.  
S. Gregory our Apostle. Art. 4. fol. 24. a   

H.  
H●wseling of persons practi●ed in the primitive Church. Art. 1. fol. 11. a. and. b. the Pope called Head of the Chalc●don Council by the letters of the Council    

TO M. JOHN JEWEL THOMAS STAPLETON wisheth the love of Truth.  
IF you are, M. jewel, the Man that you pretend to be, desirous of God's honour, a Zelatour in the House of God, and a Boulter out off that Truth, which you have vaunted, and many do think, can not be found: it shall not seem strange unto you, much less it shall offend you, if I among the rest, though a Man to you unknown, yet a Christian Man and your Countryman, do put my helping hand to this your Zealous enterprise, and as if it were show you some part of the way that may lead you thereunto. For as between the Flynt and Iron, being stricken together, fire doth fly out, so judgements and Wits contending, the Light off right knowleadge must needs appear. Such Light ones appearing, the Truth is soon had. You M. jewel, to have this Truth tried, have proposed your Questions, and have Challenged all that will, to join issue with you in a number of Articles. To that your Challenge it hath been Answered Copiously and learnedly. And the Truth hath been proved, not only in the Terms of your Challenge which is less material, but much more in the Matter, comprised in those Terms. To that Answer you have Replied largely also and painfully.  
In this your Reply as you have spared no Rhetoric, multiplied Allegatyons, hunted after Common places, entered in to Digressyons, all to make a Show of learning, and a Countenance of a just and Full Reply to the Matter it self: so have you for the Disgracing of your Adversary, and for Discrediting the Author himself, used much Art and taken great Pains. Now with Scoffs and Taunts, Now dissembling a great while his Meaning, and reasoning sadly against that no man said, coming in after with your, But M. Harding will say, Then altering quite his text in your Reply, and so confuting at pleasure your own Inuentyon. At other times not Replying to him at all, but Opposing off your own store. But one Cast you have invented, which I remember not that any other writer ever Used before. A Cast I say sufficient alone, if it were cleanly conveyed, and uprightly practised, not only to discredit the Author and to confound the Adversary, but also to overthrow his Doctrine, and to satisfy the Matter. What is that trow we? Forsooth you have scored all along the Answer of D. Harding, even from the beginning to the ending, Untruths, as you call them, Slanders, in deed they be.  
In these Untruths, you note to the Reader, not only the presumed faults, errors or escapes of the Author, in penning and treating his Matter, but much more you note every Principal point of Doctrine, every Proved Proposition, and Matter treated, that seemed to you and your humour, Untrue. In this Inuentyon you take great pleasure. Of it you make great Vaunts. By it you think to win the Credit and Persuasion of all men. For, this point you note to your Reader oftentimes not only in the text of your Reply, but in your Preface, in your Conclusion, and in the Table of your book. In your Text, toward the end of your first Article, having them charged D. Harding with .44. Untruths, you Cry out, and say. O M. Harding, 
jewel. pag. 91.  is it not possible your doctrine may stand without lies? So many Untruths, in so little room, without the shame of the world, without fear of God? In an other place you put the Reader in mind again of this matter, and you say of D. Harding. This man could never utter so many Untruths together without some special privilege. 
Pag. 195.  In your Preface you require these Untruths, first and especially to be discharged, or amended, for thus you say. Before he address himself to his Second Book, I would counsel him to consider better the oversights and 'scapes of his former Book. And a little after. But before all things let him write no more Untruths. For thereof he hath sent us enough already. Let him no more wrest and rack the Scriptures: let him no more neither misalleage, nor mysconstrue, nor corrupt, nor alter the holy Fathers. Thus many ways you presume D. Harding to have dealt Untruly. And this you will not have your Reader to forget. In your Conclusion you put again the Reader in mind of them, as a Matter above all other to be born away. For among other things thus there you speak to D. Harding. Your Untruths be so notorious, and so many, that it pi●●●th me in your behalf to remember them. But the places be evident, and Cry Corruption, and may by no shift be denied. The like you do in your Table, upon the Name of M. Harding noting very sadly and solemnly the total sum off Untruths, which by your good Audit ariseth in the whole Answer of D. Harding, to the number of 255. adding, that they are with better advise to be redressed.  
Now verily M. jewel, were your Audit herein good, and your Notes true, that so many Untruths in that answer were in deed committed, partly by the Author's fault and oversight (to speak the lest) partly 〈…〉 ●nd Untrue Doctrine therein con●●yned▪ 〈…〉 the book worthy to be reproved, 〈…〉 greatly to be blamed. Yea I wi●● 〈…〉 you M. jewel, then were his doctrine 〈…〉 tolerated, and his Person never to be cr●●●●ed. Then was it both wisely done of you to discover it, and charitably done to express it, to note it, and to open it unto all the world. For more charity it is, that one false Teacher abide the Shame, Blame, and Reproach, then that a Thousand ignorant and innocent souls be induced to Error, False doctrine, and Heresy.  
But if on the Contrary part, these are no Untruths, which for such you have Noted, M. jewel, if neither the Doctrine neither the Dealing of D. Harding is found Untrue, if all these Untruths, (as far as I have yet entered with you, which is to the one half thereof) be Returned every one upon you (One Only excepted, which yet is no Untruth in doctrine, but a missetaking of the Author) if they be proved to be your own Untruths and that Slanderous: what can remain but that both the Answer of D. Harding, is so far, good and perfect, and void of Untruth, and you for your part are found to be a great Slanderer of your Adversary, and an Open enemy to the Truth, which you will seem to defend?  
I will say farther M. jewel. What if you, not through your whole Reply, nor yet through out the former Half thereof, which at this time I have only taken in hand, but through those places only of this Half, in which you labour in the text to justify the Untruth noted in the Margin, what I say if in these small Parcelles of half your Reply, (though in deed the Principal and most Important Parcelles thereof) you have beside of your own part, what with false Doctrine, what with extreme Lewd Dealing, committed certain Hundreds of Untruths your self: then what shall we say unto you, or of what Credit ought you hereafter to be, with all men, that love the Truth, and are not Fastened to Factions.  
May we not then say to you with the prophet. 
Esa. 5.  Veh qui dicitis malum bonum, bonum malum? Accursed be you that call evil, good, and good, evil? which call Truth, Untruth, and persuade Untruths for Truth? May we not truly take you for one of them, which the Apostle saith, shall come in the later days, In hypocrisi loquentium mendacium, Uttering lies in Hypocrysy? 
1. Tim. 4.  For what greater hypocrisy is there, then to Charge Untruths, 〈◊〉 Untruly, and to impugn the Truth with the colour of Truth? May you not worthily be thought to be one of them, whom the Prophet describeth saying, 
Esa. 28.  Posuimus mendacium spem nostram, & m●ndacio pr●tecti sumus. We have put our Confidence in Lying, and Lies have been our safeguard▪ Are you not truly like to those false prophets of the jews, who (as the prophet saith) Docue●●●● ling●am suam loqui mendacium, 
jerem. 9  ut inique agerint laborau●● a●t. Framed their tongues to Utter Lies and took great pains to Deal Falsely: For so Manifold and so Thick are your Untruths that it may seem, you have Laboured yourself to Utter them. Yea may we not then think, that S. Peter, as it were pointed to you M. jewel, when he said, As there were false prophets among the people (of Israel) so there shall be lying Masters among you, 
2. Pet. 2.  which shall bring in wicked and damnable sects? Verily M. jewel we may say all this and much more most truly of you, and that therefore (your excessive lying and Untrue dealing being so evident) neither your doctrine is to be tolerated, neither your Person ever more to be credited.  
For what kind is there of Authors, that you have not Corrupted, Misalleaged, False Translated, and by one means or other Abused? What Fault in writing is there that you have not in this your Reply committed? I speak not off your Whole Reply, but of that part only which I at this present have taken in hand to examine, that is, the Effect and Principal Points of your four first Articles.  

A brief Summary of M. jewels Allegatyons.  As touching your Authors and Allegatyons, which you have so Ambitiously Multiplied through out your book, and whereby the simple are much abused, beholding therein a Countenance of Learning, but not able to descry the Covered Falsehood, you have falsified and Misalleaged the Doctors and holy Fathers of Christ's Church, the Decrees of Councils, the laws of Emperors, the Ecclesiastical Histories, the Schoolmen, and other good Writers a numbered. You have falsified and mangled the very Text of holy Scripture, namely of S. Paul ☞ * in one Chapter ix. times as the Reader may see in the third Article fol. 107. and in certain leaves following. 
The Text of D. Hard. falsified.  You have Altered the Text of D. Harding, not when you allege his whole text along in the divisions, as you call them (for that you saw well, were to much open a legerdemain) but in the Text of your Own Reply, when you repeat his words pecemele, to confute them. For there lo, sometime you add a word, and then dispute against your own Addition (as Art. 3. fol. 62. b. 63. a) at other times you quite Altar his words and meaning, and so you Reply against that which he never said. This lewdness you have committed in many and sundry places of this part of your Reply, especially in the .3. Article. Namely fol. 117. five times in one place. 
In the Letter I  Other particularites of this your dealing are noted to the Reader in the Table of this book. But briefly to give you a view thereof, behold M. jewel what Authors and of how diverse sorts you have in so thick Allegatyons Missealleaged, and Abused. I note you withal the leaf and page of this Book, where you shall find them each one so declared and proved to the eye.  
The holy Fathers by you thus used or rather misuded are. 
Doctors Stories, and other good Authors missealleaged by M. jewel.   
S. Cyprian. 
Articulo. 3. fo. 70. b. Art. 4. fo. 76. a. 127. a. &. b  S. basil. 
Art. 4. fol. 122. b  S. Ambrose. 
Art. 3. fol. 95. a  S. Hierom. 
Art. 3. fol. 84.  S. Chrysostom. 
Art. 1. fol. 39 Art. 3. fol. 90. Art. 4. fo. 83. a  S. Augustin. 
Art. 3. fol. 70. a. Art. 4. fol. 57 a.  Athanasius. 
Art. 4. fol. 27.  Leo. 
Art. 4. fol. 152. b. 163. b. 176. a.  S. Gregory. 
Art. 4. fol. 3. a. fol. 141. a.  S. bernard. 
Art. 4. fol. 80. b.   
The Historiographers, with whom also you have so dealt, ● are  
Ruffinus. 
Art. 4. fol. 121. a  Socrates. 
Art. 4. fol. 28. a  Sozomenus. 
Art. 4. fol. 131. a. 153. b  Theodoretus. 
Art. 3. fol. 124. b. Art. 4. fol. 139. a. 160. b  Cassiodorus. 
Art. 4. fol. 159. a  Beda. 
Art. 3. fol. 133. a  Galfridus Monemuth. 
Art. 3. fol. 130. b   
Other good Authors both old and new, whom you have in like manner and with the like sincerity alleged, are.  

Clemens Alexandrinus  
Art. 3. fol. 90. a  
Liberatus.  
Art. 4. fol. 142. a. 155. a.  
Sulpitius  
Art. 3. fol. 100 a  
Gelasius  
Art. 4. fol. 175. a  
Gennadius.  
Art. 4. fol. 120. b  
Innocentius. 3.  
Art. 3. fol. 97. & 98. a  
Eckius.  
Art. 3. fol. 87. a   
What councils you have in like manner falsified and Misalleaged, it may be seen, Art. 1. fol. 28. b. 37. a. Art. 4. fol. 37. a. 40. b. 71. b. 74. b. In alleging your Civil Laws and decrees of the Canon law how you have partly to a wrong understanding drawn them, 
Counsels and Laws missealleaged.  either of your own ignorance, or of lawyers miss information, partly quite mangled them and falsified them, you may behold M. jewel, touching the first, our Answer to your Reply concerning justinian's Constitution Art. 3. fol· 77. & seq. and touching Appeals Art. 4. fol. 103. & 104. concerning the later point, the laws of justinian Art. 4. fo. 51. a. 52. b. 53. b. of Honorious fo. 79. a. & b. and the decrees Artic. 4. fol. 115. and. 176. b.  
The Schoolmen likewise, Durandus, 
Schoolmen Abused The Cause of M. jewels so many and thick Quotatyon●.  Art. 3. fo. 87. b. Thomas Aquinas. fol. 88 b. and Lyra. fo. 103. b. you have Alleged for your purpose, but falsely and Corruptely. By such falsehood and slight, you have Multiplied your Allegations, and furnished your book with Quotations, not caring how or what you brought, so that the Margyn were stuffed. These Quotatyons you used as a Call for birds. With them you Tolled and Baited your Reader. Who taketh in gladly the Bait of authority, but seeth not the Hook of Falsehood and Untruth wherewith you Choke him. For this purpose you have a knack to macke sundry Allegations which are but one. As in the fourth Article. fol. 6. a. you do most Ambitiously. Also Artic. 1. fol. 27. and Art. 3. fol. 105. b. By such show of learning you thought to win credit. And under the Visard of the Fathers and Counsels, of Histories and Laws, of Authors both old and new, you thought to play the part of a learned Writer and of a true Teacher. But the visard being now plucked of, your Untrue Alleagatyons discovered, your Bonowed Feathers peeled away, you will remain not only for opinion of good learning as piled as Aesop's daw, but also for farther Credit off your Word, you will stand (I fear) for yanckeroute. Verily if Truth may prevail, as she ever hath and will prevail, you for your Untruths (except you redress them) are no more to be accounted for a Teacher of Truth, but to be taken for (as S. Peter termeth such) a Lying Master.  
Of your other yehavyour and Dealing M. jewel, if I should put you particularly in mind, what fault is there of an honest, discrete, and upright writer to be avoided, that you have not incurred, and either Ignorantly or wilfully committed? Your Oversights touching the Story, Time, and Practise of the Church are Great and Many. 
The great Ouerfightes of M. jewel.  I report you and the Reader to these places for example thereof Art. 3. fol. 82.83. b. Art. 4. fol. 39 b. 42. a. 44. b. 94. a. 140. b. 160. b. 162. b. 164. b. 174. b. Howbeit this may proceed of Ignorance, and is Excusable.  

He claimeth by heretics.  But that you should Claim by Open Condemned Heretics, and Build your Proofs upon their sayings and doings, what Ignorance can you here pretend, or what Colour off Excuse can you devise? If you remember you have done no such thing, Consider I beseech you how Often and how Boldly you allege the Arrians, their sayings and doings, in the fourth Article against the lawful and dew Obedience, (practised by the Carholike bishops whom those Arrians persecuted) to Christ's Vicaire hear in earth, the bishop of Rome. For the readier view hereof, and how also you Claim by the late Greeks, by Eutychians and by Donatists, these places noted may point unto you. Art. 1. fol. 13. a. Art. 4. fol. 75. b. 97. b. 109.110.119. b. 120. a. & b. 126. a. 130. b. 162. b. 163. a. 169. a. If such Plea may commend your Action, then must you seek for an other Bench, and an other Court. The Catholic Church admitteth no such witnesses to speak or to give evidence. We have not so learned Christ, M. jewel. This point verily of all lewdness, is the lewdest.  
another sleight or Craft you have to destroy a Truth by telling a Truth. Example whereof you may behold. Art. 4. fo. 160. a. and 161. a. By that means you make many long Processes, to very short Purposes.  
Your manner of writing is beside so Dissolute Lose and Negligent, 
His lose Manner of writing.  or else yourself so Impotent, in contradiction, that many times you are found Contrary to yourself, sometime in plain words to Confute yourself, at other times by the force of your own reasoning to be Cast in your own Turn. For a view of particular examples in each one of these faults, I remit you to these places. For the first, Art. 1. fo. 11, b. 31. b. Art. 2. fo. 50. b. Art. 4. fo. 62. a. 158. a. For the second, Art. 1. fol. 19 a. 25. a. 32. a. Art. 4. fol. 149. b. 150. a. For the third and last. Art. 2. fo. 45. a. Art. 3. fol. 85. b. 111. b.  

His wrong and lewd manner of Reasoning.  Your manner of Reasoning, is so beside all Reason, and so Squarre from the Purpose, that thereof arise a huge and main Number of lewd and Fond Arguments, which by the Force of your talk must needs be Concluded. Verily no less fond and foolish, than those which you made and framed yourself also in your Reply under the name of D. Hard●nges Arguments. Only this is the difference. Those in your Reply were fathered of you upon D. Harding untruly (as it hath been otherwhere declared unto you) and were your own, 
By M. Rastel li 2. cap. 4.  but made in sport, or else to make sport: These which are to be found in this Book, are rightly yours, and of yourself made in good earnest. I have only brought them in to their Form, and exemplified them by the like. Wherein how uprightly I have dealt, I make every Indifferent Reader, yea yourself M. jewel, if any Indifferency be in you, the judge. Where and in what places these your lewd and fond Arguments may be found, because the number is not convenient to be noted in this place, I remit you to the Table of this Book, and to the first letter of your own Name therein. Other general examples of your lewd Dealing, or rather Wrangling, you may consider M. jewel (not to trouble you with long search thereof) Art. 1. fo. 4. b. 17. b. Art. 2. fol. 46. b. Art. 3. fol. 62. b. 121. b. Art. 4. fol. 3. a. 30. a. 56. b. 133. b. 185. a. 186. b. 
His lewd dealing and wrangling.  Many particular faults might yet more be noted. But for a short view thereof, I remit you M. jewel, or any other the Reader hereof to the Table of this book, and the place, of it above said. All which laid together, every Indifferent Reader and yourself also shall see, except in such things you can see and not see, that both for your Untrue Allegatyons of the Fathers, the Councils, the very text of holy Scripture, the Ecclesiastical histories, the Laws and Decrees, and of other good Authors both Old and New, as also for your unhonest and lewd dealing through your whole manner of writing, neither your Person is to be Credited, and much less your doctrine to be tolerated.  
By this also it may appear, that I have rightfully Returned Untruths upon you, 
The Title of this book.  and have therefore not without good Cause Entitled this my small labour. A Return of Untruths upon M. jewel etc. which yet I have so Entitled not only for this Cause, but also and that Principally because the Untruths which in these Four Articles, to the Number of a Hundred twenty and fyve, you have charged and turned upon D. Harding I have discharged him thereof, and Recharged or Returned them upon you again. The other newly Charged upon you to the number of certain hundreds, are such as you have committed in your Reply, in such places as you labour to justify and to prove, that thing, which in the Margin of D. hardings text you noted for Untruth. Which pains you take not always, and therefore always I enter not to your Reply, but shortly do justify the untruth, and so Return it upon you for a Slander. Only you take that pains, when the Untruth requireth such a proof or declaration: As when it containeth a Matter of Doctrine. And at such times I enter your Reply, and what I find touching that untruth, I go thorough with it, especially in the third and fourth Articles. In the other two why I do not so, the reason shall be given in my Preface to the Reader.  
But touching these Untruths, 
Upon what grounds, M. jewel hath Noted D. Harding with Untruths.  which it hath liked you M. jewel in these four first Articles to charge D. Harding withal, if we should Consider a little your manner of Dealing therein, and somewhat specify the same, would it, trow you, thereby appear, that you did it, either for the Love and Zele of Truth itself, or else upon good and substantial grounds moved thereunto? No truly. But directly the Contrary. For (as touching the first) what Love or Zele of Truth can be presumed to have been herein (I appeal but to all indifferent Readers) when you note that for Untruth, which you could not be ignorant, was not the saying of D. Harding himself, but of his Author alleged then presently? Examples of this your Dealing the Diligent Reader may espy. Art. 1. fo. 10.26. and 29. Also Art. 3. fol. 120. b. Art. 4. fo. 48. b. For in these places, you note for untruths those words which are the very words of S. Hierom, of S. Augustin. Of Leontius, of Origen, 
The Doctors own sayings are made D. hardings Untruths.  and of the Nicene Council out of Franciscus Turrianus. All which Authors being by D. Harding in those places alleged, are noted by M. jewel to speak untruly. If you would needs note the matter for untrue, you should have noted the untruth M. jewel upon such and such Authors, not upon D. Harding. Now what shall I call that in you, gross ignorance or wilful dissimulation, when you note those sayings of D. Harding for Untrue, which are the very sayings of other good Authors though not alleged then presently? So you Note that for Untruth, yea and for a foul depravation or holy scripture, which is the very saying and doctrine of S. Hilary. Art. 2. fol. 48. b. The like you do Art. 4. folio. 170. a. by a saying of Innocentius the first, defended also by S. Augustin. In these points M. jewel either you loved not the Truth, or else you must confess, you miss of the ground thereof.  

Untruths noted upon a wrong dissembled meaning of the Author.  Again when you dissemble the Course of D. hardings treatise, and upon that Dissimulation do score up Untruths, because that is not Concluded, which in deed was not of him in that place Intended, can this your dissimulation proceed of the zeal and love of Truth? In the first Article, when D. harding alleged Clement, S. Dyonise, justinus Martyr and Ireneus, S. basil and Chrysostom and last of all Cyrillus for proof of the Sacrifice of the mass, you note upon all these Allegatyons a number off untruths, because (you say there) those Doctors do speak of a Communion and not of Private Mass, whereas yet (as I said) they were expressly brought to prove the Sacrifice of the Mass not to prove private Mass. Of this your lewd dealing you may read more particularly in this Return Art. 1. fol. 4. b. But this your open and manifest dissimulation, can it (I appeal to your own Conscience) proceed of any Zele or love of the Truth? Did the Truth, I say, move you to note those Untruths? The like dissimulatyon you use in a number of other Untruths, which you have scored upon D. Harding, as the diligent Reader may consider Art. 1. fol. 5. & 6. a. folio. 9 b. 10. b. 17. b. Art. 2. fo. 53. a. Art. 3. folio. 117. b. 119. a. 121. a. 123. a. Artic. 4. fol. 185. a. 186. b. but especially in the same Article. fol. 2 b. and .3. a. where you charge D. Harding though not with Untruth in the Margin, yet with a great Untruth in your text, as if he had nipped a saying of S. Gregory quite in the midst, scoffing also there at him, as if he had (you say) the Choynecyngh etc. and all that because (you say in that place) D. Harding alleged those words of S. Gregory to prove that the B. of Rome was called the Universal bishop. which thing in that place was not of him at all Intended, but an other Matter expressly taken in hand, as in that place (Art. 4. fol 2. b. and .3. a.) you may behold and see to the eye M. jewel. Now this so open and great dissimulation of yours, in scoring and charging of Untruths upon D. Harding, hath it I say on your part any Colour or Appearance, of any love or zeal of the Truth? All the world seeth you did it to Deface, to Shame, and to discredit your Adversary, whom otherwise you could not with any force of good Reason, any learning, truth, probabilite or authority overthrow.  
Other your Untruths scored upon D. Harding are such sayings and Assertions, as not only D. Harding but all the Catholic Church affirmeth and holdeth for assured verities of the Catholic Faith. 
Common Verities of the Catholic Church, noted for special Untruths of D. Harding.  You could not then justly note them as special Untruths of D. Harding, as if they had been of his own Inuentyon, but if you would needs score them up for untruths, you should have scored them upon the whole Church of Christ, or (as you esteem that Church,) upon all Papists in general. For now as you have ordered the Matter, your brethren do vaunt (as I have heard some of them myself) that D. Harding hath committed this great number of untruths, himself by his own negligence or wilfulness. Such your untruths so noted may shortly be seen. Art. 1. fol. 1. b. touching the name of Mass. fol. 6. b. 7. b. 8. a. 11. b. 20. a. and b. 32. a. Art. 2. fol. 41. a. 43. a. 44. a. 54. b. 57 a. Art. 4. fol. 1. a. 58. b. 71. a. 111. a. 116.126. b. 134. a. 165. a. 170. a. etc. By this way you might note M. jewel a number of Untruths not only upon all Catholic writers of these days, but also in the Old Fathers and Doctors of Christ's Church, who say herein no less than we say, as upon these your Untruths it hath been here declared. Again these matters being between you and us in question and controversy, you to proclaim them for untruths, it is to blow the Triumph before the Victory.  
But that in this your Singular Devise of Scoring up Untruths, you rather sought means to fill up the Score, then to bolt out the Truth, 
Untruths repeated to make up the Score.  it may well appear by the repeating of one self Untruth, so often times. For some you repeat four times in one Article, as Art. 1. fol. 32. a. some other three times, as in the same Article fol. 40. b. and Art. 4. fol. 172. but many there are which you repeat twice, only to make up the Number. As Art. 1. fol. 8. a. Art. 2. fol. 53. b. 54. b. Art. 3. fol. 123. b. Art. 4. fol. 19 By which your dealing it may easily appear to any Indifferent Reader that in the great Number of these Untruths, you sought more the Number then the Truth.  
To you therefore M. jewel that thus untruly have dealt, that so many ways have betrayed your corrupted affection, and Blotted yourself so much, intending to Blemish your Adversary, I may well answer with the wise and discrete saying of that Noble Philosopher Plato, wherewith he touched that Rude Reprocher Diogenes. Calcasti fastum Platonis, sed maiore fastu. Or rather I may tell you, as in the Grand Senate off Rome it was told once to a dissolute and riotous young Man declaiming sadly off Virtue, Quis te ferat cenantem ut Crassus, 
Plutarch in Catone Vticensi.  aedificantem ut Lucullus, loquentem ut Cato? Who can abide thee, to lavish in sumptuous building as Lucullus, to riot in banqueting as Crassus, and yet to talk sadly as an other Cato? Which Reproach as he had right worthily before that Honourable Senate, for his extreme dissimulation and wretched Hypocryse: so deserve you M. jewel in the estimation of all men to be taken, for a dissembler and Hypocrite, you (I say) that with such and so manifold Untruths do charge other of untruth, and dealing yourself most untruly pretend to be a Singular proctor of Truth. For who may abide you M. jewel, to Corrupt the Fathers as have done old heretics, to scoff like an other Lucyan, to lie as fast as an other Sinon, and yet to talk like a Teacher of Truth, to preach like an other Paul, and to be a controller of other men's Untruths? Blamers should allwaie be Blameless, and Fault finders ought of all right to be Faultelesse. Remember the holy Scripture Master jewel, that speaketh thus unto you. Hypocrita, eijce primum trabem do oculo tuo, 
Matth. 7.  & tunc videbis eijcere festucam de oculo fratris. Thou Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then thou shalt see to pike out the mote of thy brother's eye. You M. jewel that note your brother of untruth, deal first yourself Truly. Then shall you see better, what is Untruth, and then may you more boldly tell the other his fault. Remove away first the mighty beam of your so many, so Notorious, and so Open Untruths. Then may you with a better face, pike away the motes, the small errors and escapes, which your brother's eye seemeth to have.  
For like as the Son or Moon at their arising or going down, 
A Similitude.  when either the Misty Morning vapours, or the evening falling dew dimmeth our sight between, do seem to our eyes much greater, then toward none time or midnight when mounting on high they have passed all such lets: or like as the shining son beams yield not their light so clear, where a spotted glass window standeth between, as in the open field: so verily M. jewel your judgement being partly dimmed with a wrong persuasion of many Untruths, partly blinded with a corrupted Affection of Singularite, desire of Contradiction, or some other worse passion, can not so clearly Pierce to the true trial of the Truth, and to descry Untruth in others, as if your judgement were Upright, and your Affection Clere. For now the Case in you standing, as we see it doth, every light escape in D. Harding seemeth a wilful and Manifest Falsifying of the Author, every true and Catholic proposition, contrary to the humour of your Affection seemeth a Notorious and wilful Untruth. Yea and of this it falleth out, that many times either you miss the true meaning of your Adversary for want of judgement, or else dissemble it utterly for no want of evil Affection, so to take Occasion and Matter of Untruth. Of this also it ariseth, that the Fathers own sayings, are D. hardings Untruths. And to make matter of Reply, D. Harding is made to say, that which he never said.  
Correct therefore yourself M. jewel, and amend that is amiss: Your great Faults I mean, which in this preface you see Opened unto you. Which for your own sake I have so Opened, that beholding them at the first so Particularly laid for thee, you might think either that you are in deed (which I promised at the first) brought somewhat in the way, to find out the Truth, which so earnestly you pretend to seek after: or else that you are shortly admonished to Clere yourself, and to teach us the Truth, if we have miss thereof. God send you M. jewel, I heartily wish, a hearty and earnest love of the Truth, at perfect knowledge thereof, and Grace from Almighty God to teach other the same. far you well in Christ jesus.  
Thomas Stapleton.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
ALbeit in the Epistle prefixed to M. jewel, I have (christian Reader) said so much, as may in great part suffice to instruct and prepare thy Attention to the reading and understanding of this Return of Untruths &c: yet, to th'intent that before thou enter to perusing thereof, thou may all things thoroughly be instructed, I have thought good shortly to lay before thee, the Cause of this our Enterprise: the Order and manner of our present writing: the Matter principally contained therein: and the profit that hereof may be looked for.  
Touching the first it is not unknown to all those that any thing have travailed in perusing such books, as of late have come forth touching matters in religion controversious, neither what Challenge was published at Paul's Cross of late years, neither what Answer hath been made thereunto, nor last of all what Reply hath come forth against that Answer. The Reply is known to be great, esteemed to be learned, and thought to be such a piece, as the party impugned shall never be able to answer. What answer the party can make, it shall in the Rejoinder appear. But for one man to answer the whole, and that stitch by stitch (as the Replier requireth) both the time would be so long, that many a soul in the mean might perish, abused by that lewd piece of work, and also the book would be so great that few would buy it, fewer peruse it, and ●ot one among a hundred read it over. It hath been thought good therefore of those that in Truths cause love to take pain, that for better expedition, many set upon it, though each one did but a little. The Answerer hath not been idle, as by his Rejoinder it will well appear. Yet other men's pens he could not stay, every one to follow, as Zele pricked forward, 
D. Sanders in the 7. book.  One hath confuted an Article of the Reply: an Article among the rest most important. An other hath taught us to Beware of M. jewel. 
M. Rastel.  I have thought good to justify the Untruths, which it hath liked the replier to charge upon his Adversary all along his Reply. To this I was moved by diverse reasons. 
The Cause of the setting forth of this Return etc.  I ever thought (as in the process afterward I saw it fell out) that the weakest parts through out the Reply, should be those, where such Untruths were noted. For I thought not, nor any man else I trow will think, either that the replier hath so little wit as not to espy, which parts were most likely to be Untrue, and there to score up his Untruth (the proper Badge in deed of this Replyers Cognysance) either that he owed any such good will to his adversary (whom by that Invention he minded for ever to deface and discredit) as that he would dissemble and wink at great faults, and note only certain small escapes. These weaker parts therefore being proved strong and good, I thought the residue of the whole Answer should need at all no defence: but might stand for true, as being passed over by the replier without any note of Untruth. For as in a broken net, the holes being sowed up, the whole net is good and will serve well again: so it seemed me, these presumed Untruths being redressed or discharged, the whole Answer might go for good, godly, and true. By this means therefore going through the Reply, a compendious way was found, shortly and yet sufficiently both to defend the former Answer, and to satisfy this Reply. And this lo was one and the first Cause that moved me to (devise this Return. another Cause (which perusing a long the Untruths as they stood in the Margin of the Divisions I espied) was this. The replier in all these four Articles, the former half of his Reply, hath noted for Untruths, both the principal Matters treated and proved in the Articles, and also the Conclusions thereof, as not yet proved. I saw therefore that in justifying these Untruths it was necessary to enter the Reply: to labour the principal Matters: and to prove, that all things were well proved. This is in effect to answer the whole. For, other small matters neither so weighty, as the replier would cavil at them, neither so weak as he could find any Colour of Untruth to set upon them, might well for brevities sake, in a full and perfect Rejoindre be omitted. This therefore I have done, and by this the replier may think himself sufficiently answered, in this former half of his Reply.  
How, in what Order and manner, and how far I have this done, it shall now appear. I do first lay forth the words of D. Harding printed in a several letter, 
The Order and manner of setting forth the same.  upon and about the which, the Replier hath noted the Untruth. Then followeth immediately the Untruth and the number thereof noted by the replier, word for word, as it standeth in the Margin of his Reply upon the text of D.H. After in an other distinct letter, followeth the justifying and discharging of the Untruth, whereby the replier is Recharged, the Untruth upon him Returned, and he proved a Slanderer. When occasion serveth, as when some principal Matter containing doctrine and concerning the state of the Question occurreth, whereby the Reader may be edified, the whole text of the Reply concerning that matter is inserted, and to every parcel thereof Answer is made. In the first Article I have done this only in two places, containing the very substance of the Article, as I shall anon declare. All the other Untruths I justify shortly without entering to the text of the replier. Thus I have there done because D.H. hath himself made a full and perfect Rejoindre to this first Article. In the second Article, as the Untruths there noted, require very seldom such labour, but may shortly be justified, so have I not often entered the text of the Reply, but only about the Principal matters of the Article, whereof I shall speak anon. In the third and fourth Articles, especially in the fourth, I have not left any whit of M. jewels Reply, were it never so long and tedious, unanswered, in such places as Untruths were noted. What principal Matters I have after this sort in these four Articles treated, and discussed, it remaineth now to declare.  

The Principal Matters treated and contained therein·s Fol. 21. & seq.  In the first Article, the Untruth noted against the daily external Sacrifice of Christ's Church, I have persecuted at large and touched M. jewels Reply therein. This I have done at large and abundantly, because the ground of this Article, which is of private Mass standeth hereupon. For a daily external Sacrifice on the priests part being necessary, and yet the people not bound by any law or precept daily to communicate, it remaineth most necessary, that in Case none will Receive, the priest may and ought to Receive alone, seeing without Receiving the Sacrifice may not be celebrated. And thus private Mass, which is the sole Receiving of the priest, is found not only lawful, but necessary. In the last Untruth in like manner touching the place of Chrysostom, M. jewels whole Reply is answered, private Mass is expressly proved out of Crysostom, and the replier forced by all reason to Subscribe.  
In the second Article, concerning the very question of the Challenge, 
Fol. 43. b 44. a.  the replier altereth it and enlargeth it, and entereth a new Action, confessing secretly that in the former he is Guilty. The grounds of the Question, as that Christ is wholly received under each kind. and that the Commandment of Christ. Drink ye all of this, pertaineth not to the lay people, but to pristes only (for these being granted, there is neither Inconvenience, neither the breach of any Commandment committed in receiving under 
Fol. 41. a. fol. 44. a. & seq.  One kind) are both treated and proved in two several Untruths of that Article, and the Replyers text in the later point answered.  
In the third Article it is proved against Untruths noted to the contrary, both that we at the first Receiving of the Faith in our Nation, 
Fol. 56. b. 57 b. & seq.  and that the East and West Church within the first 600. years had their Church Service in the Greek and Latin tongues, which the Common people understood not. Whereby at the beginning the replier is forced by all reason to Subscribe. What other special Matters in this Article are treated, and how far I have entered the Replyers text, 
Art. 3. fol 134. a.  because at the end of the same Article I have already particularly declared, I think it not needful here to repeat.  
In the fourth Article these principal matters are more especially treated and discussed by occasion of the Untruths noted. 
Art. 4. fo. 7. &. seq. 9 &. seq.  First how john of Constantinople usurped the Title of universal Bishop, in what sense he usurped it, and how the holy Pope Gregory abhorred it. Next that the same learned Father S. Gregory not withstanding he so abhorred the Name, Practised yet himself a Supremacy universal over all parts of the Church, 
Fol. 29. & seq.  both of the East and of the West. The great Controversy touching a (anon of the Nicene Council for the Pope's primacy forged (as the replier saith) by Pope Zosinius is again a fresh debated, and the long lying text of the replier in that behalf thoroughly answered, 
Fol. 50. e● seq.  Zosimus cleared and the Pope's primacy confirmed. justinian's Constitutions and decrees confessing the Pope's primacy are defended from the lewd and fond expositions of the replier, and his whole text thereupon perfectly examined. 
Fol. 59 & seq.  By occasion of the 104. Untruth noted by the replier, it is proved by holy Scripture, and confirmed by the Fathers, that Peter was left by Christ as the Foundation of his whole Church and therefore as the principal Gowerner, 
Fol. 62.63. et seq.  and Universal vicar thereof. The next Untruth forced me to discover a great number of texts of holy Scripture racked, wrested, and corrupted, partly in general by all protestants, partly by the replier himself in this four Article. Wherein many other points touching the Pope's primacy (the matter of this Article) by the way are opened. The .106. and 107. Untruths occasioned me to enter to the Replyers text touching Appeals to Rome. 
Fol. 71. & seq. to the leaf. 111.  There it is proved against all the Arguments and Objections of the replier, that Appeals to Rome were decreed by the holy Counsels, practised by the holy and learned Fathers, namely of Athanasius and S. Chrysostom two of the greatest patriarchs after the B. of Rome, and two of the most learned Fathers of the greek Church. Last of all that such Appeals do necessarily import a Sovereign authority of the Pope over the whole Church. Item that no Appeals can be removed from the Pope or made to the Emperor in causes ecclesiastical, as the replier laboureth in vain to prove. It is proved also at large in this Article, by occasion of Untruths noted to the Contrary, that the Pope erreth not in faith: that he hath always been over the bishops of the East, that the Pope Confirmeth bishops, 
Fol. 111 117.127.135.158.167.107.  that he Confirmeth and Approveth all General Councils and without him none can be confirmed: that he Restoreth bishops and patriarchs unjustly deprived, to their Churches again: that he Reconcileth them upon penance after Excommunication: last of all that all doubts and questions of greater Importance have been Removed to him. All this by the Practice of the first .600. years. And in each of all these Matters the whole text of the replier is answered line by line and stitch by stitch. In fine it is proved against the Replyers Untruths, 
Fol. 175. e● seq.  and against his whole text thereupon, both that the Bishop of Rome was Called, Saluted and Entitled Universal bishop in the Chalcedon Council: yea and that of the Bishops and Council itself: and also that many ways and often he hath been called Head of all Churches, 
Fol. 193.194.  and bishop of the Universal Church. By the means whereof the replier is forced by good and express evidence, either to revoke his overbold Challenge, or else to come to the Book and Subscribe. And thus much of the principal matters especially treated and debated in the process of these four Articles.  
What profit of all these Matters thus debated, may of thee be looked for (gentle Reader) thou mayest soon concieve considering only this one Case. D. Harding in his Answer, treating first most of these Matters, both hath uttered such good learning as he found in other Catholic writers, treating before of the same in latin: and also by his learned and private study beside hath added much thereunto, M. jewel hath in his Reply partly uttered such escapes to avoid the authorities alleged, as commonly of the Latin writers of his sect are used, partly and that most commonly hath alleged beside against the Truth all tha● he could find in other, or hath read himself. He hath, I say, said for himself, as much and more than could honestly be said. He hath opposed, Arguments, Allegations, reasons and Authorytes for the Contrary part: As if he did not Reply against an other, but treat himself freely and freshly of the matter. By this means in these two books (the Answer of D. Harding, and the Reply of M. jewel) both parts have said their mind, the one for the Catholic faith: the other not only against the Catholic faith, but also for his own sect and opinion. I have been therefore driven in persecuting the text of the Replies, not only to defend the Catholic, but also to answer the heretic: not only to uphold our own grounds and to repair them with new defences, against the Replyers new assaults, but much more to overthrow the Adversaries grounds and foundations which he opposeth and setteth up afresh against the Truth. I have done therefore herein a third and new labour in most points not before done of any. By perusing whereeof, thou shalt (gentle Reader) be instructed, not only how to maintain the Catholic doctrine, but also how to overthrow the heresy: not only to see the grounds of the Catholic faith established, fortified and confirmed, but also to behold the fickle foundations of the Lutheran and Calvinian Religion (touching the points here treated) battered, shaken, and overthrown. Briefly thou shalt see in the person of M. jewel and of his manner of reasoning, that the foundation of his and his fellows Religion, especially against their dew Obedience to the See Apostolic, standeth upon Ignorance of the stories, falsifying of the doctors, of councils, of the laws, 
His Untruths in this Return Arise to .562.  and of other good Authors both old and new. For hereof lo, Arise the hundreds of Untruths committed by this replier in the treating only of these principal matters above specified and in fight only against the weakest and untruest parts of his adversaries Answer. If our purpose had been, to have gone along his whole Reply and to have persecuted his text upon other parts of the Answer, not so noted with Untruths, and therefore of all likelihood the more True parts, the Stronger, and the less able truly to be reproved, this replier then should tell by the thousands, and might go for a Pinner for his Numbers of Untruths. But of his Dealing in the Epistle prefixed to him, it hath been said sufficiently. To return to our matter I say.  
If the Argument of these other three first Articles do less delight, as being in deed of less importance, yet Consider I beseech thee (gentle Reader, if thou shortly desire to be informed which way to take) and diligently peruse the fourth Article of this book. Namely in such places where M. jewels Reply against Appeals made to the Pope, against the Confirmation of General Councils, and of Bishops that were doubtfully Ordered, against the Restoring of bishops deprived, the Reconciliation of bishops excommunicated, and against the authority of the Pope over the East Church is examined, answered, and confuted. For in those places it shall appear, both with what shifts, absurdities, Inconveniences, and open Untruths the allegatyons of D. Harding are impugned, and much more with what extreme lying, lewd and Untrue dealing, the contrary part is by M. jewel upholded and defended. Being in this Article persuaded, every wise and discrete Reader, shall incontinently in all other matters now denied by heretics, retire to the unite and belief of the Catholic Church. For the bishop of that Apostolic See being by such Clear and so manifold Practice, by so many Grave and Irrefragable Authorities beside, both of holy Scripture and of the learned Fathers, Confessed and proved to be the Head, Chief Overseer, and Guide of God's house (the universal Church) being also evident that his Faith (as it is also in this Article proved) in any matter to be decreed and delivered to the Church, 
Fol. 111. & seq.  neither hath at any time nor can possibly err: what doubt remaineth, but in all points we must believe as that holy See believeth, and behave ourselves in the house of God, in all things touching the Service of God, after no other way or fashion, than the order taken by that Sovereign See hath of long appointed, used and accustomed, This Article therefore, as I have especially laboured therein, and spent more than half this book thereupon: so every Reader that seeketh by this my small labour to be edified or instructed, I desire most earnestly, diligently to peruse.  
If any one of my dear countrymen may hereby, or by any part of this rude labour (rudely in deed, and hastily compiled) be instructed, or any way edified to a better consideration of his duty to God (as that many may I most heartily wish, and verily hope) him or them for all reward I beseech to help me and themselves with their good prayers: to help I say the Catholic Church (whereof both we and they are children and membres) to call earnestly and often upon the Mercy of God, that he stay this raging storm off schism and heresy, neither suffer it to overgrow this part of the world (as the Arrian heresy overgrewe the east Church) and to creep on like a Cancre, as we see it daily doth (only for the multitude of our iniquities provoking always his just indignation) but that he look mercifully upon his spouse, and confound all her enemies, 
Psal. 128.  ut confundantur & avertantur retrorsum omnes qui oderunt Zion. that they be confounded and recoiled back all that hate Zion, the holy Catholic Church. Farewell.  
In Antwerp the 24. of july. 1566. Thomas Stapleton.   

FAULTS ESCAPED IN printing of this book.  
leaf. side. Line. Fault. Correction. In The Epistle. 10. a. 20. Choynecyngh Choyneco●gh In The .3. Article. 113. b. 3. fore fere 114. a. 10. fiet fit 116. a. 20. as is 121. In the margin Saint Paul to the Corin. etc. put it out. 122. 123. 125. b. 15. put in the margyn Pantaleon in Chronographia 129. a 12. nation Incarnation. 134. b. 21. ten nine In The .4. Article. 104 b. 15. three but three assaults made, but 107 b. 11. extrema externa   27 comentum conventum 115. b. 1. decree draw   13. 3000 300 133. a. ●. pointed painted 13●. b. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146. a. 16. were summoned were not summoned 147. b. 33. Constantius Constantinus 165 a. 5. of oft   

A return OF UNTRUTHS UPON M. JEWEL. etc.  
The first Article.  
Harding. THE communion likewise of the Sacrament, 
Diuis. 1.  is a public feast by Christ through the ministery of the priest in the same: prepared for every faithful person.  
jewel. The first Untruth: 
Pag. 1.  
The first Slanderous Untruth of M. jewel, for charging D. Harding with Untruth, where none is. Harding.  For there is no such preparation.  
Stapleton. There is preparation made by the Priest, for all such as will receive. When none will receive, no such preparation is made. Yet because every faithful person duly prepared thereunto may receive, if he will, and for all such the feast is prepared of Christ by the ministery of the priest, it is prepared for every faithful person.  
And so being common by order of the first institution, and by will of the ministers, it ought to be reputed for common not private.  
jewel. The second Untruth. There appeareth no such will in the Ministre.  
Stapleton. Though there appear no such will in the Minister to you M. jewel, and others, 
The second Untruth of M. jewel, and that a Slanderous.  which will dame the worst of the Priest, yet to all well meaning folk, such will doth appear, who know the duty of the priest to be, to distribute unto all which duly prepared come to receive. The priests will is not to be judged of any external usage or practice, such as you gather, but of this only, if any coming to the communion, duly and seemly prepared be repelled of the priest. Which thing because in no priest appeareth, or if ever it appeared, by the Church it was never allowed, therefore it is true, that by the will of the minister admitting gladly all faithful folk prepared thereunto, the feast is common for all, not private for the priest alone. These two Untruths are gathered only of the external behaviour of the priest: whereas the truth thereof dependeth of the preparation and devotion of the people jointly concurring with the ministery of the priest, by the means whereof the feast is common. It appeareth also by Reservation, that the Catholic Church prepareth more for the people, than the protestants which abhor from all Reservation.  
Harding. 
Diuis. 2.  Therefore in this respect, we do not acknowleadg any private Mass, but leave that term to Luther's school, where it was first devised.  
jewel. 
Pag. 2.  
The third Slanderous Untruth.  The 3. Untruth.  
Stapleton. Here is an Untruth noted, but no cause or reason brought to prove it so. Therefore until M. jewel bring some elder than Luther, which termed private Mass of the Sole Receiving of the priest, it is truly said, that, that term in that sense was in Luther's school first devised.  
Harding. 
Diuis. 5.  The unbloody and daily sacrifice of the church, commonly called the Mass.  
jewel. 
Pag. 4.  The 4. Untruth. The old Fathers never commonly called it so.  
Stapleton. Yet the young Fathers in king Edward's days called it the Mass. For in the first communion book, it is said. The Communion, 
The 4. slanderous Untruth, joined with an other Captain Untruth touching the old Fathers, which maketh the fift. Ambros. 33. epist. Leo ep. 81. Greg. li. 4. epist. 32.  otherwise called the Mass. Howbeit all were it true, that the old Fathers never commonly called it so, yet were it no Untruth, to say it is commonly called so: For if these ix. C. years only the daily sacrifice had been commonly called the Mass, were it an Untruth, trow ye, to write, commonly called the mass? The i'll of Brytanny is now commonly called England and, and Scotland. Yet the old writers above little more than a thousand years, never called it so. Shall it be now an Untruth if a writer say, The i'll of Britanny commonly called England and Scotland? But the old fathers even within the compass of six hundred years, did commonly call it so. S. Ambrose, Leo the first, and S. Gregory. The old fathers in the councils off 
a Can. 12.  Millevet, of whom S. Augustine was one, and in the 
b Can. 3.  second at Carthage in Africa, 
c Can. 2.  the old fathers of the councils of Arelat, off 
d Can. 22.  Orleans, and 
e Can. 21. & 47.  Agatha in France, the old Fathers of the counsels of 
f Can. 4.  Ilerd and 
g Ca●. 3.  Gerund in Spain, all within the compass of 500 years speaking of that daily sacrifice do call it by the name of Mass. judge now gentle reader, whether it be an Untruth, to say, Commonly called the Mass.  
Harding. We Have for proof of the sacrifice beside other places etc., the institution of Christ in the new Testament.  
jewel. The 5. Untruth. Christ speaketh not one word of any Sacrifice. 
The 6. Slanderous Untruth.   
Stapleton. Christ speaketh not one word of any Sacrament in the last Supper, and yet it is no Untruth to say, For proof of the Sacrament we have the institution of Christ in the new Testament. But a● Christ instituted a Sacrament by doing, not by speaking, so Christ instituted a Sacrifice by doing and sacrificing in deed, not by speaking or reporting a Sacrifice. Again that Christ instituted a Sacrament in the last Supper, we learn it not by any express naming of a Sacrament in the Scripture. But by the authority of the Church expounding so the Siripture. Right so that Christ sacrificed in deed unto God the Father, his precious body and blood in the last supper, we learn by the Fathers of the Chrurch, expounding unto us the Institution of Christ, not by the express terms of Sacrifice in the Scripture. The consent of the Fathers so teaching us is other where at large expressed. In the 34. Untruth. Last of all, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is not of any Evangelist named, and yet off the Evangelists we learn, that Christ was sacrificed on the Crosse.  
Harding. That S. Andrew the apostle, touching the substance of the mass, worshipped God every day with the same service as priests now do in celebrating the external sacrifice of the Church.  
jewel. The .6. Untruth. S. Andrew said the Communion and not the Mass. 
Pag. 5.   
Stapleton. First the Mass and the Communion duly ministered is all one. 
The 7. untruth Slanderous, and the 8. touching. S. Andrew.  Therefore you do but fond to make as though it were a Contradiction bewene the Communion and the Mass. Again S. Andrew offered unto God the sacrifice of his dear Son, the body and blood of our Saviour. This is the substance of the Mass of which only D. Harding here speaketh. This was no such Communion as ye do practise, where no external sacrifice of Christ his body is. This was mass where such external sacrifice is made.  
Harding. Abdias who saw Christ our Saviour in the flesh.  
jewel. The 7. Untruth. This Abdias never saw Christ in the flesh. It is a very legend of lies.  
Stapleton. If Abdias never saw Christ in the flesh, it is an Untruth of the history, which in the name of Abdias so reporteth. It is no Untruth on D. hardings part. 
The 9 Slanderous Untruth.  But how proveth M. jewel the history of Abdias to report Untruly? Marry saith he of it. It is a very legend of lies. This is soon said, but nothing proved. As for that which in the text M. jewel bringeth for proof hereof, it is of M. D. Harding thoroughly confuted.  
Harding. They shall find in Clement the whole order and form of the Mass, set forth by the Apostles themselves.  
jewel. The 8. Untruth. There is no manner token or show of private Mass.  
Stapleton. Clement is brought to prove the Sacrifice of the Mass not to prove Private Mass, that is, 
The 10. Slanderous Untruth.  Sole Receiving of the priest in the Mass. Therefore it is true that in Clement touching the Substance of the Mass, which is the daily Sacrifice of the Church, the whole order and form of the Mass is to be found, though there be in him no token or show of Private Mass.  
Harding. They shall find the same most plainly treated of, and a form of the Mass much agreeable to that is used in these days, set forth by S. Dionyse.  
jewel. The 9 Untruth. It is the very form of the Communion, and no thing like the private Mass.  
Stapleton. It hath external Oblation, Consecration of the Mysteries, Prayer for the dead, Altar, Censing, Memory of the saints, 
The 11. Untruth Slaund. Eccles. Hier. ca 3.  all which things M. jewels Communion lacketh and the Mass hath. And to prove the Mass it was brought, not to prove Private Mass.  
Harding. I do farther refer thee to justinus the martyr, and philosopher, To Irenaeus the martyr and bishop of Lions etc. To the old Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus.  
jewel. 10. A Burden of Untruths.  
Stapleton Not one Untruth. For all these Fathers do clearly testify the Sacrifice of the mass, for the which they are brought. Read the 2. Apology of justinus martyr, 
The 12. Untruth Slaund.  Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 32. and Hippolytus, as it is in M. D. Harding alleged. justinus saith Panis, vinum, & aqua offeruntur. The bread, wine and water are offered. Ireneus saith of Christ in his last Supper, Novi testamenti novam docuit Oblationem, quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert deo. He taught a new sacrifice of the new Testament, which the Church receiving of the Apostles doth offer unto God through out all the world. Hippolytus saith Pontifices immolare preciosum Corpus & Sanguinem Christi quotidie. That bishops do offer the precious Body and Blood of Christ daily. These considered, I trust the burden will soon be disburdened  
Harding. Finally I refer them in stead of many to the two worthy fathers, basil and Chrysostom, whose Masses be left to the posterity at this time extant.  
jewel. 
The 13. Untruth Slaund. and the 14. belying S. Bas●l and Chrysostom.  The 11. Untruth. They contain the very order of the Communion.  
Stapleton. Basil and Chrysostom are brought to witness the Sacrifice of the Mass, as the other fathers above are. That to be true let their words testify. In the Mass of S. Basil after the Consecration of the mysteries the priest offereth them unto God, saying. Tua ex tuis tibi offerimus per omnia & in omnibus. We offer unto thee thy own of thy own thorough all things and in all things. The very same words are in the Mass off Chrysostom. 
1. Oblation of the mysteries.  After which (as well in the Mass off S, basil, as of Chrisostom) a commemoration of the blessed Saints in heaven, namely of our Lady, of Saint john Baptist, and of the Saint of the day, 
2. Memory of Saints.  is made, and prayer for the dead in the faith of Christ, is had. Is this the very order of the Communion M. jewel? Do you offer the mysteries in your communion? Make you any Commemoration of the Saints? 
3. Prayer for the dead.  Pray you for the dead? Is it now an Untruth that S. basil and Chrysostom in their Masses, do witness the daily sacrifice of the Church? Or is it true that the Masses of S. basil and Chrysostom do contain the very order of the Communion? For though a number of communicants be mentioned in both those masses, yet doth all the rest contain the very order of the Communion, as you now use it M. jewel? 
In sua Translat.  Again your friend Erasmus M. jewel, calleth the liturgy of S. Chrysostom, Mass. I trust it shall be no Untruth with you M. jewel to call things as Erasmus calleth them.  
Harding. Amongst all Cyrillus Hierosoly mitanus is not to be passed over lightly, who at large expoundeth the whole Mass used in Jerusalem in his time, the same which now we find in Clement.  
jewel. The 12. Untruth. It is the very express order of the Communion: It is no private Mass.  
Stapleton. This is not alleged for Private Mass, 
The 15. Untruth Slanderous and the 16. in belying S. Cyrillus. In catechesi Mystagogica. 5  but to prove a Sacrifice the substance of the Mass, and the order of the whole Mass in his time concurring with the Mass that now is. This his own words shall try which are these. Cum hoc sacrificium offerimus, postea facimus mentionem etiam eorum qui ante nos obdormierunt. Primum patriarcharum, Prophetarum, Apostolorum, Martyrum, ut deus orationibus illorum & deprecationibus suscipiat preces nostras. Deinde pro defunctis sanctis patribus & episcopis, d●nique pro omnibus oramus, qui inter nos vita functi sunt maximum esse credentes animarum iwamen pro quibus offertur obsecratio sancti illius & tremendi quod in altari positum est, sacrificij. When we offer this Sacrifice, afterward we make mention of them which have dep●rted this life before us. First of the patriarchs, of the Prophets, of the Apostles, of the Martyrs, that God by their prayers and intercessions may receive our petitions. Then for the holy fathers and bishops departed, last of all, for all men we pray, which among us have deceased, believing it to be a great relief of souls, for whom the intercession of that holy and dreadful sacrifice, which is laid upon the altar, is offered. Thus far Cyrillus. Here is a Sacrifice offered, and that upon an Altar. Here is a memory and intercession of Saints: Here is prayer for the dead. Is this the very express order of the Communion M. jewel? Or because it maketh nothing for private Mass (for the which it was not brought in of M.D. harding) is it therefore Untruly brought in for the Mass and Sacrifice thereof? These V last Untruths were gathered to make a number, 
The lewd dealing of M. jewel.  upon this false ground, as though they were all brought to prove Private Mass. Now M. jewel knew well enough that from the first part of this 5. Division, hitherto, profess are brought only for the Sacrifice and substance of the Mass. And again he knew that in the very next Division only he beginneth to speak of Private Mass, where the words of M. D. Harding are these. Now this presupposed, 
D. Hard. in the 6. division pag. 13.  that the Mass standeth upon good and sufficient grounds, for the stay of all true Christian men's b●lefe, let us come to our special purpose, and say somewhat of Private Mass. These words of M. D. Harding, do immediately follow the former allegatyons of Dyonise, basil, Chrisostom, Clement, and Cyrillus. Now what Untrue dealing is this, to heap so many Untruths, upon one false ground to evidently appearing? God amend you M. jewel, and send you some shame or honesty, that you dissemble no more so impudently.  
Harding. The feast is common. All be invited.  
jewel. The 13. Untruth. They invite no man.  
Stapleton. 
The 17. Untruth Slanderous. For by order of the church all be invited.  Though the priest expressly inviteth no man by word or by gesture, yet the order of the Church, the sermons of the Priest, the counsel in Confessions do invite all men to frequent the holy Sacrament. In this sense it is true that all be invited. In this sense wrote D. Harding. Of any words off the Priest or gesture of the Deacon in the service of the Mass he meant not, nor spoke not. Now M. jewel, because he will imagine no other inviting but this, he calleth it a manifest Untruth, that all be invited. But to prove an Untruth in the Author, you must take the meaning of the Author, and not appoint him what meaning you list. So every fool may control the wise.  
Harding. They having quite abrogated the other two (Consecration and Oblation) and not so much as once naming them in their books of service.  
jewel. The .14. Untruth. The Sacrifice is specially named in the Communion book: And in the mass itself consecration is not named.  
Stapleton. The Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, 
The 18. Untruth Slanderous.  as in the last Supper our Saviour first offered it, the Oblation of the holy Mysteries, in the Communion book, is neither named, nor practised. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross is mentioned. The sacrifice of praise and thanks giving on Our part, the offering up of ourselves, our souls and bodies to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice to God, is in the Communion book well mentioned, if the Daily Sacrifice of the Church, the precious body and blood of Christ, under the form of bread and wine, were offered there also. By the which we offer in deed a Sacrifice of praise and thanks giving unto God, by the which we offer unto God a reasonable holy and lively Sacrifice, not our selves only, but much more the most precious Body and Blood of our Saviour, and by that and with that ourselves also. Without this Sacrifice to say in your Communion book, that ye offer a Sacrifice of thanks giving, to say that ye offer your selves a lively Sacrifice unto God, it is but mockery with God and the Church: you do damnably abuse yourselves and the people. For M. jewel, you omit the Institution of Christ, and make one of your own. hearken to the holy Fathers, to whom you offer to yield, and learn that you do so. 
Lib. 2. Epist. 3.  S. Cyprian sayeth. If jesus Christ our Lord and God he himself be the high priest of God the Father, and he himself first offered a Sacrifice to God the Father and Commanded the same to be done in the remembrance of him, surely that Priest doth truly perform the office of Christ who followeth that, that Christ did, and then doth offer a full Sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, if he so begin to offer according as he seeth Christ to have offered. What Sacrifice is that M. jewel which Christ offered to God the Father and commanded the same to be done in the remembrance of him? Was it the Sacrifice upon the Cross? Did Christ command the Church to Sacrifice him on the Cross in the remembrance of him again? Was it not in his last Supper, that he commanded us to do in his remembrance? Doth not S. Cyprian dispute there expressly Contra Aquarios against such as would consecrate the Sacrament with only Water, proving unto them that they must use both Wine and Water, where you use Wine only and no Water in your detestable Communion? Doth he not expressly speak of the Sacrifice in the last Supper? Can you deny all this M. jewel? Or will you yield to this one Clear Sentence of so Ancient a Father so long above the compass of your 600. years?  
Again S. Cyprian saith, That Priest doth truly perform the office of Christ, 
Lib. 2. Epist. 3.  who followeth that that Christ did, and then doth offer a full Sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, if he so begin to offer, according as he seeth Christ to have offered. But what did Christ offer in the last supper? Let S. Cyprian instruct us. In the same place and epistle he saith. Quis magis sacerdos dei summi quàm dominus noster jesus Christus qui sacrificium deo patri obtulit? & obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech ob●ulerat, id est, panem & vinum, suam scilicet corpus & sanguinem. Who is more the priest of God most high, than our Lord jesus Christ, which offered a sacrifice to God the Father? And offered the same which Melchisedech offered that is, bread and wine, that is to say his body and blood. 
What Sacrifice the Communion Book lacketh.  This is the Sacrifice which Christ offered in the last Supper. This Sacrifice the true Priests of Christ do offer in the church, and so as Christ himself offered. This sacrifice the Communion book hath not, nameth not, useth not. This sacrifice, this Oblation of the holy mysteries, of Christ's body and blood S. Cyprian speaketh of. This Sacrifice M.D. Harding most truly said that you have abrogated. This Sacrifice most truly he said that not once you have named it in your books of service. Go now M. jewel, and if ye will note an Untruth in M.D. Har. note not, as here you note, The Sacrifice is expressly named in the Communion book. but note, This sacrifice is expressly named in the Communion book. And so shall you in deed make a great manifest Lie on your own part, and find no Untruth at all in M.D. Harding. For alas it is to true, that you have not the Sacrifice of the church in your Communion book. Alas it is to true that damnably you have omitted Christ's Institution. Cursedly you deceive the people, and most miserably ●yow condemn your own selves. Other Fathers that do witness an external Sacrifice which in the Communion book is utterly left out and omitted, when I come to the 34. Untruth, I shall have more occasion to recite. As touching Consecration, S. Augustin saith, speaking of the blessed Sacrament, Certa Consecratione fit nobis Mysticus panis. 
Contra Faustum Manichae. Lib. 20. cap. 13.  The Mystical Bread is made unto us by a certain and known Consecration. Such Consecration the Communion books have not. And though in the Mass book no mention thereof be made, yet the order thereof being so many hundred years before taken, such special mention is not now needful or required. But the Communion books containing a new order of the Ministration, 
In the communion of England there is no consecration of the Mysteries.  if therein they had used any Consecration at all, that being one principal part of Christ's Institution, they ought to have expressed the same. Howbeit certain it is not only by that they make no mention thereof, but also by that they give the remnant of their bread to the dogs, that they use no Consecration at all, but account it as very common bread. Likewise the wine that is left, either the Minister drinketh it with his common meat, or if very little remaineth, it is cast in the flower, as Poynet a late pretended bishop of Winchester did in an open Communion ministered in the Cathedral Church of Winchester. By these their doings, say and pretend what they lift in words, all the world seeth and knoweth, they use no Consecration at al. For good and evident proof thereof I ●eferre the studious Reader to the treatise of our lords Supper lately set forth by D. Sanders: In the second book the xiv. Chapter it is proved that the figurative doctrine of M. jewel and his fellows, can not stand with a Sacrament, which hath Consecration.  
Harding. The number of communicants together in one place is no part of Christ's institution.  
jewel. The 15. Untruth. For S. basil thinketh the number is part of Christ's institution. Exercitationis ad p●etatem Sermone 4.  
Stapleton. Would God M. jewel, as to prove the Institution of Christ you allege only the judgement of S. basil, 
The 19 Untruth Slanderous. and the 20. For S. basil by the place alleged, is not proved to think any such matter.  so you would stand to his only judgement, or to the judgement of the learned Fathers in other matters. But S. basil saith no such thing. This he saith in the place by you alleged. Spiritualis lex non pauciores quam duodecim esse vult, mysticum pastha comedentes. The spiritual law admitteth no less than twelve to eat the mystical passover. Now M. jewel is this the Institution of Christ, or is it not? If it be, why then do you in your Communion books take an express order that three may make a sufficient Communion? Why break you the Institution of Christ, in the very springe of your gospel? If it be not the Institution of Christ, nor S. basil meant no such thing, why speak you so Untruly, why say you S. basil thinketh the number is part of Christ's Institution? For other words tending to any such purpose, in all that Sermon he hath none. But S. basil his meaning is this. 
The true meaning of. S. Pasils' place alleged by M. jewel.  He willeth that such as take upon them the contemplative life, should live in some number together and not under ten or twelve in a company, that their life and behaviour might be void of all sinister suspicion. For that purpose he bringeth the example of the twelve at Christ's mand where that most holy mysteries were wrought. But as touching the matter itself, whether a number of communicants be part of Christ's Institution, Briefly thus I say. Christ gave it to a number, Christ gave it after meat, Christ gave it at night time. 

That the number of Communicants is no part of christ's Institution.  
August. ad januarium.  
Epist. 118.   You with us do confess the two later points to be no Parts of Christ's Institution. You give it neither after meat, neither at night time, but in the fore noon, and before all other meats. Why so? Forsooth because both you and we believe as S. Augustin did, quòd si hoc monuisset Christus, eum morem nemo variasset: that if Christ had commanded that, no man would have changed that manner. Wherein S. Augustin and we both have left the fact of Christ, and followed the tradition of the Church believing upon the custom of the Church, that the same fact of Christ was no Commandment. Right so M. jewel because the Church of Christ so many hundred years hath celebrated this holy Sacrament without a number of communicants, we believe verily that Christ never commanded a number in this celebration, and we believe that if he had so commanded, eum morem nemo variasset, no man would have changed that manner or order. This is our belief M. jewel grounded upon the Doctrine of the Church: which we are assured by holy Scriptures (as I have otherwheres at large proved) can not err in the faith, 

In the Fortress par. 1.  
Cap. 3.4. & seq.   but must for ever (not only v. or vj. C. years as it shall please you to appoint) continue in sound and upright doctrine. Your opinion to the contrary proceedeth by schismatical departing from the Church.  
Harding. 
Diuis. 8.  The manner, number, and other rites of receiving, is not fixed nor determined by the Institution of Christ, but ordered by the Church's disposition.  
jewel. The 16. Untruth. Christ appointed a number, although no certain fixed numbered. 
Pag. 18.   
Stapleton. 
The 21. Untruth Slaund. and the 22. For the number is no part of Christ's Institution, as it shall yet farther appear.  If it be truly said, Christ appointed no certain fixed numbered, why note you it for an Untruth, The number is not fixed by the Institution of Christ? What difference is there in those two sayings? Or is the one true because M. jewel saith it, and the other Untrue because D. Harding saith it?  
But how prove you M. jewel that Christ appointed a number, and yet no certain number, Because Christ said Take ye, eat ye, drink ye all, divide ye among yourselves, do ye this in my remembrance? All this was said to a certain numbered, as to twelve. By these texts therefore, if these texts be a Commandment, you must have no less than twelve at a Communion. Now three by the Communion book are sufficient. But as ye urge all these texts, so we may urge you, with vespere facto, 
Matt. 26.  Caenantibus eyes, discumbebat cum duodecim At evening time, as they supped, he sat down with the twelve, and so forth, we may urge you I say, with these, and say, You break Christ's institution, You do it not at evening time, You do it not after supper, 
Luc. 22. Mar. 14. Mat. 26.  You sit not but kneel at it, You have sometime less, sometime more than twelve to communicate, and those not all ways priests as the Apostles were. What answer you to this? Is not all this the Scripture? Is not all this written of the Evangelists? Is not all this reported in the gospel even in the very same place, where the rest of Christ's Institution touching this blessed Sacrament is written? Why then are not these parts also of Christ's Institution, or why omit you them as no parts thereof? Why is not the fact of Christ as well a Commandment, as his words, Divide ye, & c? What can you say here, 
The Practice of the Courche.  but that the Practice of Christ's Church hath declared that all these of time, and place be no substantial Parts of Christ's Institution, but Circumstances accidental, and casull Ceremonies? Even so we answer you that the Church also hath declared us by the Practice of many hundred years, the number to be no part of Christ's Institution. We answer I say, that as no certain numbered (as you confess) is appointed by Christ, so no number at all is by him necessarily prescribed. Both these points we learn of the Church, expounding to us the Scripture when it is a Commandment and when it is not. The one of these you have also learned of the Church, the other you learn of yourselves, and of your late upstart masters of Germany and Geneva against the church. I say the church of these last ix. C. years by your own confession, 
In the fortress par. 1. per totum.  which is the true Church of Christ no less than the first vj. C. years, as I have proved unto you out of holy Scripture otherwere.  
Harding. Christ's example importeth necessity off receiving only, the other rites, as number, place, 
Divisi. 9  time etc. be of congruence and order.  
jewel. The 17. Untruth. For number is not only of Congruence but also of Institution. 

pag. 22.    
Stapleton. 
The 23. Untruth Slanderous. That the number of Communicants is no part of Christ's Institution. jewel. Pag. 202.  Though this Untruth serveth but to make up the score, as being the same with the last Untruth noted before, yet because M. jewel standeth so gladly on this ground, we will try farther what sure holdefast he hath to stay himself thereon. I ask of M. jewel, why is the number more a part of Christ's Institution, than a certain number, than time, and place? He saith Christ hath by special words appointed a number to receive, when he said, divide ye among yourselves, take ye, eat ye, break ye, do ye this etc., All this sayeth he, importeth a number of necessity. I answer. First all this was said to the Apostles as to priests. For none but Priests can do that which Christ did, none but Priests can minister the holy Sacrament as Christ then did. Again a number receiveth daily thourough out the whole Church of Christ, a number eateth, breaketh, and doth that which Christ did. And so the commandment of a number is fulfilled. Last of all this is in deed the example of Christ, that in his blessed Supper, a number did communicate. But this is no commandment of Christ that for ever a number should in like manner communicate together. He said: Hoc facite, do ye this, because they were then made priests that should so do, he said not Sic facite, do ye after this sort as ye see I have done. For then not only the number, but also the time, and the manner in all points ought precisely and inviolably to have been observed.  

jewel. Pag. 22. The objection. The Answer.  Well, saith M. jewel, it was a commandment, and that appeareth well for that the Apostles and holy Fathers of the primitive Church practised it so. Well say we, it was no commandment, and that appeareth well for that the Apostles successors and holy Fathers of many a more hundred years did practise it otherwise. I mean the bishops and priests of the church of Christ these ix. C. years. What end now shall there be of this controversy? You appeal to the first 600. years for example of a number. I appeal to the later ix. C. years for the contrary. You say the first 600. years kept the true Institution of Christ. And I say the later ix. C. years kept the same also. No say you, these later times have broken the Institution off Christ. For thus you say in the text. pagina 22. & 23.  
jewel. Christ said not do this in Jerusalem, or in this parlour, or after supper, or at this table, 
The reply.  or being so many together, or standing, or sitting. But he said thus. Do ye this, that is, take ye bread, bless it, break it, give it, in my remembrance. This is not a Ceremonial accident, but the very end, purpose, and substance of Christ's Institution.  
How then? 
The Answer.  Must a number take it, bless it, break it, and give it, in one place at once? Then you must have not only a numbered to receive at ones, but also a number to Minister the communion at ones. For as to Take it, pertaineth to a number of Communicants, so to Bless it, to Break it, to give it, pertaineth to a number of Ministers, and Priests, not to all that communicate.  
But to the matter briefly I say. The approving of the breach of Christ's Institution is a damnable error. No damnable error could have been allowed in the universal church these ix. C. years. Ergo the breach of Christ's Institution could not possibly be approved these ix. C. years in the universal church of Christ. 
In the Fortress etc. par. 1.  The minor or second proposition is proved abundantly out of the psalms, the prophets, and the gospel, otherwhere. The mayor you can not deny. So the conclusion is unvincible. What then? Forsooth than it remaineth, that neither the first 600. years in the communion of a number, neither the later ix. C. years, in the Sole Receiving off the priest, which you call Private Mass, did break Christ's Institution. Because the church can not universally err at all, much less for any continuance of time. This being so, it remaineth clear, that the number of communicants is no part of Christ's Institution, nor commandment of Christ.  
Harding. 
Diuis. 8.  In which things the Church hath taken order, willing and charging that all shall communicate that be worthy and disposed.  
jewel. The 18. untruth. The Church of Rome hath taken no such order.  
Stapleton. 
The 25. Untruth Slanderous.  The daily and continual Practice of the church of Rome, repelling none, that are worthy and disposed, declareth such Order to have been taken. Yea the church hath taken express order that once in the year at the lest all faithful persons shall communicate. Again the embarring of this holy sacrament from excommunicated persons, from notorious offenders, and open penitents, declareth that to other not so excommunicated, not such notorious offenders, not yet continuing in their enjoined penance, this holy sacrament is not embarred, but is free and open to be received of such as desire it. Touching the first, if any well disposed person were ever repelled from the blessed sacrament, let M. jewel prove it, and then shall he prove his Untruth. Touching the later, all Canons and Decrees, yea even the Practice of the Protestants themselves in their pretenced religion, doth witness it. True it is therefore, that seeing none Worthy are repelled, and only the Unworthy by decree is repelled, that for the admitting always of the worthy the Church hath taken order.  
Harding. 
Divis. 10  It is not called communion, because many or as M. jewel teacheth, the whole Congregation communicateth together in one place, but because of the effect of the Sacrament, etc.  
jewel. 
pag. 25. The .26. Untruth Slanderous.  The .19. Untruth. For of communicating together it was called Communio.  
Stapleton. 
The .27. Untruth in abrydging D. Harding'S words.  Yea forsooth, but not of communicating together in one place. These words in One place, you leave out to make an Untruth where none is. For as we all confess the word Communion to be used of the Fathers, for the communicating together, either of each of us with and among ourselves, or off us all with God by the knot of this most heavenly Sacrament, So that this communicating together aught of necessity to be of the Whole Congregation in One place, that M.D. Harding denieth, that the Fathers never said, that you can never prove M. jewel. In that sense the word Communion is not taken.  
Harding. 
diuis. 10.  Thus we see S. Hierom and S. Augustine were of one Communion, and did communicate together, although they were far asunder.  
jewel. 
pag. 26. The .28. Untruth Slanderous.  The .20. Untruth: Rising of the ambiguity or doubtful taking off this word Communion.  
Stapleton. If this word Communion be (as you confess) ambiguous, if it signify sometime A consent of religion (as after in the text you say pag. 28.) then yet upon your own confession it will follow, that saint Hierom and saint Augustine who consented in religion, were of one communion together, and communicated together, in that sense of the word Communion, and so is it by your confession no Untruth that in a sense they were of one Communion, and Communicated together. For as you know, that saying is not Untrue, which in any one sense or meaning is True. You could not therefore justly, note this for an Untruth, being but of the mind that you are. But now D. hardings saying is so True, that he saith no more than S. Hierom himself said and professed. That is, that S. Augustin was Episcopus communionis sua, 
In epist. ad Augustin.  A bishop of his Communion. If saint Augustin were a bishop of saint Hieroms' Communion, which saint Hierom himself saith, 
M. jewel noteth that for an untruth in D. harding which is the very saying of S. Hieron.  than were saint Austen and saint Hierom of One communion, which D. Harding saith. If then this be an Untruth which D. Harding saith, then is it also an Untruth that S. Hierom said. Go now M. jewel and note a number of Untruths vpo● saint Hieroms' works, and let this stand for one, as truly as you have noted D. Harding therefore. Again as they were of One Communion, so they communicated both together: Wherein M, jewel? In religion and faith only? If they did so only, yet then were it true that they Communicated together. 
How S. Hierom and S. Augustin communicated together though the one never saw the other.  For in this sense they Communicated. But now not only so. For they were said to be of One Communion, because they communicated together in the blessed Sacrament. All Catholics in that sense were said to be of one communion. Heretics M. jewel, in that sense were not of one communion with the Catholic Fathers. Heretics never communicated together with the Catholics in the Church. A clear and most manifest example of this, is the daily Excommunicatian used in Christ's Church. For what is Excommunication but embarring from communicating in the Church with other Christians? But as one excommunicated in London, if he be justly excommunicated, is excommunicated not only in London, but through all England, yea and through all Christendom beside (as long as in Religion England joineth with the rest of Christendom) so he that communicateth in London, and is of one communion with the faithful people of London, he communicateth also with all England, and all Christendom beside, and is of one communion with them all. So were saint Hierom and saint Augustin of one communion, so they communicated together, though they never received the sacrament together, in all their life time, but lived in far distant countries the one from the other, the one in Africa, the other in Palestine.  
Harding. 
diuis. 11.  The priest after that he hath received the Sacrament in the Church, taketh his natural sustenance, and dineth, and then being called upon, carrieth the rest a mile or two to the sick, in each house none being disposed to receive with the sick, he doth that he is required, (21) doth he not in this case communicate with them, and do not they communicate one with an other, rather having a will to communicate together in one place also, if opportunity served?  
jewel. 
The .29. Untruth Slanderous.  The .21. Untruth. M. Harding saith, the priest doth communicate and not communicate both together. Which is a contradiction in nature.  
Stapleton. D. Harding saith, the priest having said Mass, doth Communicate with the sick persons Receiving their housel after his mass, because they communicate the precious Body and Blood of Christ, whereby they are made one in Christ, and between themselves. Again he saith, they do not communinicat for all that in One Place together. So in the first they have a Communion. In the second they have none. In one sense they have, in an other they have not. This is M. jewel no contradiction in nature, nor yet in reason, and therefore no Untruth at all on D. Harding'S part. You know M. jewel by your logic. Omnis Contradictio est ad idem. Every contradiction is about one self thing.  
Harding. If this might not be accounted as a lawful and good Communion, either people should be denied that necessary victual of life at their departing hence, which were a cruel injury and a thing contrary to the examples and godly ordonances of the primitive Church, or the priest etc.  
jewel. 
The .30. Untruth Slanderous.  The 22. Untruth. This order was taken not for every sick party, but for persons excommunicate.  
Stapleton. 
Con. Nice. C●n. 12. Con. Carth.  Such order was not taken for persons excommunicate, but for such as being before excommunicated, and after reconciled received it, being in sickness and danger of death, as all other Christian men did, as appeareth by the Canons made in this behalf. And who doubteth, but much more for sick persons not excommunicate? Unless the wisdom of M. jewel will think the primitive Church to have granted that benefit to excommunicate persons, which to other not excommunicated was not granted. Yes he saith. jewel. 
Pag. 32. The .31. Untruth Consisting in false Doctrine. Lib. 1. Epist. 2.  Such reconciliation was thought necessary at th'end for solace of the party. Yea truly M. jewel would have this Sacrament to be but an outward Solace and Token of his Reconciliation among the faithful. But Cum ad hoc fiat Eucharistia, ut sit accipientibus tutela, seeing the Eucharist is therefore made, that it might be a safeguard and protection to those which received it, as S. Cyprian saith, therefore not only to excommunicate persons in time of Sickness for their reconciliation or Solace (as M. jewel fancyeth) it was granted, but also for their safeguard and protection. It was called their Viaticum, their victual or food of life, not only a Token of their reconciliation to the Church. This being the reason of the decree, it is to be thought the primitive Church provided not only for excommunicate persons, but also for every sick party which though not for the bond of excommunication, yet for other considerations might stand in need of this blessed Sacrament no less than the other.  
But what need many words? M. jewel himself confesseth, that Christian folk in their sickness had the Sacrament ordinarily sent home unto them. 
Pag. 32. M. jewel is contrary to himself  For the which he allegeth justinus Martyr Apolog. 2. If so M. jewel, then to deny to sick persons their housel, is contrary to the example and godly ordonance of the primitive church by your own Confession, and the authority of justinus Martyr. Which is the thing that D. Harding said, and you most untruly and contrary to yourself have noted for an Untruth.  
Harding. 
Divi. 12.  Now if we except those things which be necessarily required to this Sacrament by Christ's Institution, either declared by written Scriptures, or taught by the holy ghost, as bread and wine mingled with water for the matter etc.  
jewel. 
pag. 32. The .32. Untruth Slaund.  The .23. Untruth. The mingling of wine and water together is neither Catholic, nor necessary. Scotus.  
Stapleton. 
The .33. Untruth avouching a clear heresy. Cipria. li. 2. epi. 3.  Yes forsooth this is Catholic and therefore it is necessary. That it is Catholic I prove by the consent of the Catholic Fathers of all countries in the primitive church. In Africa S. Cyprian B. of Carthage affirmeth it in these words. Copulatio & coniunctio aquae & vini sic miscètur in chalice domini, ut commixtio illa non possit abinuicem separari. The coupling and joining together of Wine and Water is so mingled in the Cup of our Lord, that the same mingling may not be separated the one part from the other. And again. Sic in sanctificando calice domini offerri aqua sola non potest, quomodo nec vinum solum potest. Nam si vinum tantum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis. Si vero aqua sola, plebs incipit esse sine Christo. Quando autem utrumque miscetur, & adunatione confusa sibi invicem copulatur, tunc sacramentum spirituale & caeleste perficitur. In sanctifying the cup of our Lord so water alone can not be offered, as neither wine alone can be offered. For if any offer wine alone, than the blood of Christ beginneth to be without us. But if Water be alone, the people beginneth to be without Christ. 
Water must be mingled with wine in the Sacrament.  But when both is mingled, and joined together, than the spiritual and heavenly Sacrament is perfected. Thus much S. Cyprian and much more in that place disputing against those which used only water in consecrating the holy mysteries, teaching the Institution of Christ to be, that both Wine and Water be mingled to the perfyting of that heavenly Sacrament. S. Augustin an African about two hundred years after S. Cyprian witnesseth this practice of Christ's church in his time also. 
Li. de eccl. dogmat. Cap. 175.  The sear his words. In Eucharistia non debet pura aqua offerri, ut qui dan sobrietatis falluntur imagine, sed vinum cum aqua mixtum. In the eucharist Only water ought not to be offered, as some under the colour of sobriety are deceived, 
Ad Quoduult deum haere. 64.  but Wine mingled with Water. In an other place he reckoneth these in the roll of heretics, which offered Only water without Wine in the holy Sacrifice of Christ's church. And against such heretics the 3. Council of Carthage unto the which S. Augustin subscribed, made an express decree, not yet forbidding utterly Water, but commanding wine and water Both to be mingled together. These are the words of the decree. 
Con. 3. Carth. can. ●4.  Vt in sacramentis Corporis & Sanguinis domini nihil amplius offeratur, quàm ipse dominus tradidit, hoc est, panis & Vinum aquae mixtum. That in the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Lord, nothing else be offered, than our Lord himself delivered, that is, bread and wine mingled with Water. This the Council decreed not as then a new Institution, but as a Tradition coming from Christ himself. Thus we see in Africa in S. Cyprians and S. Augustins time, the mingling of Water and Wine in the blessed Sacrament was accounted Catholic and necessary. In France how the Sacrament was there celebrated, let Ireneus a very ancient writer and nigh unto the Apostles wtnesse. Writing of this blessed Sacrament, and by the verity of Christ's body and blood here in, proving the verity of his true flesh and blood walking here on earth, he hath these words. Quando & mixtus Calix, & factus panis percipit verbum dei, fit Eucharistia corporis & sanguinis Christi, 
Irenaeus Lib. 5.  ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. that is. When the mingled Cup, and the made bread receiveth the word of God, it is made the eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the which the substance of our flesh is augmented and consists. The Mingled Cup that Ireneus speaketh of, cannot be meant of any other, than of wine mingled with water. Of such a commixtion in the blessed Sacrament a Council holden in France above unleven hundred years past mentioneth. In Italy what the practice of the primitive church was, by two witnesses it shall appear. Alexander the fift Pope of Rome after S. Peter, writeth thus, not as a new decree of his own, 
Concil. Auraicense Can. 17.  but as he saith, ut a patribus accepimus, as we have received it from the Fathers. Repulsis opinionum superstitionibus, panis tantum & vinum aqua permixtum in sacrificio offerantur. Laying aside all other superstitious opinions, 
Epi. 1. To. 1. Conc.  let only bread and wine Mingled with water be offered in the Sacrifice. S. Ambrose no Pope but a learned and blessed B. of Milan, writeth thus. 
Lib. 5. the Sacrament. Cap. 1.  Diximus quòd in altari constituitur Calix, & panis. In Calicem, inquit, mittitur vinum: Et quid aliud? Aqua. Sed tu mihi dicis. Quomodo ergo Melchisedech panem & vinum obtulit? Quid sibi vult admixtio aquae? Rationem accipe. Primo omnium figura etc. that is. We said before that upon the altar is put a Cup and bread. In to the Cup, saith he, wine is put. And what else? Water. But thou sayest unto me. How then did Melchisedech offer bread and wine? 
Two causes given by S. Ambrose of Mingling the Water with Wine in the B. Sacrament.  What meaneth this Mingling of water? hearken to the Reason. First of all the figure, and so forth, where S. Ambrose at large giveth ij causes of mingling Water with wine in the blessed Sacrament: The one to answer to the figure of the Water running out of the rock, stricken by Moses, which was Christ, that is, betokened Christ. An other, that as water and blood ran out of the side of Christ on the Cross, both to redeem and to cleanse mankind, so in this blessed Sacrifice being an express resemblance of Christ's passion, Wine and Water be offered up to perfect the Sacrament of Christ's blood. Thus now we have Catholic witnesses of the primitive Church in Italy, France, and Africa, touching the Mingling of Water with wine in these holy mysteries. In Spain also within the compass of M. jewels 600. years, 
Conc. Braca● ●. Can. 1.  we read the same confirmed in a Council holden at Braccara, and the very words of S. Cyprian above alleged, brought in. jewel. But (saith M. jewel) Scotus and Innocentius witness that the Greek Church in their time used it not.  
Is it come to that M. jewel? 
pag. 34.  Must we try our Catholic faith, doctrine, and even the meanest ceremonies by the consent of the first 600. years, and will you prove a doctrine not Catholic by the practice of certain countries little more than 300. years past? 
M. jewel claimeth by heretics.  For about that time lived Innocentius and Scotus. At that time the greeks as they had many other errors, so no marvel if they had this also. And you do but your kind to disprove the Catholic service by the example of heretics. For the greek Church, M. jewel, in the first 600. years remaining yet Catholic and under the obedience of the See of Rome, used this Mingling of Wine and Water as all the west Church did. You shall hear the learned Fathers of the greek Church and of that time to say so. First in the Greek Synods kept about a thousand years ago, and gathered by Martinus bishop of Braccara in Spain within the compass of M. jewels 600. years we read thus. 
In capituli● g●acarum Synodorun. Cap. 55.  Non oportet aliquid aliud in sanctuario offerri, praeter panem & vinum & aquam, quae in typum Christi benedicuntur, quia de corpore eius dum in cruce penderet sanguis effluxit & aqua. Nothing must be offered in the holy place beside bread and Wine and Water, which are blessed for the remembrance of Christ: because while he hanged on the Cross, blood and Water ran out of his Body. justinus Martyr a greek writer and very nigh the Apostles, calleth this part of the Sacrament (as M. jewel confesseth and mentioneth himself) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
justinus Apolog. 2.  The Cup of water and mixture. Why, but because in the holy ministration Water was mingled in the Cup with wine? S. basil in his Liturgy and mass Mingleth Water and wine in the Consecration of the holy mysteries, 
S. basil.  saying at the Consecration time these words, Similiter & calicem de genimine vitis accipiens, miscens, gratias agens, benedicens, sanctificans, etc. Taking in like manner the Cup, of the fruit of the Vine, Mingling it, giving thanks, blessing it etc. S. james the Apostle in his liturgy or Mass at the Consecration time recording the fact of Christ, 
S. james.  hath these words. Similiter post quam caenavit, accipiens calicem, & permiscens ex vino & aqua, & caet. In like manner after he had supped, taking the Cup and Mingling it with Wine and Water, & caet. By the which words of S. james and S. basil affirming that Christ himself mingled Wine with Water in his blessed Supper, we believe verily he did so, though no mention thereof be made in the gospel. Especially considering the consent of the Fathers, above alleged, S. Cyprian, Alexander the fift Pope after S. Peter, the 3. Council of Carthage whereat S. Augustin was present, who all affirm that it came from Christ himself, that in this blessed Sacrament, Water should bê Mingled with Wine.  
Last of all Gregory bishop of Nissa S. basil his brother, Chrysostom upon the Gospel of S. john, Homil. 84. and Theophilact repeating the very words of Chrysostom in his commentaries upon S. john do note this manner of Christ's Church mingling water with wine in these holy Mysteries. 
In serm. ea techetico apud Euthy ●nium lib. 2. Pano pliae tit. 21. In cap. 19  Theophilact a greek writer about 800. years passed in the same place toucheth the Armenians for mingling water with wine in these words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the Armenians be here confounded, which mingle not water with wine in the Mysteries. These Armenians for this matter also were pronounced heretics in the sixth general Council holden in Trullo. By this it appeareth, I trust, 
Cap. 32.  M. jewel that the mingling of water and wine is allowed for Catholic and therefore necessary. If at the lest the definition of a general Council, and the consent of so many fathers from so many places of Christendom, may prove any thing to be Catholic: To you M. jewel, especially, which offer to yield to the Sentence of any One old Father, or general Council in a number of matters of as little importance as this is. By this also it appeareth that you M. jewel, and all the new clergy of of England by not Mingling water with wine, do against the clear and universal Practice of the primitive Church, do hold the heresy of the Armenians, and of the late greeks also if you will, do also break a part of Christ's Institution, as you have heard. Finally by this it appeareth, the saying of D. Harding not only to be no Untruth, but also your opinion to the contrary to be a Clear Heresy.  
Harding. And therefore that one may Communicate with an other, 
diuis. 14.  though they be not together in one place, and that it was thought lawfulll and good by the Fathers of the ancient Church near to the Apostles time, it may be well proved by diverse good Authorities.  
jewel. 
pag. 38. The .34. Untruth Slanderous.  The .24. Untruth. There appeareth no such thing in any ancient Father.  
Stapleton. How true this Untruth is, we shall see by the words off the Fathers immediately following, alleged by D. Harding.  
Harding. 
Diuis. 15.  Irenaeus his words be these. The Priests (by which name in this place bishops are understanded) that were afore thy time, though they kept not Easter as they of Asia did, 
Euseb lib. 5 cap. 24. ●ist. eccles.  yet when the Bishops of the Church there, came to Rome, did send them the Sacrament 25. Thus those Bishops did communicate together before their meeting in one place.  
jewel. 
pag. 30.  The .25. Untruth. Ireneus sayeth not, they did Communicate together.  
Stapleton. 
The 35. Untruth Slanderous.  No Sir: He saith not so in these words alleged. But he meaned even so, and brought it to prove a Communion, as by the whole process it shall now appear. Thus was the case. The bishops of Asia dissented from Victor pope of Rome in observing the feast of Easter. 
Eusebius hist. eccles. li●. 5. cap. 24.  The pope (sayeth Eusebius who writeth this history, and out of whom the words off Ireneus are taken) totius Asiae ac vicinarum provinciarum Ecclesias, à Communionis societate abscindere nititur. Goeth about to excommunicate the Churches of all Asia and the provinces adjoining. This severity of the Pope liked not other bishops, saith Eusebius, and among the rest Irenaeus a virtuous bishop then of Lions in France writeth to Victor the Pope thereof and complaineth of his severity. Among other reasons, whereby he persuadeth the Pope not to excommunicate those bishops of Asia, but to admit them to his Communion, he bringeth in the Examples of his Predecessors, the Popes before him, who all notwithstanding that diversity did yet Communicate with them. For proof whereof, he saith, when such came ●o Rome, the Pope sent unto them the blessed Sacrament. whereby he declared to all the world that he communicated with them. This was the Reason of Irenaeus to Victor the Pope persuading him to communicate with the bishops of Asia as his predecessors had done before him. For thus he reasoned. Your predecessors Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus and Xystus did communicate with foreign bishops, notwithstanding this diversity of opinion in observing the feast of Easter, Therefore you ought not now so sharply to excommunicate them. They dissented from your predecessors in this opinion, Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi-sunt ab-ecclesiae societate, Yet they were never for that matter removed from the fellowship of the Church. How show you that Ireneus? How prove you they were never removed or repelled from the fellowship of the Church? It followeth immediately. Eucharistiam illis mittebant. They sent unto them the Sacrament. What? Was this sending of the Sacrament any Token or Argument of their Communicating together? Yea trul●. Or else did Ireneus reason weakly and persuade wrongfully and utterly beside the purpose, with Victor the pope. But an easier matter it is to let M. jewel be overseen in this Untruth a● he hath been hitherto in all the rest, then to mar the reason of Irenaeus so learned, and famous a writer, writing in so earnest a cause, and to such a person as the Pope was. By this it appeareth though Ireneus say not expressly, they did communicate together, to whom the Sacrament was so sent, yet undoubtedly he meaned so and reasoned so. Thus not only this Untruth is proved true, but also which went next before, where M. jewel very boldly s●ied, that there appeared no such Communicating together in sundry places, in any ancient Father. For now we have one at the jest, in whom such a Communion appeareth. Let us now consider an other.  
Harding. 
Divi. 16. Apologia. 2.  justinus Martyr saith thus, When the priest hath made an end of thanks and praìers, and all the people thereto have said, Amen, they which we call deacons, give to every one then present, bread and water and wìne Consecrated to take part of it for their housel, and for those that be not present, they bear it home to them. Thus in that time they that served God together in the common place of prayer, and some others that were absent, letted from coming to their company by sickness, business, or otherwise, communicated together though not in one place.  
jewel. 
pag. 41. The .36. Untruth Slaund.  The .26. Untruth. justinus speaketh not one word of communicating together.  
Stapleton. What then M. jewel? Ergo they did not Communicate together? How followeth this reason? How holdeth your argument proceeding negatively? But justinus saith. The Sacrament was sent unto them that were at home. Ergo they which were at home did communicate with them which received in the Church or place of common prayer. How say you? Did they or did they not? If they did, then is D. hardings saying true. If they did not, then either they received the Sacrament at home without any Communion at all, or else they had a several Communion by themselves at home. 
A Communion in distinction of places is proved.  If they had a several Communion by themselves at home, than were there two Communions one day in one parish, one in the Church of such as received there, an other at home of such as received in their houses. Let now M. jewel chose, whether he will grant that they which received at home communicated with the other and made but one Communion with the rest which Communicated in the Church (as M.D. Harding saith, and as truth is they did) or else that, they in the Church made one Communion by themselves, and they at home an other several Communion also. For so shall we have by M. jewels confession two Communions in one parish upon one day, which is as much as ij Masses in one parish in one day. The thing which he stoutly denieth in an other Article. If they which received their housel at home received it without a Communion at all, than the private housel of sick persons at home, though none Communicate with them, is proved by this example of the primitive Church. A Thing contrary to the doctrine of M. jewel and his fellow protestants in the Communion book.  
Harding. 
Divis. 17. Lib. 2. ad uxorem.  Tertullian saith thus. Non sciet maritus quid secre to ante omnem cibum cibum gusts? Et si scierit, panem, non illum credet este qui dicitur. Will not thy husband know what thou eatest secretly before all other meat? And if he do know, he will believe it to be bread, and not him who it is called.  
jewel. 

Pag. 43. The. 37. Untruth Slanderous.   The .27. Untruth. The translation wilfully corrupted. It, violently turned into, him.  
Stapleton. No Untruth at all, no wilful corruption, no violent translation M. jewel, in all these words. But rather a more distinct and evident translation, the better to express the Author's mind. For the word illum, though it be referred as you would have it to Panem Bread, yet it signifieth not material bread, such as the baker maketh, but it signifieth, that bread which came down from heaven, it signifieth that Bread, 
joan. 6.  which giveth life to him that eateth, of it. This Bread is Christ himself. It may therefore well and truly be translated not only, it, that is, that Bread, that I say, which came down from heaven, which giveth life to the receiver thereof, but also him, that is, Christ. For both come to one. Whether you translate, illum, it, that Heavenly and lifegiving Bread, or him, that is Crist, which is heavenvly and lifegiving bread. Thus there was no cause to note an Untruth (but if it were to make up a numbered) or to cry upon Wilful corruption, or Violent translating of one word for an other, Seing both words mean one thing, being truly and sincerely taken.  
Harding. He who it is said to be of Christian people, or who it is called, that is our Maker and Redeemer, or which is the same, our lords body.  
jewel. 
The .38. Untruth Slaund.  The 28. Untruth. The Sacrament was never called our maker or Redeemer by any of the old Fathers.  
Stapleton. What then if no old Father ever wrote so? How is this an Untruth on D. hardings part? Doth he say, the old Fathers called it so? No Sir: he saith no such thing. But that the Christian people called it so. And not precisely in such terms, but which is the same, our lords Body. Now M. jewel, think you it an Untruth to say, that in Tertullians' time christian folk or the old Fathers called, that bread, the B●dy of Christ, and so consequently our Maker and redeemer? Tertullian himself saith of that bread. Pan●m illum Corpus suum fecit. 
Lib. 4. contra Marcionem.  He made that Bread his Body. If Christ made it so as Tertullian saith, think you M. jewel it was not called so of the Christian people, as D. Harding saith? But what saith our Saviour himself in the gospel? Doth not he say of that Bread which he took in his hands, which he broke and blessed This is my Body? 
Luc. 22.  Doth he not in these words call it, his body? Think you M. jewel Christian people did not so call it also? If Christ so called it himself, and Tertullian after him in express words witnessed it, how is it an Untruth so to expound Tertullians' words, as both himself otherwere expressly speaketh, and as Christ himself in the gospel pronounceth? But you stand upon these words. Maker and redeemer. Why M. jewel? What difference is there between Christ's Body, and our Maker and redeemer? Is Christ's Body any other then Christ himself? Doth not Christ say of his own flesh to be eaten of the Christians, Qui manducat me, vivit propter me? He that eateth me, 
joan. 6.  liveth thourough me? If then Christian people receiving the Body of Christ, do receive Christ himself, if Christ himself be our Maker and Redeemer, how is this Untrue, that this most Blessed Sacrament is called of the Christian people their Maker and redeemer? How the ancient Fathers have so called it, which here D. Harding said not, and therefore you do but pevishly, to build your Untruth upon that reason, it shall hereafter be seen upon the Untruths of the xxj. Article. For there it is proved out of the Fathers that it was called our Lord and God, which is as much as our Maker and redeemer. You may not M. jewel Miscere in len●e unguenium, confound questions together.  
Harding. Omnes in Eremis solitariam vitam agentes, 
Diuis. 18.  ubi non est sacerdos, Communionem domi servants, à seipsis communicant. All they which live a solitary life in wilderness, where no priest is to be had, keeping the Communion at home, do communicate with themselves alone.  
jewel. 
pag. 47. The .39. Untruth Slanderous.  The 29. Untruth. M. Harding hath corrupted the translation. These words (with themselves alone) are not in S. basil.  
Stapleton. No are M. jewel? What then meaneth that greek which you yourself after do put in the margin of your text? These words I say, what mean they? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Marry say you, jewel. 
Pag. 49. The .40. Untruth For it, may not be well so understanded.  the english is, They receive of themselves. Which say you may well be understanded, that one of them received of an other for wtte of a priest. It may so be understanded, you say. Then it may also otherwise, I say. But that not only it may, but aught also otherwise to be understanded than you say, I prove. These Eremites came not one at an other. But lived, as S. Basil saith, a Sole life. For between Eremites and Monks this was the difference that the one lived as Anchorets' did, utterly without company. The other lived by great numbers under one Father. As it appeareth well by S. Augustin and S. basil him self other where. Therefore receiving at home, 

Aug. Lib. de moribus eccles.  
Cath. c. 31. Bas. in Asceticis.   they received of themselves alone. But how then is the greek truly translated? Forsooth well enough M. jewel. For that preposition in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not always signify of or from, but sometime per, by and with itself alone. 
Xe●ophon in Cyro.  As where we read in Xenophon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is in Latin truly translated, per se potens prodesse, a man able to do good by himself alone. And so hath D. Hard. expressed truly, the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wi●h themselves alone. It seemeth you were not utterly ignorant hereof yourself: And therefore you say in your text, 
Iowell. pag. 49.  th●t you will not greatly strive about it. Yet must you needs note it for an Untruth, to make up a number, specially in this first Article, that so even at the first you might discredit your adversary for ever. Done, like a true Rhetorician M. jewel but not like a good Divine, and searce like an honest man.  
Harding. In this saying of basil, it is to be noted. First that necessity here hath respect to the lack of Priest and Deacon. So as (30) in that case the Sacrament might be received of a faithful person with his own hand.  
jewel. 
The .41. Untruth Slanderous.  The 30. Untruth. S. basil saith. The Communicant received with his own hand even in the presence of the Priest.  
Stapleton. The Lewdness of you M. jewel, hath no measure. The words of S. basil say two things. First this they say. As concerning this, that it is no grievous offence for one to be driven by necessity in times of persecution, 
The lewd dealing of M. jewel.  to receive the Communion with his own hand no Priest nor Deacon being present, it is a thing superfluous to declare, for that by long custom and practise it hath been confirmed and taken place. These are the words of S. basil which D. Harding alleged, and upon the which he noteth most truly, that in the lack of Priest and Deacon, in that case I say, the Sacrament might be received of a faithful person with his own hand. The other words of S. basil mencioning of an other sort of common people, not Eremites, which in the Church taketh it in their own hands even in the presence of the Priest, are not noted by D. Harding in this place, but in the former, as I said. You have done therefore most Lewdly in so clear words of S. Basil to note an Untruth on D. Harding'S part, You should have marked, that though S. basil say of some in the Later Part of his sentence that in the presence of the priest the Communicants received with their own hands, yet he saith of other before in the Former part that no priest nor Deacon being present they received the Communion with their own hands. You should also have marked that D. Harding noteth the First manner spoken of by S. basil, not the Later, as his words following do clearly declare, where he saith. Harding. And that for the ratyfying of so doing he allegeth continuance of custom. For, this Custom S. basil allegeth in the Manner of the Eremites, which received Alone M. jewel, not in the Manner of those which Received in the Church in the presence of the Priest, as his words above alleged do declare. Thus you should have marked, if you had minded to deal Truly. But you will be always like yourself. Lewd, False, and Untrue. God amend you M. jewel, and give you grace once to be Honest, True, and Plain Dealing.  
Harding. 
the 21. division.  Even in the Church of Rome itself (13.) where the true Religion hath ever been most exactly observed above all other places of the world.  
jewel. 
pag. 56. The .42. and 43. Untruths both Slanderous. For Rome is now th● Mother of Virtue  The .31. Untruth. Rome is now become the Mother of Fornication. Apocal. 17.  
Stapleton. 
M. jewels Arguments.  From wanton Lewdness you proceed to Railing Ribaldry. You note it for an Untruth that true Religion hath ever been exactly observed in Rome. But how disprove you this universal proposition? You say. It is now become the Mother of fornication. How holdeth this argument M. jewel, you that have framed so many lewd arguments against D. harding, such as he never dreamt of?  
Rome is the Mother of Fornication.  
Ergo she lacketh true Religion.  
The fondness of this Argument may be tried by the like.  
England is full of vice.  
Ergo it lacketh true religion. Or this.  
Certain of the bishop of Sarisbury his men are felons and murderers.  
Ergo, The Bishop of Sarisbury hath no true Religion.  
Is this Argument good M. jewel? Verily as your Religion can not justly be disproved, because some of your household commit Felony and Murder, so can not now the Religion of Rome be proved nought or Untrue, because in that city Fornication is used. 
Fol. 161.  Touching this matter M. jewel, you have the answer of D. harding in the Confutation of your Apology more at large. Answer to that, and then prove this Argument good. But what maketh here your note of the Apocalypse the 17. Chapter? Is it written there, that Rome is now the Mother of Fornication? This is but a Blasphemy learned off Bawdy Bale, and your fond notes in the English Translation, which now for very shame you have left out in your later editions. Rome is not there named at all. But you think, or at the lest would have other men to think, that by the great whore of Babylon, Rome should be meaned. Yea yea, prove this Master jewel by the Fathers of the first 600. years, by the Scriptures, or any general Council of that time, and then we will believe, yield, and Subscribe to you in that point.  
Harding. And from whence (he meaneth Rome) all the Churches of the West have taken their light. As the Bishops off Gallia, that now is called France, do acknowleadge in an Epistle sent to Leo the Pope in these words. 
Epist. proxima. post. 51. inter Epist. Leonis.  unde Religionis nostrae propitio Christo Fons & Origo manavit. From the Apostolic See by the Mercy off Christ, the Fountain and Spring of our Religion hath come.  
jewel. The 32. Untruth. 
The .44. Untruth Slanderous. and the 45. Untruth touching the faith of the West Church. jewel. pag. 56. M. jewel confuteth himself.  The Faith of the West Church came not first from Rome.  
D. Harding saith not so much. But that the West Church took their Light from Rome. Whereby he meaned that all the West Churches, have had from Rome, though not their very Apostles and first Preachers, yet (which you your self Confess in the Text M. jewel) the Confirmation of Doctrine, and also other great conference and comfort. For all this M. jewel, is it not a light and help to Religion? This D. Harding saiyeth, the West Churches had from Rome. This you confess they had and that you say at the beginning. Why then note you D. Harding for Untruth in the Margin, which yourself saith and confesseth for Truth in the Text? But the Faith off the West Church (say you, adding it in the margin for a reason of the Untruth) came not first from Rome. First, they took their light, though not their first faith. And therefore your Untruth is no Untruth on D. hardings part. But on your part how Untrue it is, you shall see. 
France took their first faith from Rome.  First for France one of the greatest pillars of the West Church, you have in D. Harding his words a Confession of the French bishops themselves above xj. C. years past, that the Fountain and Spring of their Religion came from the See Apostolic, recorded in the undoubted and Authentic works of Leo. Therefore that you bring to the contrary in the text, off Nathanael, off Lazarus whom Christ raised, and of Saturninus, that they should first preach the faith in France, and yet as you say, no Commission from Rome appearing, whereby they should be sent thither, it is a Vain guess, against the express Testimony and Confession of the French bishops them selves above unleven hundred years paste, that whether by Commission from Rome, by the Mouth of those that you name, or whether by Romans themselves, or other sent from Rome, 

S. Gregory witnesseth, that the first faith of France came from Rome. Lib. 4. epist. 51. Both England scotland received their first faith from Rome.  
Beda Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Lib. 1. Cap. 13. How the faith came to us Englishmen.   and not these which without any Author or Writer, M. jewel bringeth in here upon his Own Credit, which way so ever it came I say, that from Rome it came. Now not only France received their very first faith from Rome, as by the testimony of the French bishops themselves appeareth, but many other principal countries of the West Church also.  
Our own country being first called Britanny, and possessed of the Britons, whose posterity now only remaineth in Wales, received the faith from Eleutherius Pope of Rome, about the year of our Lord 156. as Venerable Bede in the history of our Church of England recordeth. In the year of our Lord 411. The Scottishmen received their first bishop Palladius from Celestinus then Pope of Rome, as witnesseth Bede also. Shortly after this time the Britain's being forsaken of the Romans, oppressed with the pights and Scots their evil neighbours, and last of all so overrun with the Saxons and English people, sent for in to aid them, that with in less than ij. hundred years, all that is now called England, was brought under the dominion of the Saxons, and English people (the old Britons being driven to the straights, which they yet keep) being all heathen and infidels, then to our country of England and to us Englishmen living in paganism and idolatry, that holy and blessed bishop of Rome S. Gregory directed the holy and virtuous Monk S. Augustin our Apostle, who in his time converted Kent and Essex to the faith, whose fellows and Scholars converted in short space all the realm of England, that is, all the English people, to the faith of Christ. So that, as the old Britons from Eleutherius, the Schottishmen from Celestinus both holy Popes of Rome, so we Englishmen from S. Gregory a blessed and learned Pope also, 
In the first and second books.  received not only the Light of our religion, but also our very first Faith and belief in Christ jesus. All which may further appear to him that will peruse the History of Venerable Bede lately set forth in English. Not only England, France, and Scotland, 

Germany received their first faith from Rome.  
Platina in Sergio, & in Gregorio. 2.  
Henr. Mutius lib. 7. Bedali. 5. Cap. 10. Vide Platinam & Blondum lib. 2. dec. 2.  
Lib. 7. Cap. 30.   but the most part of Germany received even from Rome their very first faith and knowledge off Christ. For as Saxony had their first faith of Sergius the Pope about the year of our Lord 690. so shortly after (an. 716.) all the inward parts of Germany received the faith from Gregory the second, a virtuous Pope also, by the preaching of Bonifacius (a Schottishman borne) directed thither from Rome. Friselande in like manner converted to the faith by Willebrorde (an English monk) had him their first bishop confirmed from Rome. So Norway by the preaching of Adrian the fourth, Pope of Rome, Bulgaria by Nicolaus the first, Dalmatia and Sclavony, all much about a time, from the Church of Rome also received the faith. Socrates writeth that the Burgunyons came to the faith of Christ, perceiving by themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the God of the Romans did mightily help such as feared him. How think you now M. jewel? Had not D. Harding good cause to say, and truly to say, that the west Church took their light from the Church of Rome, yea and to say that the faith of it came first from Rome, which is more than D. Harding said, and yet no Untruth neither, as the learned do know?  
Harding. As touching that the Oblation of the Body, 
Diuis. 23.  and blood of Christ done in the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Church, and proper to the new. Testament (33) Commanded by Christ to be frequented according to his Institution etc.  
jewel. The .33. Untruth. Christ never commanded or named any such sacrifice. 
pag. 57 The 46. Untruth Slaund. 1   
Stapleton. This Untruth doth but serve to make up a number. It is the same in effect, with the fift Untruth. There it is answered. There it is proved that Christ Commanded a Sacrifice, though he named none. And D. Harding saith, it was Commanded by Christ, not named. I refer the Reader to the next Untruth following. Though M. jewel may repeat Untruths to make up a number, yet it is not our ease nor the profit of the Reader, to repeat idly one thing, being once thoroughly proved.  
Harding. 
Divi. 25.  The opinion of the Fathers is, that the daily and continual Sacrifice ought (34) Daily to be Sacrificed, that the death of our Lord, and the work of our redemption might always be celebrated, and had in memory.  
jewel. 
pag. 60. The 47. Untruth Slaund. And the 48. Untruth, For no Fathers say plainly the contrary.  The .34. Untruth. The Fathers say not so, but plainly the contrary.  
This Untruth, emplieth two Notorious and manifest Untruths on M. jewels part. First by denying the saying of D. Harding. secondarily by avouching the contrary to be plain in the Fathers. This second point M. jewel should not only have avouched, but have proved it also in his text, by the testimony at the lest of some one Father. Now as it is a manifest lie, and can never be proved, so no marvel if he brought nothing for proof thereof. As touching the first point, because he saith, The Fathers say not so, I will now bring him the Fathers, which say so. M. jewel in denying the Fathers to say, that the Daily Sacrifice ought to be celebrated, denieth it in the external Sacrifice done on our part. For (saith he) jewel. 
pag. 61. Linea. 16. Heb. 7. & 10.  the strength and virtue of Christ's Sacrifice resteth in itself and not in any diligence or doing of ours. And for proof hereof he allegeth S. Paul to the Hebrews. That Christ jewel. 
jewel. pag. 61. Lin. 58.  hath offered upon the cross one sacrifice for al. Full and perfect. Therefore we need none other. One, and everlasting. Therefore it needeth no renewing. By privilege given to himself only. Therefore it can not be wrought by any other. These are M. jewels gloss upon S. Paul. These are his reasons, that the Sacrifice of Christ's Cross is called the daily Sacrifice, Not for that it must be renewed every day, but for that being once done, it standeth good for all days and for ever.  
For these are his own very words. It shall be now proved against him out of the fathers that not withstanding the words of S. Paul the Church yet offereth a Daily Sacrifice, not as upon the Cross, but the self same thing which was offered on the cross: nor to the derogation of that, but for the remembrance of that, which is the thing that D. Harding said, that the Church teacheth, that Christ himself in his last Supper commanded. The Doctors expounding these words of S. Paul to the Hebrews, of one everlasting Sacrifice, once done for all, full, and perfit, etc. do make thereupon themselves a doubt of the daily Sacrifice of Christ's Church. 
How the Church offereth a daily Sacrifice at the Altar, notwithstanding the One and Sufficient Sacrifice upon the Crosse.  How that may stand with the one Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross ones offered for all. This doubt, if no such Sacrifice had been, they would never have moved. If there had been only a remembrance of that Sacrifice by the holy Ministration, as M. jewel saith, there had been no cause of doubt, how that remembrance might stand with the one Oblation of Christ. For one thing may be a thousand times remembered, and yet the thing remain One still. If none other had Offered, as M. jewel saith, but Christ Ones for all, then had not the doctors needed to move this question, how Christ alone Offered Once for all, and yet how the Priests in the Church do offer daily. Now the doctors do move all these doubts and questions (which M. jewel bringeth as a plain and clear doctrine) and do also resolve the same, writing their learned commentaries upon S. Paul to the Hebrews. I will now bring their own words truly translated in to English. First Chrysostom after he had declared according to the mind of S. Paul, that the Sacrifices of the old law were oft repeated, as being weak and unsufficient to purge sin, but the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was a Full and perfect oblation for all Mankind, and therefore but Ones offered for all, moving this doubt of the Daily Sacrifice of the Church which M. jewel denieth, he saith. Quid ergo nos? Nun per singulos dies offerimus? What then do we? Do we not Offer every day? Lo M. jewel. 
Chrysost. Hom. l· 1●. ad Habr.  Notwithstanding the One oblation of Christ, yet we, we bishops and Priests (as Chrisostom was) do offer daily. For it followeth. Offerimus quidem, sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius, We offer in deed. But making (that oblation) for the remembrance of his Death. Lo again M. jewel, not only a remembrance, but an oblation is made, for that remembrance. But how then is it One oblation? How One Sacrifice? Chrisostom goeth forth and telleth you. Et una est haec hostia non multae. And this is One Host, One Sacrifice, not many. Yea? One Sacrifice done by us Daily, and yet One upon the Cross done Ones for all? How can that be? Chrisostom will teach us this also. 
How One Sacrifice upon the Cross, and ●ow One daily in the Church.  For he saith yet farther. Quomodo una est & non multae? Quia semel oblata est insancta sanctorum. Hoc autem sacrificium exemplar est illius. Id ipsum semper offerimus. Nec nunc quidem alium agnum, crastina alium, sed semper eundem ipsum. Proinde unum est hoc Sacrificium haec ratione. How is it One Host, One Sacrifice, and not many? Because it was once offered in to the holy of holies. But this Sacrifice (which we daily offer) is a pattern of that. (And why or how?) we Offer always the self same thing. Not now One Lamb, to morrow an other, but every day the self same. Therefore it is One Sacrifice by this reason. Understand you this reason M. jewel how and why it is One Sacrifice? Chrisostom saith, it is one Sacrifice, because the Host, that is, the thing Sacrificed, the thing Offered now, is but One with that which was Offered on the cross. It is one and the self Lamb, which was then offered and which is every day offered. What is the lamb M. jewel, that Chrisostom speaketh of, but the Body and blood of Christ? This sayeth Chrisostom, is One and the self same (. eundem ipsum.) But how doth Chrisostom prove, it is One Lamb which we do offer now, to morrow, and every day? He saith in the words immediately following. Alioquin quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi Christi sunt? Nequaquam. Sed unus ubique est Christus, & hic plenus existens & illic plenus, unum corpus. Sicut enim qui ubique offertur unum Corpus est, & non multa Corpora ita etiam & unum sacrificium. 

One christ every where.  
One Body.  
The Real presence proveth one Sacrifice both upon the Cross and vpo● the Altar.   Or else because it is offered in many places, are there many Christ's? Not so. But there is one Christ every where being Full and perfitt here, and full and perfitt there. One Body. For as he which is Offered every where, is One Body, and not Many Bodies, so also this is One Sacrifice. Lo upon the real presence of Christ's body (which is but One) Chrisostom defendeth the daily Sacrifice of Christ's Church to be but One: and the One Sacrifice upon the Cross not to exclude the Daily Sacrifice of the Church, which in the Host, that is in the thing offered is one self Same Sacrifice With the other: but in the manner of doing (because it is Unbloody) it is in recordationem eius in the remembrance of that. But you M. jewel do deny the real presence because you can abide no external Sacrifice offered by us. And you deny the external Sacrifice because you will have no real presence. Here then is one Father, which sayeth, We do offer every day, and that Christ himself, in the remembrance off his Passion. And how many Fathers do say the like? Theodoret a Greek Writer also in his Commentaries upon this place of Saint Paul hath these words. 
Theodoret. In cap. 6. ad Hebr.  If both the Priesthood that is of the Law be ended, and the Priest according to the Order of Melchisedech hath offered a Sacrifice, and hath made that other Sacrifices be not necessary, why do the Priests off the new Testament celebrate the Mystical Sacrifice, or Liturgy? It is manifest to those which are instructed in the matters of God, that we Offer not an other Sacrifice, but do celebrate the memorial of that One and wholesome Sacrifice: For this our Lord hath commanded us, saying. Do this in Remembrance of me. Hitherto Theodorett. Where you see he teacheth us that we do celebrat in deed a Sacrifice, and that as Christ commanded us in his Last Supper, and yet no other Sacrifice (as touching the thing Sacrificed) then that one Sacrifice on the Crosse. 
Primas●us In ca 10. ad Hebr.  Primasius a learned scholar of S. Augustine writing upon this place of Saint Paul, is for the daily Sacrifice most evident. I will allege his words in English truly and sincerely. 
The old Sacrifices  Why did God command (saith Primasius) the old Sacrifices to be daily offered? For the weakness of it. Because it could not perfectly cleanse. To the intent (by that means) their sins might be remembered and rebuked. What shall we say then? Do not our Priests do the very same daily? 
The daily Sacrifice of our Priests.  Do they not offer a Sacrifice daily? They do offer truly, but for the Remembrance of that death. And because we sin daily, and have need daily to be cleansed, because Christ can no more die, he hath given us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, that ●uen as his Passion, 
Why it is daily.  was the Redemption and Cleansing of the world, so this Oblation also might be a Redemption and cleansing for all such as Offer it in the true Faith, 
How it differeth from the old, being yet repeated as that was.  and have a good Intention. For herein doth our Sacrifice which is also repeated, differ from that old Sacrifice oftentimes repeated, because this is the Truth, that a Figure: This maketh a man perfect, that not so. And this is repeated not because of any weakness in it, as not being able to give perfect salvation, but for the Remembrance of Christ's Passion, even as he himself said. Do this in my Remembrance. Here M. jewel we have an other Father, which affirmeth that the daily Sacrifice ought to be celebrated (notwithstanding the One Sacrifice on the Cross) and that for two causes. 
Note these two Causes.  First because we sin daily, and have daily need thereof. secondarily because Christ commanded it so to be done for his Remembrance. The like cause giveth Eusebius Emissenus in these words. 
Eusebius Emissenus Homil. 5. de Pascha.  Colitur iugiter per Mysterium, &ce. It is daily celebrated in a Mystery, which was once offered for our Redemption. To the intent that because the Redemption for Mankind was Daily and never Ceasing, the Oblation also of th●t Redemption might be Continual, An Oblation rightly One and perfect, to be esteemed by Faith not by outward shape, and not to be judged by external Appearance, but by inward Affection. Thus we have three Fathers affirming not only a daily Oblation, but also that there ought so to be, partly for our comfort and relief, partly for the Remembrance of Christ's death and Passion, the only comfort of all our faith in Christ jesus.  
Again this Sacrifice is a daily Sacrifice and never ceaseth because the Priesthood of Melchisedech, 
The third Cause off a daily Sacrifice.  of which Priesthood this is the Sacrifice, is everlasting and never ceaseh. This the Holy Fathers do teach us. Oecumenius, expounding how Christ is a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedech for ever saith. 
Oecumenius In commentar. in Hebr. ca 5  Although Christ offered not an unbloody Host (for he Offered his own body) yet those which by him are made Priests (whose high bishop being God himself he hath vouches●fed to be) shall offer an unbloody Sacrifice. For this, the word In aeternum, 
The ever lasting Order off Melchisedech proveth a continual Sacrifice.  For ever doth signify. For the Sripture would never have said (he is a Priest) For ever, having respect to that Oblation and Sacrifice Ones made off God (upon the Cross) but having respect to the Priests that now are, by whom as means Christ doth Sacrifice, and is Sacrificed. Who also in that Mystical Supper delivered unto them the manner of this Sacrifice. Hitherto Oecumenius. Lo M. jewel yet an other Father of the greek Church which confesseth an Everlasting and Never Ceasing Sacrifice, not that only which Christ made Ones for all in the Cross (as you say) but that also which the Priests of Christ's Church do now Offer. That I say, which in the last Supper was taught us and delivered us by Christ himself, for a lively remembrance of his death and Passion. In this sense as doth Oecumenius, speaketh also S. Augustine, when he saith that Christ, 
August. epist. 23. ad Bonifacium.  semel immolatus in seipso, Ones being Offered in himself, which was upon the Cross, tamen in sacramento non solum per omnes Paschae solemnitates, sed omni die populis immolatur. Yet in a Sacrament not only in every solemnite of Easter, but every day he is offered for the people. This Sacrament, he calleth in an other place. 
Lib. 10. cap. 6. De ciu●. Dei.  Sacrificij in Cruce p●racti Sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum. The Sacrament, or holy sign of the Sacrifice done in the Cross: But what? No Sacrifice therefore itself? Yes he calls it even there, Quotidianum Ecclesiae Sacrificium. The daily Sacrifice of the Church. This daily Sacrifice of the Church is a Sacrament or holy Sign of that excelling Sacrifice on the Crosse. 

The 49. Untruth standing in false translation.  
jew. pag. 61. Lin. 24.  
Immolari populis. Lib. 10. per totum. M. jewel maketh the people his God.   In this Sacrament Christ him self is offered not only in principal feasts, but Omni die every day and that, not to the people as you turn (populis immolari M. jewel) but for the people. For immolari doth not signify to be offered, as offering or proffering a thing in to a man's hand, but immolari signifieth to be offered up, to be Sacrificed, to have that service which appertaineth neither to man nor to Angels, nor to devils, but to God only, as S. Austen at large disputeth in his books de Civitate dei. But you M. jewel, making the people your God, and drawing the blessed Sacrifice of Christ himself, to the offering of your piece of bread in to the people's hands, you turn Immolari populis, to be offered unto the people: which by the rules of all grammar, not of divinity only, doth signify to immolat or Sacrifice for the people. For even as S. Austen said before, semelimmolatus est, He was once offered up, meaning in the Cross, 
Offered in the Cross, and Offered every day.  so now he saith, omni die immolatur populis in Sacramento. He is offered up for the people every day in a Sacrament. Immolari, in both places must have one sense and meaning. Else the Comparison and reason of S. Austen had been fond and foolish. O M. jewel, leave once for gods love and your own, this false juggling and Lieger de main of yours, in matters of such weight and importance. Turn not the daily offering up of Christ in a Sacrament for the people, 
●. August.  to the offering of a piece of bread unto the people. This change you force them to make damnably for yourself and them to, unless God call you and them to repentance. Of this daily Sacrifice S. Austen writeth of his Mother quotidie Altari solitam assistere, 
M. jewel. Augustin. Lib. 9 confess. Cap. 13.  that she was wont every day to stand at the Altar, that is, every day to be present at the Sacrifice. Of the which S. Cyprian also saith. Sacrificia dei quotidie celebramus. We do celebrat the Sacrifices of God every day. 
lib. 1. ep. 2. An Objection put of.  And that this was not a daily sacrifice, such as the people daily celebrated by recording the passion of Christ, and by Offering themselves unto God, 
The daily Sacrifice is Offered by priests.  but a daily external Sacrifice used of Priests Only by the way of Ministry, it appeareth evidently, by that certain Fathers, for the Continual and daily practice of this most dreadful and holy Sacrifice, have thought it in no case meet for priests bound daily thereunto, to have Wives. In this sense writeth S. Ambrose, when he saith: Nunc quia non carnalis successio, sed perfectio spiritualis inquiritur, 
Ambrose In cap 3.1. ad Timoth.  consequenter sacerdotibus ut semper altari queant assistere, semper ab uxoribus continendum. Now because not a carnal succession (of Priests, as in the old law) but a spiritual perfection is required, Priests, that they may always serve at the altar, must always refrain from marriage. S. Hierom in like manner. 
Hieronymus. li. 1· in iovinianum.  Sacerdoti cui semper pro populo offerenda sunt Sacrificia, semper orandum est▪ si semper orandum, ergo semper carendum matrimonio. The priest which must always offer Sacrifice for the people, must always pray▪ If he must always pray, than he must always be unmarried. Innocentius the first agreeth with these learned doctors in the same manner of reasoning, and saith. Tenere omnino Ecclesia debet, 
Innocentius. 1. ad Decentium dist. 31. Cap. Tenere.  ut Sacerdotes & levitae cum uxoribus suis non misceantur qui ministerij quotidiani necessitatibus occupantur. The Church ought to observe that the priests and deacons company not with their wives, which are occupied with the necessary business of the daily Service. This daily service the first Council of Toledo calleth, quotidianum Ecclesiae sacrificium, as S. Austen before did, the daily Sacrifice of the Church, and bindeth the clergy to serve thereat daily. Go now M. jewel, and deny the Fathers to say that the daily Sacrifice ought to be daily celebrated. 
jewel as before.  You have heard Chrisostom, Primasius, Eusebius Emissenus, Oecumenius, S. Augustin to say that this daily Sacrifice is and aught daily to be celebrated, partly for the Remembrance of Christ's death, partly for remedy of our sins, partly also because by this Sacrifice the priesthood of Melchisedech is practised for ever. You have heard all these, and Theodoretus also to witness an external Sacrifice on our part notwithstanding that one Sacrifice on the Crosse. You have heard S. Augustin again, S. Cyprian and the Fathers of the first Council of Toletu● to confess a daily Sacrifice in the Church. Last of all you have heard by the testimonies of S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, and of Innocentius the firist (the Pope of Rome in S. Augustins time) this daily Sacrifice to be so necessary, that for that respect priests ought to refrain from marriage. Now prove you that the Fathers ever taught plainly the contrary, as you say they did. jewel. 
Pag. 43.   
To leave S. basil ad Caesaream patritiam 
a. Can. 49.  the Council of Laodicea, 
b. can. 52.  the Council of Constantinople holden in Trullo, and the synodal Epistle sent from the Bishops of the East part in the defence of Macarius. etc.  
Stapleton. All these Fathers M. jewel will leave, because he hath good store of other to bring. But let these that he bringeth, try what the store is which he omitteth. It is not credible that M. jewel hath either so little wit, or so small good will, that he will leave the strongest and best allegations, and bring in a few that make nothing at all for him. Then if these which he allegeth, are found feeble and to no purpose, I leave it to the reader's discretion to consider what the rest would have appeared, if they had durst to show their faces. Therefore to pass here (this being of D. Harding otherwhere handled) his dumb witnesses, let us see what weight his other authorities do bear. He saith.  
jewel. S. Augustin saith. The Sacrament of this thing is prepared or consecrate in the Church, and received of the lords table in some places euer● day, in some places upon certain days.  
Stapleton Lo S. Augustin saith. In some places the Sacrament is consecrated every day. 
In joan. tract. 26.  And yet he is brought against the daily Sacrifice, and against the daily Consecration. What? Thinketh M. jewel that Daily, and Every day is contrary? Or thinketh he the daily Sacrifice is either so avouched of the learned Fathers, or so defended of the Catholics that in all Places there must be a daily Sacrifice? Hath he forgot that in mean parish Churches it was never customably so?  
jewel. 
In epi, & Timoth. 1. cap. The .50. Untruth.  Likewise saith S. Ambrose. Every week we must celebrat the oblation, although not every day unto strangers, yet unto the inhabitants at the lest twice in the week. Stapleton 
For none saith. Not every day.  S. Augustine saith, the Sacrament was ministered at certain days. S. Ambrose saith sometimes twice in the week, and (50) not every day.  
jewel. S. Augustin saith in some places every day. And S. Ambrose saith not, not every day, But at the lest twice in the week. Thus twice in the week is the jest. But what? Think you M. jewel it may not be truly called a daily Sacrifice, though it were but twice in the week? You say yourself in this very page of your Reply. Which also (meaning the Sacrament) may be called the daily bread, not for that it is daily received, 
pag. 36.  but for that there is no day excepted, but it may be received every day. Let your wisdom I beseech you, instruct us M. jewel, why the Sacrifice may not in like sense be called daily both of the Fathers and of D. Harding, as well as the Sacrament, 
M. jewel confuteth himself.  though it were not precisely every day celebrated, which yet in some places was so, as S. Augustin by you alleged expressly said? So properly you allege the fathers to prove the Contrary. Again that is not Untruly called daily which in respect of so many days in the year is done every week twice at the least. as S. Ambrose saith, the Sacrifice was. For in S. Augustins and S. Ambrose his time the Sacrifice being weakly at the lest received, and yet the people of duty then, as now a days, coming but once in the year to receive (as both S. Augustin and S. Ambrose do otherwhere expressly witness) the daily Sacrifice was after ministered without any company to receive with the Priest, 
Au. Hom. 28. de ver. Dom. sec. Luc. Amb. lib. 5. de sa●r. Cap. 4.  for aught that appeareth. Again the priest of duty at the lest every Sunday celebrating, and yet the people of duty but ones in the year receiving, if without a company the priest could not receive, he could not celebrate the Daily Sacrifice, yea he should perhaps celebrat it but once in the year. Thus the meaning of a daily Sacrifice though it were but weakly, not daily, (as the fathers expressly call it) yet in that sense also it should well serve the purpose of Private Mass, as M. jewel calleth it. But now to your last allegation.  
jewel. 
Concil. Tol. 4. can. 9 The .51. Untruth For this can not be well gathered.  But what record hereof can be plainer, than the Council of Toledo? The words in english be these. There be sundry priests in Spain that touching the prayer that the Lord taught, and commanded Daily to be said, say the same only upon the Sunday, and upon no day else. (51) Hereof we may well gather, that if the priests in Spain said the lords prayer only upon the Sunday, for so much as Communion is never ministered without the lords prayer, therefore the priests in Spain ministered not the Communion, but only upon the Sunday.  
Stapleton. It appeareth by the Council that these priests in Spain said Mass in the week days, without the Pater Noster. And therefore M. jewels Conclusion is untruly gathered. The Council in that Canon alleged concludeth thus. Whosoever therefore either of the priests or of the inferior clergy, do let pass our Lords prai●r ei●her in th● public Service, or in the private Service, for his pride being cast le● him be deprived. Thus those priests omitting our lords prayer in the public service, in the other week days, we may well gather, that they said Mass in the other week days (the Mass being the chiefest part of the public service) and omitted therein the Pater Noster which that holy Council worthily condemneth in this place. These be the fathers which, M. jewel avoucheth in his Untruth, to say plainly the contrary, ●hat is, to deny utterly the daily Sacrifice. These be the picked authorities which he hath chosen, to leave such and such, as you heard him say. Two of his allegations speaketh directly against him. The third is builded upon an Untrue collection, and upon a condemned Abuse, if it were true.  
Harding. S Augustin expounding the fourth petition of our lords prayer, give us this day our daily bread, 
diui. 26. De verbis domini s●cundum Lucan Homil. 28.  showing that this may be taken either for material bread, either for the Sacrament of our lords Body, or of spiritual meat, which he alloweth best, would, that concerning the Sacrament of our lords Body, they of the east should not move question, how it might be understanded to be their daily Bread, which were not daily partakers of our lords Supper, (35) 
* 
These be the ve very words of S. Augustin.   Where as for all that, this bread is called daily Bread.  
jewel. 
pag. 62. The .52. Untruth Slanderous, and peevish.  The .35. Untruth. For S. Augusten saith. In illis partibus non intelligitur quotidianus panis. In those parts it (the B. Sacrament) is not understanded to be daily Bread.  
Stapleton. M. jewel taketh hold upon these words (where as for all that) as though D. Harding had said, where, that is, in which countries of the East. Which in deed had not been only contrary to S. Augustine, but to himself also which confesseth in the next line before that they of the East were Not daily partakers of our lords Supper. 
Cum iste panis etc. not ubi.  But these words (where as for all that) have no relation to the place, but to the bread. And so I think every One that understandeth English perceiveth well enough. Now M. jewel will forget not only all Divinity and Grammar (as you saw before in turning the words, Populis immolatur) but also his very English Tongue, rather than he will lack a number off Untruths to heap up in this first Article. O miserable shifts, off wilful Malice.  
Harding. Although many times the people forbore to come to the Communion, 
divis. 28  so as many times (36.) none at all were found disposed to receive.  
jewel. 
pag. 64. The .53. Untruth Slanderous.  The .36. Untruth. M. Harding is able to show no such case.  
Stapleton. When we come to the last Untruth of this Article the .45. in numbered, it shall be proved that D. Harding hath already showed a Clear Case where the Sacrifice being celebrated, yet none did Receive, and that out of the words of Chrysostom. To that place I remit the Reader  
Harding. 
Divi. 29. Dist. 1. hoc quoque.  Which ancient decree (the decree of Soter, that two at the lest must be present at the celebration of the Sacrifice) requireth not that all the people off necessity be present, (37) much less that all so oftentimes should communicate Sacramentally.  
jewel. 
pag. 66. The .54. Untruth Slanderous.  The .37. Untruth. For all that were present, were willed either to Communicate, ot or depart.  
Stapleton. Where were they so wisled M. jewel? In this decree of Soter? There is no such word in all the decree. And then it is no Untruth to say, that by Soters' decree, all are not commanded to Communicate sacramentally: which is the thing that D. harding said, meaning it off Soters' decree which he alleged. But in the text M. jewel addeth farther and will prove that the two which Soter speaketh of, were bound to Communicate. But how prove you that M. jewel? Forsooth you say.  
jewel. 
pag. 68 Dist 2. per acta. The .55. Untruth. For this decree is of the bishop's Mass. Sote●● decree is of the Priests. De consecr. dist. 1. Epis. Deo.  Consider this decree written in the name of Pope Calixtus. The Consecration being done let all Communicate, unless they will be removed from the Church. For so the Apostles appointed, and so holdeth the holy Church off Rome. By this decree these two were bound, either to Communicate with the Priest, or to depart forth of the Church.  
I answer. This decree of Caliztus was made of the Clergy only and of the bishop, when he executed. It is not made of the Priests and their Masses, as the decree of Soter is, and therefore you deceive your Reader shamefully and with a manifest Untruth. The whole decree of Calixtus is this. The bishop sacrificing unto God, let him have with with him witnesses. In the more solemn days; seven or v. or iij. Deacons. which be called the bishops eyes, and subdeacons and other Ministers. Which clothed in holy vestiments before and behind him, the Priests also on the sides of him, on the left and the right hand, all with a contrite h●rte, and an humbled spirit, standing with their face bowing to the ground, keeping him from evil willing men, and giving their consent to the sacrifice. But the Consecration being done, let all communicate, unless they will be removed from the Church. Lo M. jewel. This is the whole decree of Calixtus. You see it is all spoken of Deacons, subdeacons, Priests and other Ecclesiastical Ministers. Now the two commanded to be present in Soters' decree, to answer to the Priest, it was indifferent whether they were off the lay or of the clergy. But you will prove they ought to be of the clergy that Soter speaketh of. For this purpose you bring under the name of Anacletus, this self same decree, 
M. jewel maketh two allegations off one.  which you brought before under the name of Calixtus (so false and lewd) you are to deceive your Reader) and you bring the former piece thereof, to wit, that the Bishop must have about him a certain numbered of Deacons, subdeacons, and other Ministers▪ I answer. The decree is made of a, bishop and that in solemnioribus diebus, in the more solemn days, not of every Priest, in every mean or low day. But the decree of Soter is de praesbiteris, of priests expressly, and of their Masses. Yet you bring an other decree of Soter, to prove that these two must be of the clergy▪ that is, you say, 
De Cons. Dist. 1. ut illud.  That every Priest making the Sacrifice have by him an other Priest to assist him, and to make an end of the Ministration, if any quamme or sickness happen to fall upon him. When will you leave to deceive your Reader M. jewel? This decree speaketh not absolutely that all Priests ought off necessity always so to have. But the decree expressly saith. Vbi temporis, vel loci, sive cleri copia suffragatur. 
The .56. Untruth Standing in f●lse Application.  When the time doth serve, or when the place admitteth it, or when good store of the clergy is present. Thus the decree provided not absolutely so to be always, but when the time was more solemn, the place more public, or the clergy at commodity to help: as having not said Mass themselves before, as in solemn days and in Cathedral Churches most did, and now do. But that Every Priest ought always so to have, that the decree saith not. And therefore you have not yet proved that they ought to be of the clergy. And more than this proof hereof you have nothing in your text. Therefore farther they might be of the lay: and then not bound to receive with the Priest. Which being so, even in this decree of Soter a Private Mass is proved, and a case is showed where mass is said of the Priest without any company bound to receive with him. Yet you conclude most impudently in your text, jewel. 
pag. 68 The 57 Untruth touching Soters' decree.  that whether they were of the clergy or of the laite those two whose presence Soter required, that the law constrained them to receive together with the Priest. This I say you conclude most impudently, having no Law, or Decree, or piece of Decree, that the Laite was bound to receive with the Priest, and having brought certain apparent pieces for the Clergy bound to receive, which yet in deed joined to the whole decree have made no deal for you, 

The 58 Untruth. For more than an inkling of Private Mass is found in Soters' decree.   as hath been proved. After this you conclude, that M. Harding hath found a Communion, and no manner token or inkling of private Mass. Which how true it is in this one point, I leave to the judgement of every indifferent Reader.  
Harding. 
Diuis. 31.  In that Council of Agatha we find a decree, made by the Fathers assembled there, whereof (38) it appeareth that priests oftentimes said Mass without others receiving with them.  
jewel. The 38. Untruth. There appeareth no such thing, 
pag. 71. The 59 Untruth Slaund. The 60. Untruth For the Contrary doth no● appear. Can. 21.  but rather the contrary.  
That we will now try M. jewel. The decree of the Council is thus much in English. If any man will have an oratory or ●happell abroad in the country beside the parish Church's, in which lawful and ordinary assembly is, for the rest of the holy days that he have Masses there in consideration of the weariness of the household, with just ordinance we do permit. But at Easter, Christ's birth, epiphany, the Ascension of our Lord, Whitsonday and the nativity of S. john Baptist, and if there be any other special feasts, let them not k●pe their masses, but in the Cities and parishes. And as for the Clerks if any will do, or have their Masses at the foresaid, feasts in chapels, unless the Bishop so command or permit, let them be trust out from the Communion. Hitherto the decree. By this decree. (saith D. Harding) we learn that then Masses were commonly said in private Chapels at home, at such times as the people were not accustomed to be houseled. And the reason hereof he giveth in these words. 
The reason of D. Harding  For when by commandment and common order they received their rights, as in the afore named feasts, than were the Priests prohibited to say Masses in private oratory's or chapels with out the parish Churches. The argument of D. Harding shortly is this.  
The cause why people was commanded to resort to the Cities and parish Churches in principal feasts, was their Communicating.  
Ergo being permitted to have Mass in private Chapels, it appeareth, that in those private chapels they did not communicate.  
Harding. Now what say you against this argument M. jewel? Which as it is no necessary demonstration, nor was not brought for such, so is it a probable and well apparent reason. And for such, D. Harding brought it, saying expessely, that by this decree it appeareth priests oftentimes said Mass without others receiving with them. 
M. jewel Replieth not to the reason of D. Harding, but apposeth of his own.  You say, there appeareth no such thing, and therefore you make it an Untruth. But how prove you M. jewel that no such thing appeareth? What say you to the reason or argument of D. Harding, whereby he gathereth that such a thinhe appeareth? You say to his argument not one word. You make an argument or two of your own, which he made not, and against them you insult after your fashion. After that you appose him, and ask him, jewel. 
pag. 71.  what leadeth M. Harding thus to say? His reason that lead him so to say was in the text, but you would not hear it at all. Again you ask. Was there no company at all in the Chapel to communicate with the priest? 
The 61. Untruth, standing in manifest falsifying of the decree.  If there were any, show you. Truly there appeareth none, by any word of the decree, either to have been, either to ought to have been. Yes say you. It is provided by the decree itself, that there should be a lawful and an ordinary company. And you note in the Margin. Can. 21. In quibus est legitimus ordinariusque conventus, that is in English, in the which there is a lawful and an ordinary assembly. In what which M. jewel? Who is the Antecedent to quibus? 
M. jewel maketh false construction to maintain his false religion.  I will put you the whole sentence, and then see how you can construe it. Si quis extra Parochias, in quibus est legitimus ordinariusque conventus, oratorium in agro habere volverit. that is in English, If any man will have a Chapel in his ground, beside the parishes, in which (s·s parishes) there is a lawful and an ordinary assembly. Now M. jewel. This private Mass that is said to appear by this decree, is in the Chapel. You disprove the private Mass, because you say the Decree hath provided that there should be a lawful and an ordinary assembly in the parish churches. Thus by false construction M. jewel, you deceive again your Reader, wittingly and willingly, and do nought else but wrangle childishly, by some means or other to weary your adversary.  
After this you leap from Agatha to Gangra, from France to Grece, to prove that in these oratory's and private houses, there was a Communion. And thus you reason.  
In Grece about a hundred and fifty years before, the Communion wa● received in private houses.  
Ergo in France so long after, in their private chapels, 
M. jewels Argument.  there was also a Communion.  
The lewdness of this argument will better appear by the like.  
In France within these fifty years all Churches had private Masses.  
Ergo now in England all Churches have the same. As true is the one as the other.  
But now M. jewel saith, He will give a clear answer to M. hardings blind gheasses. What is that trow we? 
The .62. Untruth joined with a Slander. Co. Agath. Can. 60. Epist. decret. Siricij.  Forsooth an other Canon of the self same Council, which biddeth the penitents to departed out of the Church with the Novices that were not yet Christened, Item a decretal epistle of Siricius, Commanding in like manner notorious offenders to depart out of the Church. Ergo the rest that remained, did communicate. I answer. All this was in Cities and Parish Churches unto which the Novices and open penitents resorted. This was not in Chapels of private houses, of which this decree of the council of Agatha speaketh. This is M. jewels clear answer.  
They communicated in great cities and Parish Churches,  
Ergo in Private houses. another like unto that is this. 
M. jewels Argument.   
In the Church of Sarisbury, the Minister at every Communion weareth a Cope.  
Ergo in all other Chapels at every communion a cope is woren. Let now every indifferent Reader judge, whether any thing hath been brought by M. jewel, why by the decree above mentioned, there should not appear, in those private chapels to have been private Masses.  
Harding 
divis. 23. In the words of Leontius.  At that time (39) he saith Mass in his Chapel, having no other body with him but his servant.  
jewel. 
pag. 74. Stapleton. The .63. Untruth Slanderous.  The .39. Untruth. There was never Private Mass said in Alexandria neither before this time, nor at any time sithence.  
Here it may be seen how true it is, that S. Paul saith Scientia inflat, Knowleadg puffeth up. For what a pride is this of M. jewel so stoutly and peremptorely to pronounce that in Alexandria there was never private Mass neither before the time of Leontius, 
The .64. Untruth, impudently avouched.  nor sithence. What? Hath M. jewel such a confidence in his knowledge, that he is perfect of the Whole order of God's Service that ever hath been used or practised in Alexandria, a city (as he saith himself) jewel. 
pag. 78.  a thousand miles beyond all Christendom, and where the faith of Christ hath continued so many hundred years before the time of Leontius, and long after also? Is M. jewel so sure that all that time in that great city there was never private Mass, that though Leontius a writer of more than 900. years sithence do write so, yet he is sure it was never so? Hath M. jewel seen all? Hath he read all? And Doth he remember all things that were ever done in the Church Service of that city? What is Impudence, what is Puffing Pride, what is Presumptuous Rashness, if this be not? As for the words which he noteth for an Untruth, they are the words of Leontius alleged by D. Harding, they are not the words as avouched of D. Harding. And then truly if there were never private Mass in Alexandria, it was a great Untruth on Leontius part to write so. 
This Leontius is much commended in the .7. General Council Act. 4.  Now whether M. jewel be better to be believed herein then is Leontius, a known approved writer these many hundred years, I leave it to the Readers discretion. Leontius saith plainly of John the holy bishop of Alexandria. Facit Missas in oratorio suo, Nullum habens secum nisi ministrum suum. He saith Mass in his Chapel, having None other body with him, but his servant. Here is a clear witness of private Mass, 

He lived about the time of S. Gregory, within the first 600. years.  
Con. Nice. ●. Act. 4.   as M. jewel termeth the receiving of the priest without a company of communicants. And that within the first 600. years. For this Leontius (as the Fathers of the seventh general Council do say) floruit circa tempora Mauritij Imperatoris, flourished about the time of Mauritius the Emperor. Whose reign began in the year of our lord. 585. The witness being so clear, M. jewel though good to out face the matter, and stoutly to say that neither before this Leontius, nor ever sithence there was ever private Mass said in Alexandria. 
M. jewel. outfaceth matters, when proofs fail him.  This shameless and impudent facing seemeth well to be resembled by the Gorgon's head with the Antic that M. jewels printer hath placed at the end of every Article. Where spare room was. Frons perfricta, Os impudens.  
Whereas in the text M. jewel would make us believe that Missae here should not signify Mass, but any other kind of prayer (for he careth not what he make of it, 

The 65. Untruth, about the signification of Missas facere.  
Ambros. lib. 5. Epist. 33.   so it be not Mass) he may as soon persuade any that is learned that the Crow is white, as that Missas facere in this place doth not signify to say Mass. For so he may tell us that Missan facere caepi in S. Ambrose, doth not signify I began to say Mass, but matins or evensong or some like thing. Any thing M. jewel, so it be not Mass. And when S. Gregory charged Maximus the intruded bishop of Salona that being excommunicated, Missas facere praesumpsit it shall not signify He presumed to say Mass, 
Gregor. lib. 4. epist. 34.  but he presumed to say his matins or even song, or any other kind of prayer, which no person excommunicated is forbidden to say. In like manner when the Council of Arels chargeth the bishops that for certain offences, Anno integro Missas facere non praesumant, 
Concil. Arelae. Can. 2.  it shall not signify that for the space of a whole year they presume not to say Mass, but that they presume not to say matins or evensong all the year long, or some other kind of prayer, what ye will, so it be not Mass. But what shift is there so impudent that M. jewel will not use, rather than to yield, and acknowledge his vanity and error? An heretic (saith S. Paul) is suo judicio condemnatus, 
Tit. 3.  condemned in his own judgement. M. jewel knoweth himself that in this place he hath kicked and strived against a manifest Truth. Yet he will not yield. What other shifts he hath used to defeat this clear Testimony, because it is in the Confutation of D. Harding, particularly refelled, I shall not need presently farther to intermeddle. And this little may seem sufficient to justify the Untruth, of Leontius (iff it were an Untruth) for his words they are, not off D. Harding, whose words they are not.  
Again M. jewel denieth the Conclusion. For whereas Leontius saith, that john the bishop of Alexandria said Mass in his Chapel, 
M. jewel denieth the Conclusion.  having no other body with him, but his servant, and of this it is Concluded, that in Alexandria there was private, Mass, M. jewel denieth the Conclusion and saith stoutly, there was never private Mass in Alexandria, neither before the time of Leontius, nor at any time sithence, and putteth that for an Untruth, which is Concluded. Wherein he fareth as a fool of Sanford by Oxford was wont to do. Who resorting to the university at Christmas time, and being by certain sophisms made in the way of pastime, proved to be an Ass, would always deny the Conclusion, and say. Nay: but I am no Ass. Wherein he showed himself to be an Ass in deed.  
Harding. 
diuis. 33.  Even as our Sacramentaries do ascribe all to faith only, and (40) call the most worthiest Sacrament none other but tokening bread, which of itself hath no divine efficacy or operation.  
jewel. 
pag. 81. The .66. Untruth Slanderous. Articu. 6.  ¶ The .40. Untruth. We never called it so.  
You Sacramentaries of Geneva do so call it, if you agree with the doctrine of john Calvin your Master. Who in his resolutions upon the Sacraments, hath these very words. Although the bread be given unto us as a Mark or pledge of the Communion, yet because it is a sign, not the thing itself, nor hath not the thing included in it, they which stay their minds thereupon, worshipping therein Christ, they make an idol of it. In these words Calvin maketh the Sacrament only a tokening bread, a sign without the thing included in it, which is a bare sign and token. Now to judge the doctrine of the scholars, by the printed and published doctrine of the Master, it is no Untruth.  
Harding. Now one place more for private Mass, 
diuis. 34.  & caet. (41.) This place is twice found in Chrysostom.  
jewel. The .41. Untruth. 
pag. 87. The .67. Untruth Slanderous. Stapleton  Private Mass is never found in Chrysostom.  
The daily Sacrifice offered, without any to Communicate, is (in your sense M. jewel) private Mass. But that is found in Chrysostom. Ergo private Mass is found in Chrysostom. The Mayor or first proposition is clear. The second is the saying of Chrysostom. These are his words. 
Homi. 61. ad p●p. A●tioch.  The daily sacrifice is offered in vain. We stand at the altar for nought. There is not one that will be houseled. Here lo is a daily Sacrifice offered, and yet not one to communicate, This place M. jewel, if you will stand to the letter, (as you do in all other places alleged) you can never avoid while you live. And therefore there is no remedy. You must Subscribe.  
Harding. But all was in vain (42) for none came.  
jewel. The .42. Untruth. 
The .68. Untruth Slanderous.  There came many both of the people and also of the clergy.  
Chrysostom sayeth. Nullus qui communicetur. There is not one that will be houseled. M. jewel saith it is not true, there came many. Then Chrysostom lieth, not D. Harding, who sayeth no one word more herein, then Chrysostom himself said. Then score up this Untruth upon Chrysostom, not upon D. Harding.  
Harding. In that great and populous City of Antioch, where the Scriptures were daily expounded and (43) preached.  
jewel. The .43. Untruth. There was no such daily preaching, as shall appear. 
The .69. Untruth Slanderous.   
And how shall that appear M. jewel? Marry you allege in your text Chrysostom which confesseth that such open sermons were made to the people but ones in the week. What then? 
How the Sacrifice and the preaching is called daily.  Then, say you, it is an Untruth, to say it was daily. No Untruth at all M. jewel. For when the saying of an Author is true in that sense which he meaned, then is the saying true. Nor daily preaching, nor daily Sacrifice is so avouched, that precisely every day in the whole year, either sermons were made, either the Sacrifice offered. That is called daily in the old writers which was often done and once at the lest every week. So was the preaching, so was the sacrifice. You heard S. Austen before call the Blessed Sacrament, our daily bread. And thereupon you conclude yourself, 
pag. 63. lin. 11.  The people than received the Sacrament every day. And yet in the next page before disputing against the daily Sacrifice, 
M. jewel contrary to himself.  you say. Neither was the Communion then Ministered every day. For proof whereof you allege an epistle sent from certain bishops, wherein it was confessed that the ministration was only upon the Sundays. 
pag. 62. lin. 3.  Now then M. jewel if the people received the Sacrament every day, and yet the Communion was only ministered upon the Sundays, either you must grant that they received without a Communiom which is by your doctrine a great abuse, either that a thing may be called daily though it be done but ones in the week. And then if you may so interpret the daily Sacrifice, why may not we interpret the daily preaching in like manner, because it was done once in the week, as the place which you allege out of Chrysostom against D. Harding, witnesseth expressly? 
pag. 63. lin. 35.  Thus it was no Untruth for D. Harding to call that daily preaching which was but ones in the week, no more than it is for you to say The people received every day, 
The 70. Untruth For before he said: The people received every day.  and yet The communion was ministered only upon the Sunday.  
Again to shift away the daily sacrifice, you say the Sacrament may be called daily bread not for that it is daily received, but for that there is no day excepted, but it may be received every day. By this means also we may say, The preaching in Antioch was called daily of D. Harding: because there was no day excepted, but that there might be a Sermon made every day. Thus M. jewel by your own phrases and expositions, 
M. jewel confuteth himself.  the saying of D. Harding is proved to be no Untruth. Wherefore you had very little occasion to give out such a Solemn Sentence, and to say. I note not this for that I mislike with daily preaching, 
The 71. Untruth For there was no Untruth so boldly preswed.  but for that Untruth so boldly presumed should not pass untouched. You should rather have said, But for that otherwise the heart would have broken, if malice this way had not uttered her venom. For truly M. jewel you have showed yourself herein to be made even of the scrapings of malice itself, which in a matter by yourself not misliked (as you confess) would yet pick out a fault, where none at all is. Which in your next Untruth appeareth yet more evidently.  
Harding. Either the Sacrifice ceased, and that was not done, which (44) Christ Commanded to be done in his remembrance, etc.  
jewel. 
The 72. Untruth Slaund.  The .44. Untruth. Christ commanded no such daily Sacrifice.  
Stapleton. Why put you in the word daily? That is more than D. Harding said. But that Christ commanded a Sacrifice to be done in remembrance of him, yea and a daily Sacrifice, that hath been proved before M. jewel, in the 34. Untruth. Which you both before in the 5. the 33. and the 34. Untruth, 
M. jewel repeateth one Untruth four times.  and now again the fourth time have repeated only to make up a number of Untruths, in this first article, wherein you thought to bring D. Harding out of credit at the beginning for ever. For even here you Boast and Vaunt out of measure, and that with such Impudence, as no man of learning would use but you. And you say. 
Pag. 91. The 73. Untruth joined with passing impudence.   
jewel. O M. Harding, is it not possible your Doctrine may stand without lies? So many Untruths, in so little room, without the shame of the world, without fear of God?  
To the which I answer. O M. jewel. Is it not possible to defend your most Vain Challenge, without such Impudent Lies? So many Untruths Charged upon D. Harding in so little room, even at the entry of your Main Labour, and not one of them True? All returned back unto you? And have you done all this so Impudently, so Facingly, so extreme Braggingly, without the Shame of the world, without Fear of God? You a preacher of God's holy word, you an instructor of the people, you a Bishop, and God will? Teach you Truth at home, which have printed openly so many notorious Lies, so outrageous Untruths, so facing fashoods? Are not yourself now guilty of all these Untruths (lege talionis) which in so ●●tle room and so many you have forged upon D. Harding?  
Harding. By report of Chrysostom the Sacrifice in his time was daily offered, that is to say, the Mass was celebrated. But many times no body came to communicate Sacramentally with the priests, (45) as it is before proved.  
jewel. 
pag. 88 The 74. Untruth the Slaund.  The .45. Untruth. This is not yet proved.  
Stapleton. Yes M. jewel it is so proved, that you shall never be able to avoid it, I mean even by this place of Chrysostom. This is the syllogismus, or brief argument of the whole.  

Private Mass proved out of Chrysostom.  Where the daily Sacrifice is made and none doth communicate with the Priest, there is Mass without communicants.  
But Chrisostom saith the daily Sacrifice was made, and no body did communicate.  
Ergo by Chrysostoms' saying, there was a Mass without communicants. Of this it followeth.  
A mass without communicants is private Mass.  
Ergo there was private Mass.  
Here M. jewel to defeat this argument presseth and wringeth himself, as many ways, as art or wit could help him. And yet none will serve. First he demandeth.  
jewel. 
pag. 88  Whether M. Harding will rest upon the bare words of Chrysostom, or qualify them somewhat, and take his meaning.  
Stapleton To the which his answer is. He will rest upon the words of Chrysostom not bare, but taking also his meaning. Which is to mean as he spoke, and not contrary to his speech. M. jewel disputeth on both sides. First he saith.  
jewel. If he press the words precisely, 
The 75. Untruth For it followeth not by Chrysostoms' words that he himself did not Communicate.  than Chr●●ostom himself did not Communicate. For he was Some body. And the plain words be, No body did Communicate.  
Who ever thought M. jewel had been so very a fool, as to be ignorant, that in an universal speech, s●mper excipitur persona loquentis. Ever the party that speaketh is excepted? Namely in such things which signify an Action not touching the Speaker himself. As here. Chrysostom saying that No body did communicate, speaketh it of the communicating of Other with him, not of his Own communicating. After this M. jewel disputeth upon Chrysostoms' meaning by a guess utterly Untrue, as it shall now appear. He saith. 
The .76. Untruth. For S. Chrysostom speaketh no one word of small companies.   
It appeareth Chrisostoms' purpose was to rebuke the negligence of the people for that of so poppulous a City, they came to the Communion in so small companies.  
This guess as it is utterly untrue, so it is utterly unproved. I will tell you Chrisostoms' purpose, and prove it to by his own words. His purpose was to persuade the people from their usual ones receiving at Easter, and to come oftener to receive the holy Sacrament. 
The purpose of Chrysostom in the place alleged  These are his words even next before the words last alleged. I see great inequalite of things among you. At other times when as for most part ye are in clean life,, ye come not to receive your rights. But at Easter though ye have done some things amiss, yet ye come. O what a custom is this: O what presumption is this? 
Homi. 61. ad Pop. A tioch.  The Daily Sacrifice is offered in vain & c? Lo M. jewel you hear what Chrisostons' purpose was by his own words: not by a Vain guess contrary to his words. For you say, 
The 77. Untruth. as before.  upon your former Vain and Untrue guess that he calleth those Companies, in a vehemency of speech & cae, No body. Now he speaketh against the custom of one's receiving of all the people at Easter, as it is now, and saith that for all the Daily Sacrifice, yet Not One received. As for that you bring examples of Scripture and of Chrysostom, that Nemo, No Body, Doth sometime signify a few and small company, you must remember M. jewel, that examples serve to express and to make clear one matter by an other, not to prove and conclude one thing upon an other. You know the rule. Exempla dilucidant non probant. Examples do open that which is dark: they prove not. If you had first proved that Chrysostom by the word No body had meant small Companies, then for example of the like, your allegations would have served well. Now to prove this can not serve, but only to exemplify. Thus your simple guess upon Chrysostoms' meaning is found utterly Vain, Fond, and Untrue. So both the words and the meaning of Chrysostom make directly against you and prove clearly that none did communicate oftentimes in the daily Sacrifice, which is private Mass.  
yet M. jewel hunteth after other shifts, and sacketh every corner of his old notes, to overthrow and obscure this clear testimony of Chrysostom for private Mass. And saith:  
jewel. 
pag. 89.  And albeit, this only answer compared with the manner of Chrisostomes' eloquence, which commonly is hot and fervent, and with the common practice of the Church then, 
The 78. Untruth. For this only Answer is in sufficient as shall appear.  may suffice to a man more desirous of truth then of contention, yet I have good hope etc.  
Stapleton. If you M. jewel had been more desirous of the truth, which your forefathers believed, then of Contention to maintain your late upstart Faction the Lutheran Sect, if you had minded in deed to yield to the learned Fathers, as you professed in your Sermon to do, if your whole intent and end in this Reply had not been to defend your over fond and rash Challenge, with the which your own brethren are offended, but to try the Truth of our faith in Christ jesus, you would yourself have judged that this your Answer to the place of Chrysostom had been very Fond, Childish, and peevish. For what Child but you, would call the words of Chrysostom in doubt, saying, There is no Body that Doth Communicate, Because he himself communicated, which was some body? For I pray you M. jewel, if these words can not prove the Sole Receiving of the Priest which you call private Mass, what words shall ever be able to prove it? Did you Devise your Challenge upon Certain Terms, 
The Intent of M. jewels Challenge.  which you thought could never be found in the Ancient Writers, or did you seek after the Matter comprised in such terms? If the first, than you yourself M. jewel are the man (that you speak of) more desirous of Contention, then of Truth. If the last, than you have here a Private Mass. You have a daily Sacrifice which the Latin Church hath called the Mass even before Chrysostons' time, without Communicants. If this, as I said, do prove no Private Mass, I beseech you M. jewel tell us by what words will you have it proved? Will you deny we have had Private Mass these later 900. years? Will you deny, the Catholics have it at this hour in Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and other Christened Countries? I dare say, you will not put us to prove this. But if you should, I think verily we could never bring better record out of any writer for any Country, 
Why Private Mass cannot easily be proved in plain terms.  then is Chrysostom in this place for Antioch. For why? Many things are so well known, so certain, so common, that therefore they are not put in writing. What example can you bring M. jewel out of all the first 600. years, that ever any man said his Pater Noster Privately to himself alone, out of the Church or Congregation? 
Private Pater Noster.  And yet who doubteth but thousands did so at that time? And truly in like manner to prove by Records and writings of learned men, that Private Mass was said in Spain (for example) forty years ago, would be a thing of as great Difficulty, as to prove it in the first 600. years, if so plain words as Chrysostom's are, may not be admitted. For what can be more plain than this? We stand at the altar, we Offer the daily sacrifice, and none doth Communicate. Yet thus much said Chrisostome. Therefore against this Clear and Evident Assertion of Chrysostom, we admit not your Pelting Exception off Chrysostom's own person, nor the bold shifting off No body into small companies, exemplified, not proved. This answer I say we admit not, not for Contention sake, which do not defend herein any Private Particular Doctrine of our own, but the Faith of our forefathers, and the Faith of all Christened Countries, beside you and a few others, but we reject it M. jewel for Truths sake. The Truth I say of that Faith in the which both you and we were baptized, both your parents and ours have yielded their souls to God. But now let us see what is the hope that you have conceived although this Answer be rejected. You say.  
jewel. 
The .79. Untruth For it is Master jewels Nemo, not D. Hardings, nor Chrysostoms' neither.  I have good hope, it may be proved, notwithstanding Master hardings Nemo, that Chrysostom neither was alone, nor could be alone at the holy Ministration, and therefore could say no private Mass.  
Behold good Readers, how M. jewel deceiveth you. He will prove that Chrysostom could not be alone at the holy Ministration, and therefore could say no Private Mass. And how many thousands of Priests do daily say Private Mass, which yet be not alone at the holy Ministration? But if M. jewel will prove that Chrysostom could say no private Mass, 
M. jewel stealeth from the Matter.  he must prove that Chrysostom could not Receive Alone. For what is Private Mass, as M. jewel and his fellows take it, but the Sole Receiving of the Priest? Prove then M. jewel that Chrysostom could not Receive alone. 
Mark, what the Answer of M. jewel ought to be.  Truly though you can do so, you shall prove that upon Chrysostom, which Chrysostom himself denieth. For behold Chrysostom said. He hath not one to Communicate. M. jewel will prove. It is not possible but he should have some Body to Communicate. And so M. jewel will prove that thing to be done, 
M. jewel will prove S. Chrysostom a liar.  which yet Chrisostome saith in plain words, was not done. But because he would not seem to fight against Chrysostom, and his words: but against D. Harding and his words, he protesteth to prove this, notwithstanding M. hardings Nemo. He should have said, if he would speak truly. 
M. jewel juggleth one word for an other to make pastime.  Notwithstanding S. Chrysostom's Nullus, Not one. For that word Nemo, No body which M. jewel sporteth himself so much with in this place, is not found either in Chrysostom, or in D. harding: But is devised of this Sir john Hicke scorner to make sport, and pass time withal. In deed the word Nullus, Not one: which so graveleth M. jewel, is the word of Chrysostom, but not of D. hardings invention. Thus he altereth and juggleth, proving and placing one thing for an other, so to steal away and beguile the Reader. For you shall see, M. jewel with all his Allegations, Shifts and Evasions shall never be able to prove, that Chrysostom could not Receive Alone at the holy Ministration, which is the only way to prove that he could say no private Mass. You shall see his words,  
jewel. For if the whole Company of the lay people would have forsaken him, yet had he Company sufficient of the Priests and Deacons, 
pag. 89.  and others of the Choir. And if the whole Choir would have forsaken him, yet had he Company sufficient▪ of the people, as it may be clearly proved.  
Stapleton Lo you see, his proofs do tend not to prove that a company Communicated with Chrysostom, but to prove that a company was Present. Now if the Presence of a company may disprove Private Mass, then is there at this day no Private Mass, nor never was in any Cathedral or parish Churches upon Sunday or holy day. Yet let us consider M. jewels proofs.  
jewel. That there was then a great numbered to Serve in the Ministry, it may diversely well appear.  
Stapleton Lo again. He talketh of Waiters on, not of such as do Communicate. And yet all this that he bringeth hereafter of the clergy, is Utterly from the Purpose.  
jewel Ignatius calleth Presbyterium, the sacred College, the Council and Company of the Bishop.  
Stapleton. This proveth a company to serve at the altar with the Bishop. But it proveth not that they communicated with the Bishop. And though it did, yet it proveth not that every other Priest had Always at his Mass a Company to communicate with him. And Saint Chrysostom when he wrote these words (of which we now treat) was no Bishop, as it shall anon appear. Therefore this is Utterly from the Purpose.  
jewel. Chrysostom himself in his Liturgy sayeth thus, The Deacons bring the dishes with the holy Bread unto the holy Altar, the Rest carry the holy Cups. By which words appeareth both a number of the ministery, and also provision for them that would Receive.  
Stapleton This then was the order, when people did receive. It proveth not that people did at every Mass receive. As well you might, M. jewel, bring the latin Manual of some churches, against Private Mass, where also order is taken for such as will receive.  
Again this was a solemnite in the Church of Constantinople, when S. Chrysostom was bishop there. But the words of Chrysostom which we treat of now, were spoken in Antioch when he was yet but a priest, no bishop.  
jewel. 
Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Nazianzen in Apologet.  Cornelius writeth that in the Church of Rome there were forty and six priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty and two Acoluthes, Exorcists, Readers, and other officers of the Church fifty and two. Wydoves and other afflicted people that were there relieved a 1500. Nazianzen complaineth of the number of the clergy in his time, that they seemed to be more than the rest of the people. Therefore the Emperor justinian afterward thought needful to abridge the number and to make a law that in the great Church at Constantinople, where Chrysostom was bishop,  
Stapleton (But not when he wrote this homely out of the which the words are taken, to the which M. jewel now maketh answer)  
jewel. There should not be above the number of 60. priests, one hundred deacons, fourscore and ten subdeacons, one hundred and ten Readers, and five and twenti Singers.  
Stapleton All this proveth that your clergy of Lay craftsmen, and Young Scholars having only Ministers and deacons, is far unlike to the clergy of the primitive Church, who had so many degrees beside of holy Orders: It proveth not that All these did at All Times Receive with the Bishop. And for proof hereof you bring not one word, but thus you Conclude M. jewel.  
jewel. Hereby we may see, that Chrysostom being at Antioch in so populous a City, although he had none of the lay people with him, yet could not be utterly left alone.  
Stapleton This is lo, M. jewels Conclusion and this is his argument. 
The effect of M. jewels former Allegations.  Ignatius a bishop of Antioch had a number of Priests to wait upon him, Chrysostom when he was bishop in Constantinople had the like, Cornelius bishop of Rome had so also, Nazianzen complaineth of the great number of the clergy, and justinian long after Chrysostoms' time restrained the number of the clergy in Constantinople, Ergo Chrysostom being no bishop but a Priest only at Antioch, had in Antioch Always a Number to Serve and Wait upon him. For thou must understand (gentle Reader) when Chrysostom spoke these words, which we are now about, 
Hom. 6●. ad Pop. Antioch. Socrates. li. 6. cap. 3. Niceph. li. 31. ca 2.  (The daily Sacrifice is offered in vain: we stand at the Altar for nought: There is not one that will receive) he spoke those words in an homily made to the people of Antioch where he took the inferior orders as Socrates and Nicephorus do write, where he was made Reader, deacon, and priest. He was then no bishop at all, but only a Priest at Antioch. Therefore all this number that M. jewel hath hitherto proved, is utterly beside the purpose. And that for ij. causes. First because all his allegations being of bishops, of Rome, and of Constantinople, 
Al M. jewels allegations have proved nothing.  they make nothing to the words of Chrysostom who was then but a Priest and that at Antioch. secondarily because, all these allegations proveth a number to Wait and Attend upon the bishop, but they prove not a whit, that such a number ought always to Receive with the bishop. Now let us see how M. jewel proceedeth.  
jewel. 
The 80. Untruth joined with a Slaund. scoff.  Now if we say that some of these priests, deacons, or other Communicated with the Bishop, I tell them (saith M. Harding) boldly and with a solemn countenance, which must needs make good proof, This is but a poor shift and will not serve their turn.  
Stapleton D. Harding did not only tell you so M. jewel, but he added also a reason wherefore. To the which reason you have not answered one word, but like a Hicke Scorner you thought to face out the matter, making your Reader believe, that it was only told with a bold and solemn Countenance. Now this Shift M. jewel is not only Poor, but very Beggarly and stark False, and such as you are never able to Prove. To wit, that Every Simple Priest at Every time that he said Mass, had a Number of other Priests and deacons to communicate with him. For unless you prove this M. jewel, it will always be but a guess to say, Chrysostom had certain priests and deacons to communicate. Yet you say.  
jewel. But if it be true, it is rich enough, if it agree with Chrysostom's own meaning, it is no shift, and therefore sufficiently serveth our purpose.  
Stapleton Prove it to be true, than it shall be rich enough. Prove it to agree with Chrysostoms' meaning, than it shall be no Shift. You proceed and say.  
jewel. 
The .81. Untruth joined with a scoff.  And because he sitteth so fast upon the bare words, and reposeth all his hope upon Nemo, if we list to cavil in like sort.  
Stapleton. It is no cavilling to press the Author's words and meaning, as hath been proved. But to wr●st the Author to that which he never meant, as M. jewel hath done, that is in deed to cavil.  
jewel. We might soon find warrant sufficient to answer this matter even in the very plain words of Chrisostome. For thus they lie. 
The .82. Untruth. For these plain words of Chrisostom include no number to Receive with him.  Frustra assistimus Altari. In vain we stand at the Altar. We stand, saith he, and not. I stand, and therefore includeth a number and not one alone.  
He includeth in deed a number to stand at the Altar, but he includeth no number to receive at the Altar, unless M jewel be of the opinion, that they received standing. Again Chrysostom complaineth not only of himself and his own flock, but of other priests also and their flocks. We stand, we priests do stand at the Altar, we offer the daily Sacrifice, and yet: Nullus qui communicetur. There is not one that doth communicate.  
jewel. How be it, our shifts are not so poor: We need not to take hold of so small advantages.  
Stapleton It is a point of Rhetoric to make great brags, when Matter fainteth. But when M. jewel hath all said, it will appear that this Small Advantage, is the best hold he hath. It followeth.  
jewel. It is provided by the Canons of the Apostles, that if any bishop or priest or Deacon, or any other of the Choir, after Oblation is made, do not receive, 
Can. Apost. 8. De Cons. Dist. 1. Episcopus.  unless he show some reasonable cause of his doing, that he stand excommunicate. The like law in the Church of Rome was after renewed by Pope Anacletus.  
Stapleton. M. jewel did well to expound the Canon of the Apostles by the law of Anacletus. For as the law of Anacletus speaketh expressly of bishops only, and of their Masses, so doth Canon of the Apostles also, if at lest they be like: as M. jewel saith. And then they make nothing to the Present Purpose. For (as it hath been showed before) Chrysostom was then no Bishop, 
The .83. Untruth in falsifying the Canon of the Apostles.  when he spoke the words which we now treat of, but a Priest in Antioch. Again M. jewel to stretch the Canon of the Apostles farther than it was intended, hath falsified a part thereof. For where he saith (or any other of the Choir) it is in the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin, aut alius ordinis eccl●siastici, in true english, or any other of the Clergy. For of the Clergy only this Canon was made, who in the Apostles time, and many years after, when the bishop celebrated, used customably to receive. For in that time many right holy and learned men continued in the inferior orders of the clergy all the days of their life. And were not admitted to priesthood but being called, and in a manner forced thereunto. Such at that time in the beginning of the faith communicated with the bishop, because otherwise (as the Canon saith) he should seem to be, author offensionis populo, & suspicionem praebens in offerentem. A cause of offence to the people, and to bring the party that offered into suspicion As being such a one, with whom his Clergy would not communicate. For this respect at that time, such communicating with the bishop was thought necessary. The state of Chrisostoms' time four hundred years after was otherwise.  
jewel. 
pag. 90. Can. 14.  The Council of Nice decreeth thus. Let the Deacons in order after the Priests receive of the bishops, or of the Priest the holy Communion.  
Stapleton This proveth, that when the Deacons received, in such order they should receive it. It doth not prove that at every Ministration they were bound to receive. Again the decree speaketh of bishops and of their Celebrating. Chrysostom now was no bishop.  
jewel. 
Carth. 6. Can. 18.  Likewise the Council of Carthage. Let the Deacons receive the Communion in order after the Priests, either the bishop or the Priest ministering it.  
Stapleton Likewise we answer as before. They were not commanded at every Ministration to receive etc.  
jewel. 
Can. 59 T●l. 4. cap. 17.  So the Council of Laodicea. It is lawful only for the Priests of the Church to enter in to the place where the Altar stands, and there to Communicate. So the Council of Toledo. Let the Priests and Deacons communicate before the Altar: the Clerks in the Choir, and the people without the Quie●e.  
Stapleton. To these I answer as before. It is an order how, it is no commandment when, and how often they should receive.  
jewel. Nicolaus Cusanus hath these words. This thing is specially to be noted, that the Priest did never celebrat without a Deacon. 
A● Clerun e● literatos Bohaemie The .84. Untruth ●●uching the time of Chrysostom. In liturgia.  And that in every Mass the Deacon received the Sacrament in the kind of Bread at the priests hand, and the Priest the Cup at the Deacons hand.  
Yea forsooth they did so (as he saith) but in the Apostles time only, and certain years after.  
But what needeth much proof in a case that is so plain? Chrysostom himself followeth the same order. After that the Priests have received (saith he) the archdeacon commandeth the Deacons to come fort●e and they so coming receive as the Priests did before.  
Stapleton This proveth they did so in certain solemn and principal feasts. But that they did so always every day or sunday, and that of bounded duty (whereby only it should be impossible that Chrysostom should communicate alone) that it proveth not, nor saith no such thing.  
jewel. Now let M. Harding judge uprightly whether these shifts be so poor as he would make them.  
Stapleton Now let not only M. Harding, but all the world judge uprightly whether these be not (not only Poor) but very Beggarly and most Miserable Shifts, and such as prove no deal at all, that Chrysostom could in no wise Communicate alone, and therefore did not Communicate alone. Which is the Purpose, wherefore all these Allegations are brought.  
M. jewel perceiving very well that for all his former Allegations he could not prove the Clergy bound to the daily communicating, now he goeth about to prove it in the People. And that therefore Chrysostom must needs have some to communicate with him, yea though he said himself he had not one. These are his words.  
jewel. Chrysostom in divers places Seemeth to divide the whole multitude into three sorts, whereof some were Penitent some Negligent, and some devout.  
Stapleton We see presently all this is but a bare guess, by the very words off M. jewel, Seemeth to divide. But let us hear forth.  
jewel. 
The .85. Untruth For the devout Received not always.  The Penitent were commanded away, and might not Communicate. The negligent sometime departed off themselves, and would not Communicate. The devout remained and received together.  
How proveth M. jewel, this later point? You shall hear.  
jewel. Now, that the devout remained still with Chrysostom, the whole time of the holy Mysteries, it is plain by the very same place, that M. Harding here allegeth for his purpose.  
Stapleton Yea: But you must prove that those devout, not only Remained still, but also Received with Chrysostom. How prove you that? You go forth and allege your place.  
jewel. 
Ad pop. Antioch. Homi. 61.  For thus Chrysostom saith unto the people. Thou art come into the Church, and hast song praises unto God, with the rest, and hast confessed thyself to be one of the worthy, in that thou departedest not forth with the unworthy. By these words he showeth that some were worthy, and some unworthy. That the unworthy departed, and the worthy remained.  
Stapleton Yea M. jewel. But here is not One word that those Worthy which Remained, did Receive. That is but your guess. Neither yet is there any word that those which Remained, were all devout. For in deed without guess or aim those unworthy which departed, were the penitents only, which were commanded to depart the Church with the Catechumins or Novices in the faith, strait after the Sermon. And those which remained were all the rest of the people, as well devout as not devout. Again though they were all devout, 
Ad januarium. epistol. 118.  yet will it not follow that they all Received. For by S. Augustins judgement, a man may both Receive and Refrain from Receiving with Devotion. The one he compareth to Zachaeus which gladly and hastily received Christ in to his house, The other to the Centurion, which with no less love of Christ, 
Luca. 7.  said yet, Lord I am not worthy, that thou shouldest entre under my ●oufe. Yea Chrysostom in that place, After he had said in a great Vehemency, 
Homi. 61. a● pop. Antoch.  who so doth not Communicate, is one of the penitents, straightway refraining himself, lest he should seem to condemn all that were present, he sayeth, At ex his non es, sed ex his qui possunt esse participes, & nihil curas, aut magnum opus censes. O but you are not such a penitent, but of the number of those which may Communicate. 
Those which remained in the Church Received not.  But you care not much for the matter, or you think it is a great Business, etc., In which words it appeareth plainly that those which remained, were such as might Communicate: but yet such as partly of Negligence, partly of Fear and Reverence did refrain. And therefore Chrysostom tempering his vehement talk saith unto such. Considera quaeso, Mensa Regalis est apposita, 
The drift of Chrisostom in the Homily alleged.  & caet. Consider I beseech you. The kings table is laid, and so forth in many words, persuading them to come and Receive oftener. After all which long persuasion he concludeth at length, saying. Ne maius itaque vobis judicium faciamus, vos ex●ort●mur, non ut accedatis, sed ut praesentia vos & accessu dignos constituatis. Therefore that we may not increase your judgement (meaning, that the more they were warned, the more should be their Damnation, if they obeyed not) we do exhort you not to come and receive, but to make yourself worthy both to be present and to receive. In which words he leaveth their Coming or not Coming to the Sacrament as free unto them, charging them only to make themselves. Always Worthy thereof, to the intent that at Easter, the epiphany, and such other principal Festes they should not be found Unworthy. For so he disputeth in few lines after saying. Dic mihi, quaeso, post Annum Communionem sumens, Quadraginta ne Dies ad totius temporis Peccatorum purificationem tibi satis esse putas? Et Hebdomade ipsa rursum ad Priora reuer●eris? Tell me I pray thee. 
Ones Receiving in the year.  Thou coming to Receive after a years space, thinkest thou that forty days (he meaneth the Lent time) will be sufficient to purify thee of thy sins of all that time? And then in that very week thou returnest again to thy former sins. For this cause that after Easter the people fell to dissoluteness, Chrysostom exhorted them so to live the rest of the year, that they should Always, though not Come and Receive, yet be Worthy to come and Receive. This is the Drift and End of all Chrysostoms' disputation in that homely, all most directly with out guess or Aim proving Private Mass, that is the daily Sacrifice without Company of Communicants.  
jewel. And again in the same homely he saith. The deacon standing on high, calleth some to the communion, 
The 86. Untruth standing in the manifest Corruption of Chrysostom. Stapleton  and putteth of some, th●usteth out some, and bringeth in some. Chrysostom saith. Some are called, and, some are brought in to receive with the priest. Where then is now M. hardings Nemo?  
Will you never leave to deceive your Reader and to abuse all the world with Patched Sentences beside the purpose? Chrysostom in these words telleth the manner of the deacons at the Service time, how none but worthy are admitted. He speaketh not of any ordinary custom of the people's receiving at every Ministration, as M. jewel would have it to seem. For Chrysostom after he had (as I showed before) persuaded with the people to make themselves always Worthy to Receive, that they might not at Easter come Unworthy, telling them therefore, that living in sin all the year Long, the forty days of Lent would scant serve to purge them, and speaking the same so earnestly, that his hearers began to be afeard even of that one's coming to the Sacrament, he saith at last unto them. Haec dico non uno & annuo vos prohibens accessu, sed vos semper ad sancta volens accedere. 
Ho●●lia 61. ad pop. Antioch.  I speak these things not forbidding you to come ones in the year, but desirous to have you come always to these holy mysteries. After which words it followeth. Propter hoc & Diaconus acclamat tunc sanctos vocans, & per hanc vocem omnium taxans maculas. For this cause (that ye may come worthily) the deacon crieth at that time (at the mass time) calling, the holy, and by this word (Holy) rebuking the faults of al. After which words, discoursing in a few lines by a comparison taken of a flock of sheep, at length he saith of the Deacon. Stans erectus, omnibus appar●ns, & magnum in illa tremenda quiet exclamans, hos quidem vocat hos autem arcet, non manu hoc faciens, sed per linguam quam per manum e●fica●ius. Illa nanque vox in aures incidens nostras, tanquam manus, hos quidem pellin & ei●ci●, hos autem introducit & assistit. He standing upright, in the sight of all the people, and crying Aloud, in that dreadful Silence, some he calleth, and some he putteth of, not doing it with his Hand, but by his toumge more effectuously, then with his hand. For that word (Holy) falling into our ears, like as a hand, driveth out some, and bringeth in other. This is lo, M. jewel, the thrusting out, and bringing in, that the Deacon useth. Not as though he brought in some to Receive as you would make your Reader believe, and as you expressly (but untruly) do say, but because, Crying out Holy, he excluded all Unholy and unworthy persons. All which Chrysostom brought in only to set before the people's eyes, how none but Holy and Worthy might be admitted to receive those Holy Mysteries. He speaketh not one word of the people's communicating with him in Small Companies. But clean contrary, rebuketh their Ones Coming in the year, not so much for that they came but Ones, as for that they came even then Unworthy, or else soon after Easter fell to their old negligence and naughtiness.  
Therefore (to Conclude) notwithstanding all your vain Gheasses, Exceptions, and Allegations, 
private ●asse Concluded.  it is Clere not only by the Words, but also by the Meaning and whole discourse of Chrysostom in that Homely, that the People Received but Ones in the year by any law, o●der, or Custom, and that oftentimes the Daily Sacrifice was made, and yet Nullus qui communicetur. There was not one that came to communicate.  
Thus contrary to the Untruth noted by you upon D. Harding, The Daily Sacrifice was celebrated when Not One came to communicate Sacramentally with the priest. Which is as much to say, there was Private Mass. Thus also the 36. Untruth, where you said M. Harding is able to show no such case, 
pag. 64.  where none of the people were found disposed to receive, is justified and proved no Untruth. For in this Mass of Chrysostom Not One was found. Thus Again the 41. Untruth, where you noted that Private Mass is never found in Chrysostom, is disproved also, and proved most true. Last of all thus we have a Private Mass within the first 600. years, and thus you must Subscribe. There is no remedy.   

A return OF VNTRUHES UPON M. JEWEL. etc.  
The Second Article.  
Harding. 
Diuis. 1.  WHereas under either kind (46.) whole Christ is verily present, this healthful Sacrament is of true Christian people with no less fruit Received under One Kind, then under both.  
jewel. 
pag. 89. The 87. Untruth. Slanderous.  The .46. Untruth. proceeding only of the Gross error of transubstantiation.  
That Christ is wholly Received under either Kind, seemeth an Untruth to M. jewel. And why so? Forsooth because it proceedeth of the Gross error of Transubstantiation. Thus he salueth one sore with an other, and defendeth one heresy with an other, and that condemned in a general Council. But for Truths sake which here I defend, though this heresy of M. jewels be already determined in General Council, 
In Concil. Lateran·  and therefore of no good Christian man any more to be disputed or doubted of, yet I will assay shortly prove it. The rather because a great pith of this Article lieth herein. For if this doctrine of whole Christ to be Received under either kind, proceedeth (as M. jewel saith) of Transubstantiation, this being proved, the other is Concluded. This being Concluded that to Receive under One Kind, is not any Injury to the Receiver, but as healthful and fruitful as to receive under both Kinds, the are the great Outcries and Complaints of the enemies of nods Church cut of, upbraiding the universal practice of Christendom these many hundred years by their own Confession, as guilty of Cruel Injury Done to God's people. And then have they less Cause in this Sacrament of Unite, to raise up such a piteous storm of Variance and Dissension. Though yet M. jewel full wisely in his text saith, (of Receiving whole Christ under either kind).  
jewel. This matter is moved by M. Harding out of season, as being no part of this Question. 
pag. 98.   
Stapleton For so far it belongeth to this Question of Communion under one Kind, that it being once granted, there is no injury that can be pretended, to be done to the people, as yet M. jewel out of the Schoolmen himself laboureth to prove, contrary both to his own last words, 
The .88. Untruth joined with a folly.  and to the whole doctrine of the Schoolmen Alexander de Hales, and Durandus, whom he allegeth very sadly in this place. But to be short, I prove Transubstantiation by Scripture and by authority of the Fathers. If they teach us gross errors, for such let it be taken. 

Transubstantiation proved by Scripture.  
Luc. 22.   The Scripture saith. Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my Body. Which this M. jewel? Can you say. This bread is my Body? You know, Hoc, this, is the neuter gendre. Panis Bread, is the masculine. Then what this? This forsooth which Christ had blessed, and made saying, This is my Body. For the saying of God is making. God maketh with his word. 
Genes. 1.  The word said: Let light be made and light was made. The word said This is my Body. And we believe in so saying because it was not so before, he made it so even then, For, Sine paenitentia sunt donae Dei & vocatio. 
Rom. 11.  God repenteth him not of his gifts and calling. If then that which God hath said, can not be revoked, and Christ true God said (holding in his hand which before he spoke, was but bread) that it was his Body, undoubtedly as he was true God, so by saying he made it his Body. Now because if Christ's true Body were joined with the nature of Bread, as his true Godhead was with the Nature of Flesh, than the nature of Bread should be assumpted and joined in one person with the body of Christ, as his flesh and humanity was joined in one person with his Godhead (which to say is a most wicked and blasphemous heresy) therefore it must of necessity follow, that the nature of Bread be utterly changed in to the Body of Christ, and not to remain with it. This if it be so, then is it a clear and undoubted Transubstantiation, of the whole nature of Bread in to the whole and perfect Body of Christ. Neither is it any gross error, but a clear doctrine evidently gathered out of holy Scripture.  
By authority of the Fathers thus I prove Transubstantiation. S. Ambrose saith, speaking of the Sacrament. Forte dices. Aliud video. Quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus accipiam? Et hoc nobis adhuc superest, ut probemus. 
Transubstantiation proved by the Fathers.  Quantis igitur utimur exemplis ut probemus non hoc esse quod natura formavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit, maioremque vim esse benedictionis quàm naturae, quia benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur. Thou sayest perhaps unto me. 
Lib. de ijs qui initiantur mysteriis. Cap. 9  I see an other manner of thing. How then do you tell me that I receive Christ's body? Then this yet remaineth for us to prove. And how many examples may we use to prove, that it is not that, which Nature fashioned, but that which the Blessing Consecrated, and that the Power of Blessing overcometh Nature, because by Blessing even very Nature is changed? Thus far S Ambrose. In the Sacrament, that which Nature made, 
Nature is Changed.  is bread. This Nature saith S. Ambrose is changed. And how? By Blessing. Into what is it changed? In to that which Blessing Consecrated. Now what doth Blessing Consecrate, what is the end of the Consecration made by Blessing? What else but the Body of Christ? Therefore by S. Ambrose his judgement the nature of bread is changed in to the body of Christ. This is a Clear Transubstantiation by the verdict of S. Ambrose. Eusebius Emissenus an other ancient and learned Father speaketh of this changing of Bread in to Christ's body, more evidently. His words are. 
De Pascha Homil. 5.  invisibilis Sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis & sanguinis sui, verbo suo, secreta potestate convertit, ita dicens: Accipite & edite: hoc est enim Corpus meum. The invisible Priest (Christ) turneth by his word, with a secret power, the visible creatures in to the substance of his Body and Blood, saying. Take and eat. For this is my body. What are here the visible Creatures turned into the Body and Blood of Christ, but the Bread and Wine which he took in his hands at the last Supper? What is Transubstantiation, if this be not? Go now M. jewel and against the holy Scripture, and such learned Fathers, call it a gross error, if ye list. Truly none but gross Capharnaites can call this Doctrine gross, 
The Catholic Doctrine of Christ's Real presence in the Sacrament.  which in deed is the kaye of all our Conjunction with Christ, the assured warrant of our Resurrection, the continual Miracle of the Son of God, the most heavenly and dreadful Mystery that Christ left to his Church. Of this most assured Doctrine, because Christ is no more any dead body (for death shall no more prevail over him) it followeth evidently that his body is not without Blood. M. jewel requireth some ancient Doctor to say so. Yea truly he is full of his demands. But when all is said, and a number of Doctors brought, it nothing moveth him. Touching this point, if either Doctors or Scripture can persuade him, that Christ's whole humanity is really in the Sacrament (whereof he saith, jewel. 
pag. 98.  Bold Vaunts have been made, but was never yet proved) Let him read the book lately set forth of our lords Supper, 
By D. Sanders.  and the Confutation of the fift Article of his Reply therein, he shall find Doctors and Scriptures abundantly to avouch the same. Wherein being once persuaded, he will never ask. what Doctor in express words said, that whole Christ is under one kind. Or if he be so Frantic and wilful as always to strive upon Terms, when the Thing is evident, yet all well meaning folk will soon be persuaded, that receiving Christ really present under the form of Bread, they receive not only his blessed Flesh, but Blood also, without the which the Flesh of Christ is not. Wherein they shall see there is no injury done unto them, as M. jewel declaimeth, having it under one kind. Nay rather (which I beseech all good Readers to Mark) M. jewel and his fellows doth most open and cruel injury to all good Christian people of England, 
Protestant's do a thousand fold more Injury to the People, by their double kind, than the Catholics in One Kind.  giving them but Bread and Wine, in the Remembrance of Christ's death, whereas the Catholic Church beside the true Body of Christ really present under form of Bread, giveth also to the people a cup of Wine, and so giveth the other kind as much as they do, giving no more but mere wine at their Communion table. Thus if we esteem the outward forms Catholics give as much. If we esteem the thing itself, Catholics give the very true Body of Christ really present, which Protestants give not, and Wine also no less than the protestants.  
Harding. 
diuis. 2.  Now concerning the outward forms of Bread, and Wine, (47) their use is employed in signification only. And be not off necessity, so as Grace may not be obtained by worthy receiving of the Sacrament, unless both kinds be Ministered.  
jewel. The .47. Untruth. 
pag. 99 The .89. Untruth Slanderous.  For the Bread and Wine signify the Body and Blood of Christ. The whiteness, the roundness and other outward forms signify nothing.  
Stapleton D. Harding saith: the outward forms of bread and wine do but signify, that is, are but the figures of the Body and blood of Christ, and therefore seeing (as it was proved before in proving Transubstantiation) that the Body of Christ is really present under the form of Bread, and without Blood the body of Christ is not, the other kind for grace to be obtained is not Necessary. For receiving whole Christ, there can be no want of grace. M. jewel saith: All this is an Untruth. And why? For (saith he) the Bread and Wine signify the Body and Blood of Christ. This is in plain terms the Sacramentary heresy clearly overthrown by the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, which being (as I said before) so clearly and abundantly proved against M. jewel, it shall not need here to stand about the confutation of it.  
Harding. In distributing the blessed Sacrament to Christian people the Church hath used liberty (which Christ never embarred by any commandment to the contrary) so as it hath ever been moste for the behoulfe and commodity of the Receivers. And hath ministered sometimes both kinds, sometimes one kind only, as it hath been thought most expedient in Regard of time, place, and persons.  
jewel. 
The 90. Untruth Slaund. The 91. Untruth in belying the state of the question.  The .48. Untruth. The Church never thus ministered the Sacrament unto the people in any open Congregation within the space of 600. years.  
You altar the question M. jewel, and in so doing you yield. Your first Challenge was. Or that there was any Communion Ministered unto the people under one kind. Thus it standeth in your Sermon, and thus it is again repeated in the front or title of this Article. Now because you see yourself clean overthrown in that overbold assertion of yours, you put in these words (in any open Congregation) which is no part of your Challenge, and therefore of D. Harding not intended to be confuted. So in the very entry of this article, you tell the reader (and in so telling him, you mock him and deceive him) that the question moved between D. Harding and you, was moved, thus. jewel. 
Pag. 96.  Whether the holy Communion at any time within the space of six hundred years after Christ, were ever ministered 
* Those words are not in in the Sermon, nor in any part of the Challenge.  Openly in the Church: unto the people under one kind. This is a manifest and notorious Untruth, M. jewel. These words Openly in the Church, be not in your Sermon, They be not in your Challenge. You never moved your question so. Why do you so lie and deceive your Reader? If you had moved the Question so, you had been by D. Harding so answered and satisfied. Now having never moved your question with that condition (Openly in the Church) you cry out, 
M. jewel crieth Guilty and yieldeth.  that D. Harding hath brought private houses and private men to prove Communion under one kind, and not done Openly in the Church. Whereby you cry Guilty, and yield that your Challenge is overthrown. But now you will renew the Combat, and make a new state of the Question: And when that shall be Answered than you may yet once again Renew it, and Add farther some other Clause or Condition unto it, and so never have end of quarreling. As touching this Untruth, because D. Harding saith only the Church ministered sometimes in both kinds, sometimes in one kind, which you confess of private men he hath proved it, you note it an Untruth, because he hath not proved it to have been so ministered in open congregation. Which is no untruth on D. hardings part, which hath proved that which he saith, and that which you craked no man alive could prove. But it is on your part M. jewel a double and a pregnant, Untruth. First to note an Untruth where none is. And then so Impudently to Alter the question. You have cried shame and Corruption against yourself. God amend you.  
Harding. As touching the words of Christ, 
diuis. 3.  bibite ex hoc omnes. Drink ye all of this. They pertain to the Apostles only and their successors.  
jewel. The .49. Untruth. For these words pertain as well to the people as to the priests, as shall appear. 
The .92. Untruth Slaund. Stapleton jewel. pag. 191.   
Stapleton In the text M. jewel bringeth these reasons to make it so appear. First, he saith.  
If M. Harding will follow the letter, the words be plain. Drink ye all of this.  
I answer. If M. jewel will follow the letter, than not only all the people such as be of lawful years and discretion, but also all infants and children that are Christened, must receive both kinds. Which yet in the religion of protestants is thought so great an abuse, that the Communicating of infants being in S. Augustins time and long before a customable thing, they note it for an error in the doctrine of S. Augustin, that infants ought to communicate. And yet the words of Christ be plain. Drink ye all of this. Therefore the letter as it forceth not infants to receive under any kind at all, so neither doth it force the lay people to receive under both kinds. M. jewel goeth forth.  
jewel. 
The .93. Untruth For S. Paul there hath not opened these words drink ye all of this in that sense as M. jewel fancyeth.  If M. Harding will leave the letter and take the meaning, S. Paul hath opened it. For writing unto the whole Congregation at Corinthe, he saith thus. As often as shall eat this bread, and drink of this Cup, ye shall declare the lords death, until he come. If he doubt S. Paul, yet the very practice and continual order of the primitive Church fully declareth what Christ meant. And they say, Custom is the best interpreter of the law. If he will take neither the words of Christ, nor Christ's meaning, than I know not how to deal with him.  
Doubt you not M. jewel. D. Harding will take and obey both Christ's words and his meaning with all his heart. As for the words, you see they can not be precisely taken for all without exception. For then (as I said) children and infants should be forced to receive. Which you think a great abuse, 
The .94. Untruth That practice declareth no such meaning ● is by ●. jewel before avouched  and we are persuaded that it needeth not. Now then for the meaning of Christ, you bring S. Paul and the practice of the primitive Church which ministered under both kinds to the people, and here you will have Custom to interpret the law. I grant S. Paul and the primitive Church used so to do long and many years. But after the same Church of Christ many hundred years also used the contrary. As yourself can not deny. Now then here be two Customs. Here is a double practice of the Church. What then? Hath one of these two broken Christ's Institution? No M. jewel. We hold (and I have proved it in an other place) that the Church of Christ can never err damnably. 
In The Fo●tresse etc.  As truly to break Christ's Institution is a damnable error. Therefore by these two customs of the Church of God, by this double practice of Christian people, we gather the meaning of Christ's words (drink ye all of this) not to have been precisely spoken as a commandment to all Christian people, but to the Apostles and their successors, which should for ever Celebrat and receive that holy Sacrament under both kinds. I will put you a clear example hereof confessed by yourself. In the primitive Church certain hundred years, the Sacrament was ministered to infants and sucking Children being Christened, yea even jointly with their baptism. The Church of many hundred years following, altered this custom, and admitted only Christian folk of ripe years and discretion unto this holy Sacrament, as we see it in our days practised. This custom you have not altered, but keep it still, and think it no offence either against Christ's literal words, Drink ye all of this, either against the meaning of the words interpreted by the custom of the primitive Church. Now as you would think him unreasonable M. jewel, which would say to you, Sir. Christ said drink ye all of this. The words be plain, and excludeth none. 
M. jewel. is cast in his own turn.  wherefore then do ye not admit babes and infants to drink thereof? If ye will not follow the letter, yet the very practice and continual order of the primitive Church at what time Babes did Communicate, fully declareth what Christ meante· Therefore if you will take neither the words of Christ, nor Christ's meaning, than I know to not how deal with you, As I say you would and might well think him very unreasonable, specially if he were instructed by you that the universal Church of Christ, used the contrary order many hundred years after, whereby he might learn neither the words nor the meaning of Christ to touch precisely infants or Babes, so truly are you M. jewel very unreasonable, and a trifling wrangler, to press the literal words of Christ, which yourself must needs limit, and so to urge the meaning of Christ upon the practice of S. Paul and the primitive Church, dissembling the contrary practice of the Church these many hundred years, whereby you know your self that neither the letter nor the meaning of Christ's words do of necessity touch the lay people, to do I say all this, and then to conclude, If he will take neither the words of Christ, nor the meaning, I know not how to deal with him. Truly with such a wrangler and Childish quarreler as you be, with such a dissembler and deceiver of God's people, I know not in the world how to deal.  
Harding. Above one hundred years past (50) changing the old custom of the Church of receiving the Communion under one kind by their private authority. 
diuis. 4.   
jewel. 
pag. 102. The .95. Untruth Slaunderours, and peevish.  The .50. Untruth. They changed not but restored the old custom.  
Stapleton The schismatics of Bohem (of whom D. Harding speaketh) changed that old custom, which the Church then used and had before many hundred years used. This was true. And therefore no untruth of D. Harding to say it. But they restored the old, saith M. jewel. What then? Ergo they changed not? This fond peevish argument will the better appear by the like. The Apostatas and rennagat Sacramentaries of Lithuania playing now the jews and using Circuncision, 
M. jewels Argument.  are charged of the Catholics to break the accustomed law of the Church of God. They answer and reason thus. We restore the old law of God testified in holy Scripture. Ergo we change not the law of God. Who seeth not the Fallacy of this lewd Argument, by the equivocation, or similitude in terms of the two old and accustomed laws of God? Howbeit those schismatics of Bohem are not so much charged by D. Harding for changing the old custom, as for doing it by their private authority. This was the cause of their schism: Not the change itself.  
Harding. 
Diuis. 6.  Luther instructed of the Devil with arguments against the Sacrifice of the Mass, (51) that the memory of our redemption by Christ wrought on the Cross, might utterly be abolished.  
jewel. The .51. Untruth joined with a slander. 
The .96. Untruth Slanderous.  Never man spoke more reverently of the oblation of Christ upon the Crosse.  
Stapleton What is the Untruth M. jewel? Is it not true that Luther had arguments given him of the Devil against the Sacrifice of the Mass? Then let the shame be Luther's, who made such a lie of himself. For he writeth so himself in his book De Missa angulari. Which book also D. Harding alleged in the margin of this place in his own book, though it be here by you or your printer omitted. You put to the Untruth a slander. And why? Forsooth because Luther spoke reverently of the oblation of Christ upon the Crosse. So the Arrians spoke reverently of Christ's humanity, but yet denied his Divinity. And the Manichees spoke reverenly of Christ's Divinity. But yet denied his true flesh and humanity. Heretics speak always some things well and truly. Else they should be infidels not heretics. That the Mass and daily Sacrifice of Christ's Church is a clear memory of our redemption wrought upon the Cross it may appear by the testimonies of the Fathers brought in the former Article to prove a Daily Sacrifice. 
In the leaf. 21.  Therefore to abolish the Mass and the Daily Sacrifice of Christ's Church, whether it were Luther's intent or the Devils that instructed him, certain it is, the end thereof was to abolish the memory of our redemption. And how well you keep that memory in your bread and wine, it shall appear by the Confutation of M. jewels. xvij. Article.  
Harding. A canon alleged for receiving under one kind out of the first Council of Ephesus, Taken out of Vrbanus Regius a Doctor of Luther's school, in his book De locis communibus.  
jewel. 
The .97. Untruth Slanderous.  The .52. Untruth. There was no such Canon touched or once moved in that Council.  
Stapleton Then it is an Untruth of Vrbanus Regius, your own pewfelowe, not off D. Harding. Let the shame be his, if it were not true: And yet it is not proved false, but only because M. jewel never saw it.  
Harding. Nestorius' amongst other Errors held opinion, (53.) that under the Form off Bread in the Sacrament is contained the Body off Christ without his Blood.  
jewel. 
The .98. Untruth Slanderous.  The .53. Untruth. Nestorius never dreamt of any such folly.  
Stapleton If Nestorius never dreamt any such thing (as M. jewel maketh himself sure) than Vrbanus Regius, Alardus, Michael Veh, Hosius and other Writers out of whom D. Harding took this saying (as also the Canon that should be made in the Ephesine Council) were deceived. It is no Untruth of D. harding to Report that he findeth written in good Authors. Unless also by M. jewels divinity, we may say Saint Ambrose and S. Augustine wrote Untruly, alleging certain Canons of the Nicene Council, which yet now in that Council are not to be found. 
The singular lewdness of M. jewel.  M. jewel is so at square with all Writers and learned men that have been these ix. hundred years (except a few sense Luther's time, which will say as he sayeth) that he will believe nothing at their Report, unless he find it recorded in the first 600. years also. And then I marvel why he believeth the very Writers of the first 600. years, seeing he can not know that those Writers wrote in that age, but by the Histories, Chronicles and Testimonies of these later writers, as by Thrithemius, Gennadius, Vrspergensis, Sabelli●us, and such like. For as well might he say that these later Writers had forged such books as S. Augustine S. Jerome, S. basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and other learned Fathers are said to have written, and all such Councils, which in those years are said to have been holden, as to discredit other parcels off the Fathers, or Canons of Counsels which are reported by them, though such things in the Fathers and councils are not to be found. And so may M. jewel make a Religion off his own, believe himself no man and yet require all men to believe him.  
But because M. jewel speaketh so peremptorely, that Nestorius never dreamt no such thing, you shall see how likely he was not to dream only but even to Speak and teach such an heresy or folly, as M. jewel termeth it, 
M. jewel confesseth a foil in the Lutherans.  as to say that under the form of Bread in the Sacrament is contained the Body of Christ without Blood. Which yet the Lutherans granting the real presence of Christ's body with the bread and teaching withal that the people receiving under one kind, have injury, and do receive less than if they received both●, are not far from. For by their opinion it followeth, that lacking somewhat under the one kind, and having yet the Body of Christ, they lack the blood which is under the other kind only. Now M. jewel though he be a Sacramentary, yet hath he good cause to favour the Lutherans, 
Peter Martyr.  for his old Master's sake, who at his first coming to Oxford, was an upright Lutheran, and specially for Luther's sake who struck the first sparkle of this great glorious light, that M. jewel and his fellows, so vaunteth of. As touching Nestorius, his opinion was that we received the Flesh of Christ in the Sacrament without his divinity. These are the words of Nestorius himself, as Cyrillus recordeth them. N●storius inquit, Audite attendentes verba. Qui manducat car●em meam, 
Cyrillus ad Euoptium: In oppos●tione ad Anamathe ●ismum 11. Tom. ulii.  memores estote quòd de carne est sermo: & quòd non a me adiectum est carnis nomen, ne videar sinistre interpretari. Qui manducat meam carnem & bibit meum singuinem, in me munet & ego in eo. Non ditit: Qui manducat meam divinitatem, & bibit meam d●uinitatem. Qui manducat meam carnem, inquit, & meum sanguinem bibit, in me manet & ego in eo. Memores estote, quod de carne dictum sit. Nestorius saith. Hear and hearken to the words, He that eateth my Flesh. Remember that Flesh is here mentioned, and that the name of Flesh is not added by me, lest I seem to expound amiss. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, abideth in me and I in him. He saith not. He that eateth my divinity, and drinketh my divinity. He that eateth my Flesh, saith he, and drinketh my Blood, abideth in me and I him. Remember that this is spoken of the Flesh. Thus far Nestorius persuading his hearers that we received the bare Flesh of Christ in the Sacrament without the divinity or Godhead adjoined. Against the which damnahle Heresy, Cyrillus disputing in the same place saith. Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronuncias, & ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentes? Dost thou (speaking to Nestorius) call this our Sacrament, the eating of man's Flesh, and provoke the Hearts of the faithful to gross cogitations? This then being the Opinion of Nestorius, as it is here evident that it was, that in the Sacrament we did eat the Flesh of Christ only, and drink the Blood only without the Divinity adjoined, it must consequently follow that his opinion was, that the bare Flesh was in the Sacrament a part by itself, and the Blood by itself. For (and mark well this reason) the cause why the Catholic Church believeth that under one part of the Sacrament whole Christ is contained, 
Why the Catholics believe that under either kind whole Christ is present.  and therefore the blood with the body, is because it believeth that under that one part of the Sacrament Christ is as God, and not as bare man or bare flesh. Upon this belief also it is grounded that whole Christ is at one time in many places by the way of this most mystical Sacrament, as Chrysostom and Primasius upon the 10. chapter to the Hebrews, do in express words declare. 
See their words before fol. 22.  Now Nestorius not believing any such divinity to be joined with the body of Christ in the Sacrament, but the bare flesh to be by itself, and the Blood in like manner by itself, it is easy to judge that he was of this opinion, that under the form of Bread in the Sacrament, was the Body of Christ without Blood, which is the thing that D. Harding and those other learned writers do report of him. And the which M. jewel peremptorely denieth without any proof or Reason in the world to the contrary, but only by his Negative Proofs, Such and such mention no such thing, Ergo there was no such matter. Thus whether D. Harding spoke beside Truth and learning, let the indifferent reader judge.  
Harding. 
Diuis. 10.  For whereas Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, they baptized in the name of jesus Christ (54) only.  
The .54. Untruth. A foul depravation of the Scriptures. 
Iowell. pag. 113. The .99. Untruth Slanderous. not only to D. Hard. but to S. Hilary whose very words those are.   
This depravation M. jewel layeth to D. hardings charge for putting the word (only) in the last place. Truth it is, that the Only baptim mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, is mentioned to have been given in the name of jesus. As in the second, the tenth, the eight and the seventeenth chapters it may be seen. And so it is no Untruth, that by the letter of holy Scripture, the Apostles baptized only in the name of jesus Christ. The displacing of a word which altereth not the sense (unless M. jewel can prove it was done of fraud or malice) is no Untruth in any upright judgement. The sense of holy scripture being kept, the Scripture is not depraved, though some word be put out of order. Now that the Scripture so saith, both the only mentioning of such form of baptim, in all the Acts of the Apostles, both the letter itself I say, and the meaning also of the letter, if we believe the judgement of S. Ambrose, convinceth. S. Ambrose disputing of this baptim mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, hath these words. Cum dicitur, In nomine domini nostri jesu Christi, per unitatem nominis impletum mysterium est. 
De spiritu S. lib. 1. Cap. 3.  When it is said, In the name of our lord jesus Christ, by the unite of the name, the sacrament is complete. For (as S. Ambrose saith also in that place) he that is blessed in Christ, is blessed in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Thus by the letter and by the meaning of the letter (if we believe. S. Ambrose) baptim was given in the name of Christ Only without mentioning the Father and the Holy Ghost, and yet in deed, in the name of all.  

A clear Example of M. Iewell●s Gross Ignorance, or else of Wilful Malice.  But behold (good Reader) either the Gross Ignorance, or the Wilful Malice of M. jewel. This very saying and proposition of D. Harding, which M. jewel noteth for an Untruth, and which Slanderously he calleth, A foul depravation of holy Scripture, those very words I say, are the clear saying of that most learned and most holy Father S. Hilary, uttered of him above twelve hundred years past. For that holy Father alleging against the Arrians, as D. Harding doth here against M. jewel and his fellows, that many things Commanded by Christ, were altered by the Apostles, and their Successors, bringeth this very matter for an example as D. Harding doth, and uttereth these very words. Apostoli baptisare in Nomine Patris & filii & Spiritus Sancti iussi, 
In lib. de Synodis adversus Arrian●s.  Tantum in jesus Nomine Baptisaverunt. The Apostles being Commanded to baptize in the Name of the Father and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they baptized in the Name of jesus Christ Only. Go now M. jewel, take your pen, and score up this Untruth upon S. Hilary, 
M. jewel in Slandering D. Harding, slandereth S. Hilary.  as you have done here upon D. Harding. Tell your Reader, whom you feed with lies and Slanderous Untruths, that S. Hilary hath made A foul depravation of the Scriptures as you Slanderously have told him that D. Ha●ding did make. Be wise I pray you A●one, understand the Scriptures Alone, Believe yourself no Body, and yet look to be believed Alone. By such Impudence, you uphold your Religion.  
Harding. 
diuis. 10.  To the Apostles only, and their successors, and to none other the (55) Catholic Church hath ever referred the necessity of that commaundemeut, Drink ye all of this: And that in the celebration of the Sacrifice.  
jewel. The .55. Untruth. The Catholic or universal Church, never understood it so, but only the Church of Rome, 
pag. 118. The 100 Untruth Sl●und. The 101. Untruth For the Church of Rome is neither late, nor particular  which is but late and mere particular.  
The Church of Rome is at this day the most ancient Church in Christendom. The succession thereof hath continued from S. Peter the Head of the Apostles until these our days without interruption, by the number of 230. bishops which yet M. jewel calleth a late Church, even as he calleth the Catholic religion a corruption of late years.  
Again he saith, it is a mere particular Church, and therefore no Catholic Church. Yes forsooth M. jewel it is called the Catholic Church of the learned Fathers of the first 600. years. When S. Paul said the Church of God to be the pillar of truth, what Church meant he M. jewel? 
1. ad Timo. 3.  Meant he any particular Church and not rather the Catholic and universal church of all Christendom, which in deed can not serve from the truth, as particular church's both may and have done? yet S. Ambrose expounding that place of S. Paul, and speaking of that universal Church of God, saith: 
In commentar. in 1. ad Tim. 3.  Cuius hody rector est Damasus whose ruler at this day Damasus is. This Damasus was then Pope. Lo by the judgement of S. Ambrose (who I may be bold to say, understood the Scriptures as well as M. jewel) the bishop of Rome, is the Ruler of the universal Church. And how then is the Church of Rome of which the Pope is bishop a mere particular Church? Verily S. Hierom calleth the faith of Rome, the Catholic faith, writing against Ruffinus in these words, Fidem suam quam vocat? 
In Apologia 1. adversus Rufinun.  Eam ne qua Romana pollet Ecclesia? an illam quae in Origenis voluminibus continetur? Si Romanam responderit ergo Catholici sumus. Sin Origenis blasphemia illius fides est, se haereticum probat. What doth he call his faith? Meaneth he that faith, 
The faith of Rome.  which the Church of Rome alloweth? or that which in the books of Origen is taught? If he answer, it is the faith of Rome, than we be Catholics. But if Origens' blasphemy be his faith, he proveth himself an heretic. Thus the faith of Rome and the Catholic faith is to S. Hieron all one. Last of all S. Cyprian calleth the Church of Rome Catholicae ecclesiae radicem & matricem. The root and mother church of the Catholic Church. 
Lib. 4. ●pist. 8.  Go now M. jewel and call the Church of Rome a mere particular Church. It shall be no Untruth neither for D. Harding, nor for any man else, to call the determination of the Church of Rome, the determination of the Catholic Church, as long as we have S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, and S. Cyprian to say with us.  
Harding. 
Diuis. 12.  The two Disciples in Emaus as soon as they knew Christ in breaking of the Bread, he vanished away from their sighter t●at he took the Cup into his hands and blessed it, and gave it unto them, (56.) as it appeareth evidently enough to S. Augustin, to Bede, and to all other that be not wilfully opinative.  
jewel. 
pag. 122. T●e .102. Untruth Slanderous. The .103. Untruth. For beside S. Augustin and Bede S. Chrystom (one other ancient father) is of that mind.  The .56. Untruth. Neither S. Augustine, nor Beda, nor any other Ancient Father hath any such word, but rather the contrary.  
yes forsooth. Both S. Augustin and Bede, and Chrysostom an other ancient Father do teach the same Breaking of Bread to have been the Sacrament. Which is the thing that D. Harding there affirmeth. And that Christ took not the Cup at all, it was no deed to allege doctors. The Scripture in that place of S. Luke is plain. Where no one word of the Cup is made. S. Augustin saith of this place. Non incongruenter accipimus, hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana factum fuisse, ne agnosceretur jesus: Sed tamen a Christo facta est permissio usque ad Sacramentū●is, 
August. In li. 3. de consensu evangelistarum cap. 25.  ut unitate Corporis eius participata removeri intelligatur impedimentum inimici, ut Christus possit agnosci. We think it not amiss to say, that their eyes were blinded by the Devil, so that they could not know jesus. Yet notwithstanding that was done by the permission of Christ, until the Sacrament of the Bread. To th'intent that the unite of Christ's Body being participated, the let of the enemy might be removed, and Christ acknowleadged. This exposition yea and these very words of S. Augustin, 
Beda. li. 6. Theophyl. In cap. Luc. 24.  Bede in his commentaries upon S. Luke followeth and repereth. As also Theophilact followeth herein Chrysostom (whose words we shall 
* In the .57. Untruth.  hereafter recite) and saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He insinuateth yet an other thing. That these Discipes participating the blessed Bread, had their eyes strait ways opened to know Christ. For the flesh of our Lord hath a great and unspeakable virtue. Thus lo by the judgement of S. Augustine and Bede, of Chrysostom and Theophilact, that Bread which Christ gave to the disciples in Emaus, was the Sacrament of his Body. Here is no one word neither in the Scripture, neither in those Doctors off the Cup. And therefore by their judgement here is a clear case of a Communion under One kind Ministered by our Saviour himself. And so it is proved true, that Doctor harding said of a Communion under one kind ministered to the disciples at Emaus. What saith M. jewel to these Doctors? He sayeth.  
jewel. 
pag. 123. The .104 Untruth For it was the Sacrament, as it hath been proved.  First, the Bread that Christ broke at Emaus, was common table bread, and not the Sacrament.  
S. Augustine, and Bede, S. Chrysostom and Theophilact say the contrary. Who is better to be credited? M. jewel, or these ancient Fathers? Truly he offereth himself to yield unto them.  
jewel. 
The .105. Untruth For it is gathered by good proof out of God's word.  secondly that, albeit some Writers seem to call it the Sacrament, yet none of them saith, it was Ministered in one kind, as M. harding by his (105) slender Gheasses would seem to gather.  
Not some writers, but some ancient Fathers, not seem to call it, but in express words do call it the Sacrament as you have heard. And though none of them say it was ministered in one kind, yet both they and the Scripture making no mention at all of more kinds than one, do give us to understand that under one kind only it was Ministered. 
Lucae. 28.  And that by the rule off Master jewel himself, 
pag. 68  who sayeth. Argumentum ab authoritate negative, is thought to be good, when so ever proof is taken off God's word. And is used not only by us, but also by Saint Paul, and by many Catholic Fathers. Therefore it is no slender guess, 
Luc. 28,  but a good Proof out off God's word. Saint Luke in that place mentioned but One Kind. Ergo Christ Ministered at the time under one kind. 
M. jewel saith and unsaieth.  Yet here to this Argument M. jewel saith. This Argument may be good in Master hardings divinity, but it is off Small force in goodlogike. And thus when it maketh for M. jewel, it shall be a good Argument, and such as both S. Paul, and the holy Fathers have used. But when it maketh against him, than it is of small force, etc.  
jewel. 
The .106 Untruth For Christ's example proveth well our purpose. The 107. Untruth For these two disciples in Emaus were then no priests.  Thirdly although he were able to prove that Christ Ministered so at that time and in that place, yet were all this (106) nothing to prove his purpose. For we join issue of the people. He (107) answereth of the Priests.  
Those two disciples in Emaus were of the .72. disciples, not of the Apostles: And therefore at that time they were no Priests. Again if Priests may receive under one kind, much more the people. For the order of Priesthood is the more excellent.  
I speak of the Church: He speaketh of an Inn.  

The .108 Untruth  In the tenor of your challenge you speak of no Church. You have so altered the question sense. 
For in your challenge you speak not of the Church.  Because you see you are overthrown in your assertion. Again the example of Christ (me thinketh M. jewel) should prevail with you whether it were in Inn or Church. Unless by the like reason you will except against the example of Christ in his last Supper. For that was also done in an Inn (Master jewel) and not in a Church.  
jewel. And to conclude by this example it (109) appeareth that Christ himself received in one kind. 
The .109 Untruth For that appeareth not in the Scripture  Which one thing overthroweth all that M. Harding hath built.  
How prove you M. jewel that Christ Received with the disciples at Emaus under One kind? It appeareth not in Scripture that with those disciples he received himself at all, either under one kind, or under both. Again if he did, will you teach Christ his duty? Though Christ commanded all priests to receive under both kinds, when they ministered to others, yet you will not (I trow) be so malapert, as to force Christ thereunto. Christ is God blessed for ever M. jewel. You are a Base Creature.  
M. jewel goeth forth and because S. Augustine himself in an other place, Bede, and S. Gregory do say, 
August. in caten●. in 24. Lucae. Greg. in evang homil. 23.  that those two disciples used a kind of hospitality in Emaus, straining Christ, (whom they took for a stranger) to come into the Inn and refresh himself with them, because I say, these Doctors say so, he inferreth that it was not the Sacrament which Christ broke and gave unto them. His reason is this. 
M. jewels Argument   
The Disciples in Emaus used Hospitalite to Christ in an Inn.  
Ergo Christ did not give them at that time the Sacrament.  
This fond argument will appear by a like.  
Christ and the Apostles did eat the jews passover in an Inn. 
M. jewel allegeth late writers against the old Doctors.   
Ergo he did not celebrat the Sacrament there.  
Now that after all this, he allegeth Dionysius the charter monk, Antonius julianus, Nicolaus de Lyra, and Wildefordus in a contrary sentence to S. Augustine and Beda, to Chrysostom and Theophilact, if we should do so, he would Laugh us to scorn, and turn them of with his Common Prescriptions of 600. years and so forth. Therefore trouble yourself no more M. jewel, with heaping up these writers against the Ancient Fathers, unless you will believe and say as they do in the Substance of our Faith. Which if you do, you shall not mislike the diverse judgements of diverse learned men, agreeing yet in One Faith. Howbeit in all such diversity, both you and we must always prefer the Ancient Fathers by so Universal and Long Consent of the Church allowed, and Authorised, before late writers not so allowed and authorized. And thus I leave to the judgement of every indifferent Reader, not only how untruly you have charged D. Harding, but much more how untruly you have quarreled against this clear proof of Communion under one kind, out of holy Scripture it self.  
Harding. 
diuis. 13.  Chrysostom and other Fathers understand that Bread that S. Paul in peril off shipwreck took, gave thanks over, brake and eat, to be the Holy Sacrament.  
jewel. 
jewel. pag. 125. The 110. Untruth Slanderous.  The .57. Untruth. Chrysostom understandeth it of Common meat.  
Stapleton. To this you have been answered M. jewel long before your book came forth in print, by a Brief answer of D. Harding to this and other your Slanderous Untruths, where with you charged him at Paul's Cross in your Sermon made there the viii. of july this last Summer. Yet you have let it go forth stoutly for an Untruth, dissembling utterly all that hath been said in defence thereof. Yea you vaunt further and you say in your text.  
jewel. 

pag. 126. The .111. Untruth. ●or he gave it to S. Luke and his other disciples: Who were no infidels pardy.  
The .112. Untruth. For this exposition is not contrary to the other saying of Chrysostom.   If S. Paul gave the Sacrament being at that time in the Ship, he gave it (111) only to infidels, that knew not Christ.  
No forsooth he gave it to Luke and his other disciptes, as Chrysostom saith, who were no infidels, you will yourself confess. You shall hear anon the words of Chrysostom.  
And Chrysostom's exposition even in the same place is (112) plain to the contrary. For thus he enlargeth S. Paul's words that he spoke to the mariners. I pray you take some sustenance, It is beboufull for you that ye so ●oo. That is to say, take some meat, lest perhaps ye die for hunger.  
No man denieth, but that the mariners were infidels. No man saith that by Chrysostoms' mind, Paul gave them the Sacrament. And therefore you have proved that no man denieth. But what conclude you of all this? You say.  
jewel. 
The .113. Untruth. For D. Harding. hath made no untrue report of his doctor.  Now let M. Harding either say these words are spoken of the Sacrament, or confess that he hath made (113) Untrue report of his doctor.  
No M. jewel, he will say neither of these: and yet shall his first saying be true. For how say you M. jewel? Hath Chrysostom mentioned this fact of Paul in no place, but in his commentaries upon that place? If you had been a sober writer, and not a quarreling wrangler, you might justly have said. Sir I find no such thing in Chrysostom upon that place, and therefore unless you name us where Chrysostom so said, it may be thought, you have missereported him. Thus or in some like manner, as you know best yourself, M. jewel, had not this wilful heresy taken away all modesty, you might have laid to D. hardings charge. Now you first put it for an Untruth in the margin, yea and repeat it again in the next Untruth following, than you charge him in your text for an Untrue Reporter of his doctor, and all most Untruly and Slanderously on your part. For these are the words of Chrysostom, or as M. Nowell speaketh, 
Hom. 17. operis imperfecti.  of an ancient writer printed with Chrysostom and long taken for him, Sed quia de sanctis caepimus dicere etc. Because we have begun to speak of holy things, it is not to be left unspoken, that sanctification is one thing, and that which is sanctified an other. For Sanctification is that which sanctifieth an other. But that which is sanctified, can not sanctify an other, though itself be holy. As for example: 
The sign of the Crosse.  Thou makest the sign of the Cross over thy bread, right so as S. Paul saith. For it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. Thou hast sanctified it, thou hast not made it Sanctification. But that which the priest giveth with his hand is not only a thing sanctified, 
The Bl. Sacrament is a sancticationfis.  but also Sanctification. For as much as not only that is given, which is seen, but also which is understanded. And so it is lawful to cast of the sanctified bread to beasts, and to infidels, because it doth not sanctify the receiver. But if that which is tak●n of the hand of the priest were such a thing as that which is eaten from of the board, all would eat from of the board, and no man would eat of the priests hand. Wherefore our Lord also did not only bless the bread in the way (he meaneth at Emaus) but gave it also with his hand unto Cleophas and his fellow. 
●uc. 24.  And Paul as he was under sail did not only bless the bread, 
Act●. 27.  but also gave it to Luke and to his other disciples. Now that which is given with the hand, is not to be given to beasts, nor to infidels, for that is not only Sanctified, but also Sanctification and sanctifieth the receiver. Thus far Chrysostom. In which words he doth both expound the place of the 24. of S. Luke (whereof I spoke a little before) for the Sacrament, and also saith expressly touching this place which we now talk of, the 27. of the Acts, that S. Paul in the ship gave the bread with his hand to Luke, and to the rest of his disciples (not to infidels M. jewel) and that the same was not only a holy Thing, more than Common Meat sanctified by prayer, and the word of God, but also Sanctification, which Sanctifieth and maketh Holy the Receiver, which is the Blessed Sacrament M. jewel, not Common Meat. And thus M. jewel, Chrysostom is not missereported of D. Harding, but D. Harding is Slandered by M. jewel.  
Harding. 
diuis. 14.  It is not to be marveled at, albeit S. Paul delivered to the Corinthians th'institution of our lords Supper under both kinds, that yet upon occasion given, and when condition of time so required (58) he ministered the Communion under one kind, etc.  
jewel. The 58. Untruth. S. Paul never ministered the Communion so. 
pag. 126. The .114. Vntruth● slanderous.   
This dependeth upon the other Untruth that went before, which being by Chrysostom justified, appeareth now no Untruth on D. hardings part, but on Chrysostoms' part, who reporteth that S. Paul in the ship, gave to Luke and his other disciples that Sanctification which sanctifieth the receiver, which is the blessed Sacrament. And in that place no mention is made of the Cup, and therefore by M. jewels own rule, whereof I told you before, it may be well gathered that he ministered under one Kind.  
Harding. S. Paul took that holy mystery under one kind for the whole Sacrament, as we perceive by his words, where he saith, 
1 Cor. 10.  One Bread and one Body we being many are, all that do participate of one Bread (59) where he speaketh nothing of the Cup.  
jewel. The .59. Untruth. For immediately before he saith. 
The 11●. Untruth slanderous.  The Cup of bl●ssing, which we bless, is it not the Communion of Christ's blood?  
To this M. jewel, you have the answer of D. Harding already in his Brief answer touching certain Untruths with which you charged him at Paul's Cross the viii. Day of july last. Yet because you vaunt here, as though you had never heard of it, and provoke your Reader by your wont repetitions and hypocritical exclamations (which it needeth not here to insert) to take him for a Deceiver, etc. I will repeat the very words of D. Harding, as they lie in his Answer. These are his words, after his other words above alleged.  
Harding. Now judge who list whether in respect of those words of S. Paul, One Bread and one Body etc. I might not say as I did, Where he speaketh nothing of the Cup. And that my word (where) hath relation to that sentence of S. Paul Only, not to the whole Chapter. For neither could I be so blind, as not to so see mention of the Cup made Next Sentence before, and how absurd had it been by denying so known a troth to have given such advantage to the adversary? Now that S. Paul in that sentence speaketh nothing of the Cup, I will be tried by the most ancient and truest copies both Greek and Latin, and by judgement of them of M. jewels own sect themselves, yea by the English Bibles and new Testaments of best authority.  
This was D. hardings Answer then, and this it is now.  
Harding. 
diuis. 19  Will not thy husband know, saith Tertullian, what thou eatest secretly before all other meat? And in case he do know it, he will believe it to be Bread, not him who it is called.  
jewel. 
pag. 131. The .116. Untruth Slanderous.  The .60. Untruth. Standing in the false translating of Tertullian.  
Stapleton. This Untruth was noted before in the first Article, and is in number the xxvij. There it is answered. Yet here it is repeated to make up a number.  
Harding. 
Divi. 22.  It hath been a (61) custom in the Latin Church from the Apostles time to our days that on Good Friday as well Priests, as other Christian people receive the Sacrament under the form of bread Only, consecrated the day before, not without signification of a singular mystery.  
jewel. 
pag. 135. The .117. Untruth Slanderous.  The .61. Untruth Without any colour or show of truth.  
Be bold and blush not M. jewel. It may well become a bishop of your religion to scoff at the Mysteries of Christ's Church, and to say they have no Colour or show of Truth in them. Truly as you have in the whole process of this your Reply rather moved your reader to Laughter and Contempt of the Catholic faith, by making a sort of Lewd Arguments, such as you know D. Harding did never make, then by reason persuaded him the Truth of the Cause: so have you in this point played the right Hicke Scorner. But please not yourself herein to much M. jewel. Porphyrius, Lucian, julian the Apostata and Celsus have far passed you in this Art, though they were never taken for bishops of Christ's Church.  
But to omit all your scoffing toys alleged out of Innocentius, Thomas Aquinas, Gerson and other, which they writing only to the learned devout Reader, thought it no such childishness (as you make it) to Devise of a good and Godly usage, Causes not evil nor ungodly, though not so proper and weighty, to omit those I say, I will rest upon that Cause which Hugo Cardinalis by you alleged, reciteth. Which is this, that whereas the daily Sacrifice of Christ's Church, is a Memorial and Remembrance of Christ's death on the Cross (as it hath before out of no childish fathers been proved) upon good friday being the day itself, 
Why the Sacrifice is not celebrated on good Frid●●e.  in which our Saviour suffered, the Church M. jewel (which you ought not to scoff at, were you a Child of that Mother) thought good that day for the better expressing of the thing itself to omit the Accustomed remembrance thereof. Which omitting being Rare and Singular, did more lively strike the Affection of Christian folk, than the Accustomed Solemnities would have done. For this cause also that day we see the Church without all pomp or Solemnity, as though it were in heaviness and lamentation to express the great sorrow and desolation off our Lady and the blessed Apostles, which then at that time being the only Church of Christ, suffered, by the death of their dear Master, whom they loved so tenderly, and of whose Resurrection they were not then persuaded thoroughly. This is M. jewel in few words: a part of the singular mystery which the Church of God useth in omitting the daily Sacrifice, on good Friday. 
1. Cor. 2.  If this do not satisfy you, I marvel not. Animalis homo non percipit ea quae Dei sunt. The Sensual man perceiveth not those things which are of God. Only this may suffice to prove that this custom which D. Harding speaketh of, is not (as you Untruly charge him) void off all Colour or Show of Truth.  
Harding. 
diuis. 28.  Christ gave no necessary Commandment either for the one or for both kinds (beside and without the Celebration of the Sacrifice) but left that to the Determination of the Church.  
jewel. 
The .118. Untruth Slanderous.  The .62. Untruth. Christ's Institution pertaineth as well to the people as to the priest.  
This Untruth hath before at large been answered, in this very article, being before noted by M. jewel, and now again repeated to make up a number. It was before the 49. Untruth.  
Harding. 
diuis. 31.  We believe steadfastly with heart, and confess openly with mouth, that under each kind the very flesh and Blood off Christ and whole Christ himself is present in the Sacrament (63) even as Gelasius believed.  
jewel. 
pag. 147. The .119. Untruth Slanderous.  The .63. Untruth. Gelasius never believed so.  
Stapleton. 
Ex Gelasio contra Eu●ic been.  How are you sure of that M. jewel? You are very bold and peremptory in all your assertions. But you prove as little as he that saith nothing. For notwithstanding his words which here you allege, he believed as all other bishops of Rome believed, he believed the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, as it is at large proved against you M. jewel in the Confutation of your apology, fol. 98. To that place I refer you for better understanding off Gelasius his belief herein.  
Harding. 
diuis. 31.  Whereas before (64.) off some the Sacrament was received under one Kind, and off some under both Kinds.  
jewel. The .64. Untruth. 
jewel. pag. 148. The .120. Untruth Slanderous.. M. jewellee challenge is answered. But he Altereth the Question pag. 69. and .142 pag. 132. pag. 148  No Catholic congregation ever received the Sacrament in one kind.  
D. Harding saith not so much, but that some have so received it, which he said truly, and proved it before in the Article abundantly. Whereby your challenge is also in this point answered. The tenor whereof was, that within the compass of .600. years the Communion was never Ministered to the people under One kind. Now that you add before Openly in the Church and then again. The whole people, and now a Catholic Congregation, this oft Altering of the Question M. jewel is but a mere wrangling, and a plain proclaiming of yourself Guilty. For had you been able to have avouched your first assertion, you would never have added so many new Conditions unto it. And had not D. Harding utterly overthrown the same, you would not have sought such shameless shifts, as to make a new Question of the whole matter, and to require a proof of that which you had not yet denied: and which D. Harding, unless he had had the Spirit of prophecy, to foresee these your alterations and extensions of the question, was in no wise bound to prove. But M. jewel, to knit up this matter, to let pass your slanderous charging of D. Harding with so many Untruths, and not one yet found to be such, finally to speak one word shortly of this whole matter, thus you shall understand.  
It hath sufficiently appeared both by the treatise of D. harding, and by the justifying of these Untruths, 
The Institution off Christ, & Practise of the Church.  that the Institution of Christ in the last Supper bindeth not all lay persons or other to communicate under both kinds. Also that within the space of the first 600. years th● Church of God of that time ministered unto diverse of God's people the blessed Sacrament under one kind. This being so proved, this de jure, and also De facto both by Right and by Practice appearing evidently, now for you M. jewel to quarrel, De facto alterius generis, of a practice more general, for you to require proofs in Churches, in Open Assemblies, in an Open Order and Usage off the Church, it is the part of a quarreler and wrangler. It is not the part of one that seeketh unite. It is no Bishoplike demeanour, no charitable dealing, no Christian or Catholic usage. This is a Sacrament of unite. 
The double Practice of God's Church.  The Church of God hath used it both ways, and hath by that double usage, interpreted us the meaning of Christ's institution, touching the people, to be indifferent. For we believe M. jewel (and let this be the end of all) that the known Church of Christ not only of the first 600. years, but also of these later 900. years is and hath been always so guided and preserved of almighty God, (according to the Clear Promises of God in the psalms, the prophets and the gospel) that neither in Doctrine of faith, 
See the Fortress annexed to Venerable Bede.  neither in Practice of serving him, it can or hath at any time swerved, much less broken his own Institution and ordnance, in so weighty and daily a matter, as the Ministration of his holy Sacraments is. This is our faith grounded upon holy Scripture, and the word of God. By thi● faith we believe and do, as the church believeth and doth, though we had no one testimony of the ancient primitive Church, to confirm and witness the doings of this later Church of our days. For M. jewel, the Church of God is but One: And hath continued without interruption (sense the coming of Christ) in a known Multitude, and shall so continue even to the worlds end.   

A return OF UNTRUTHS UPON M. JEWEL. etc. The third Article. Of Service in the vulgar tongue.  
IF you mean M. jewel, 
D. Hard. Diuis. 1.  by the people's Common prayers such as at that time they commonly made to God in private devotion, I think they uttered them in that tongue, which they understood, (65) and so do Christian people now for the most part.  
jewel. 
The .121. Untruth Slanderous.  The .65. Untruth. For under the subjection of the bishop of Rome, the people for the most part prayeth in latin.  
Stapleton. They do not so now M. jewel. For Now not only in these countries of the lower Germany where we now live, but also in France and Italy (as I know by experience) the common people have their common prayers in their vulgar tongue Doutche, French and Italian. And in our country (whatsoever they did fifty or forty years ago) in the late reign of Queen Marie, the people had their common matins books both with latin and with english. Therefore that Now the people for the most part prayeth in the vulgar tongue, it was truly said of D. Harding, and the contrary on your part untruly avouched. Again he speaketh of prayers made in private devotion, which is not always bound to the book, but oftentimes expresseth itself without book, as thousands do, that can read in no book.  
Harding. About 900· years paste (66) it is certain, the people in some Countries had their service in an unknown tongue, as it shall be proved of our own country in England.  
jewel. 
The 122. Untruth Slaund.  The .66 Untruth. This certainty will never be proved.  
Stapleton. Yes M. jewel, I will make you a short argument whereby it shall be clearly proved.  
At the first planting of the faith among us englishmen S. Gregory sent church books to England from Rome for the Church Service of the new converted Englishmen.  
But those Church books sent from Rome were in the latin tongue.  
Ergo the Church Service of the new converted Englishmen was in the latin tongue.  


The Mayor.  
Bed●. Lib. 1. Cap. 29. Histor. Angl.   For proof of the Mayor, or first proposition, I bring the testimony of Venerable Bede, a learned countryman of ours, written in the year of our lord, 730. His words be these. Farther more the said Pope, (he meaneth S. Gregory) for so much as Augustine had advertised him that there was a great harvest, and few workmen, sent him with his said legates, more preachers: of the which the chiefest were Mellitus, justus, and Ruffinianus. By them also he sent all such things as were necessary for the furniture and ministry of the Church: As holy vessels, altar clothes, ornaments for the Churches, apparel also for the priests and clergy. Also relics of the holy Apostles and martyrs, and many Books. Thus far Bede. In whose words we see for the Furniture and Ministry of the church Books to have been sent from Rome: That this was done at the first planting of Christian faith among us Englishmen (us Englishmen I say, occupying at that time all that is now called England, the old Britons being driven in to the straits of Wales) let the whole History of Venerable Bede be a witness to all englishmen, though M. jewel in this Article afterward, most impiously, and impudently after his manner do deny it.  
Now touching the Minor, or second proposition that these Church books sent from Rome were ●n the latin tongue, 
The Minor.  it needeth not I trust to prove. It is evident that our english Saxon tongue was not at that time understanded at Rome, neither of those which came from Rome, at their first arrival in to our country, but the Latin tongue only. And therefore those books sent from Rome for the Furniture and Service of the Church were in Latin and not in English. Thus the premises being clear, the Conclusion is undoubted. Other arguments are brought afterward in this Article by D. Harding, to the which how well M. jewel hath replied, it will appear in the Confutation thereof. Upon this conclusion, that the Church seruivice was in the Latin tongue, it shall not need I trow to infer. Ergo it was in a strange and unknown tongue to English men. I trust M. jewel will not be so impudent as to say that all Englishmen then converted to the faith understood the Latin tongue. Which if he will say, as truly with no less impudence he denieth the faith to have been then first planted among us englishmen and most wickedly violateth the blessed memory of our Apostle S. Augustin, the History of Venenerable Bede lately set forth in the english tongue shall prove him a manifest liar in the one, and a most notorious slanderer in the other.  
Harding. I say, as I said before, that the service was then (within the compass of 600. years after Christ) in a tongue which some people understood and some understood not. 
Diuis. 3.   
jewel. The .67. Untruth. 
The .123. Untruth Slanderous.  M. Harding is not able to show one nation that understood not their Common service.  
Stapleton. Yes forsooth M. Harding hath showed it, as it shall well appear before we have ended this Article. Yet presently for the justifying of this Untruth (wherein in deed the whole Article dependeth, and the which being justified your assertion M. jewel is overthrown) I prove that within the first 600. years certain nations understood not their common service. Thus I reason.  

Church Service proved in a tongue not understanded.  All the inhabitans of Smyrna, Pontus, Cappadocia, Lyaconia, Caria, Thracia had their Common service in the Greek tongue.  
But all the inhabitants of those Nations understood not the Greek tongue.  
Ergo all those inhabitans had not their service in a tongue which they understood.  

The Mayor.  For proof of the Mayor or first proposition, I will bring the testimony of S. Hierom. S. Hierom writeth thus. Alexandria & Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis, Hesychium laudat authorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam, 
Praefat. in Parali●.  Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has provinciae palestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origine elaboratos Eusebius & Pamphilus vulgaverunt, totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat. That is. Alexandria and Egypt in their Greek copies of the Bible do use that translation of the 70. which Hesychius hath set forth. From Constantinople unto Antioch the copies set forth by Lucianus Martyr are allowed. Other provinces lying between these, do read the books of Palestina, which Eusebius and Pamphilus, being first corrected by Origen, did set forth, and all the world in this triple variety of copies contendeth one with the other.  
By these words of S. Hierom it is evident, that in all the East part of the world (which he calleth here the whole world) from Egypt to Constantinople, and within all the countries lying between, comprehending all Asia the less, these three copies only of the Greek Bibles were used. For in this triple diversity, he saith all that part of the world contendeth. Of those middle provinces lying between Constantinople and Antioch, are those countries above named of the lesser Asia, except Thracia which is of the proper jurisdiction of Constantinople and no part of the lesser Asia. As the skilful in cosmography do know right well. Now out of this place of S. Hierom for proof of the Mayor or first proposition, thus I reason.  
The common service of those countries was for the most part taken out of their Bibles and holy Scripture.  
But by S. Hieroms' testimony their Bibles were only in the Greek tongue of the 70. translation, set forth either by Hysichius, or Lucianus the Martyr or Eusebius and Pamphilus.  
Ergo their common service was only in the Greek tongue.  
The mayor of this Syllogismus, is evident both for that the Psalms and the lessons are known to be the greater part of the Service, and also by diverse canons of that age and time, 
Concil. Carthag. 3. Can. 40.  commanding Scripture to be read in the Church service. The minor is S. Hieroms'. So the Conclusion is certain. Again, S. basil celebrated the Service in Cappadocia in the Greek tongue as it appeareth by his Liturgy yet extant in greek: Chrisostom also in Thracia, as it appeareth by his Liturgy or Mass yet extant also in Greek. Ergo the Public Service in Cappadocia and Thracia were in the Greek tongue.  
The minor or second proposition of the first Sylllogismus, which is, that all those countries above named, 
The Minor.  understood not the greek tongue, is proved in this Article by D. Harding, by diverse testimonies, First of Strabo and Pliny, as in the discussing of the 70. and 71. Untruths, I shall have anon occasion more largely to speak. And to speak particularly of some of these. That the vulgar tongue of Lycaonia, was not greek, it appeareth in the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said, 
Act●. 14.  that the people of Lystra a City in Licaonia, cried out to Paul and Barnabas in the lycaonical tongue. Saint Luke which wrote the Acts in greek, if that cry of the Lycaonians had been in greek, would not have termed it a several language from the greek, as he doth, calling it lycaonical. Again that the vulgar tongue of Thracia, was not greek, Chysostom himself bishop of Constantinople in Thracia doth witness. For he preaching in greek, 
In 1. Cor. 14. Homi 35.  reakoneth up among diversity off tongues, the tongues of the Scythians, of Thracians, of Romans, of Persians, of Indians, of the Egyptians, and of other. Thirdly, that the vulgar tongue of Caria was no greek but a foreign and strange tongue from the greek, Strabo is a sufficient witness, who speaking of the proper Language off the Carians, 
Strabo lib. 14.  faith of it: Permulta Nomina Graeca per mixta habet. It hath many greek Names mingled in it. Whereof it is evident it was a clean different tongue from the greek. Like as our English tongue hath a number of French words in it, being yet a language utterly diverse from the French. fourthly the people of Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, of Phrygia, and Pamphylia: 
Actor. 2.  Audiebat unusquisque lingua sua illos loqu●ntes, heard the Apostles to speak every one in their own tongue. And the Miracle was such, that they said one to an other. Are not all these that speak, of Galilee? Et quomodo nos audiuimu● vnusqu●sque linguam nostram, in qua nati sum us? And how have we heard every one of us our tongue in the which we were borne? Unless the tongues, of Pontus and Asia, of Cappadocia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia (all countries of the lesser Asia) had been so divers and distinct natural tongues, that each one understood not the other, what Miracle or what cause of admonition had there been in those people's hearing the Apostles to pronounce and speak, every of their natural and native tongues? What Miracle is it for the Northern man and the Western man to understand the Southern preacher at Paul's? But if the spaniard, the Italian and the French man (being only skilful of their Mother tongues) could yet understand a Latin preacher, that were a Miracle in deed. For so were the the tongues of Pontus and Asia, of Cappadocya, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, derived and deducted out of the greek, as the French. italian, and Spanish are derived out of the Latin. And these proprietes of Languages were so divers, and infinite, that although of certain, as of the Attic, the Ionical, the Dorical, and the Aeolical tongues proprietes might be gathered and collected in to some Orders of Rules, the other yet by no means could be so reduced, but were rather taken for diverse and different tongues, then for proprietes of tongues. Therefore joannes Grammaticus writing hereof, saith. 
I●an Gran. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Barbaras in multitudine existentes & incompraehensibiles non est facile tradere. Alioqui neque dicendum ipsas Dialectos, sed linguas. The Barbarous greek tongues being infinite, can not easily be brought to any rules to be taught by. And they are not so much to be called Dialectes or proprieties, as tongues. Such Diuers●tes, multitudes, and differences of tongues and languages there were in the greek Church, in the lesser Asia, and in that which in Ecclesiastical writers is called the East part of Christendom. Last of Master jewel himself confesseth in this Article, that jewel. 
pag, 166.  The Nations of the East part of the world, had several tongues and spoke not all one only tongue. This then being so, and yet the east part of the world (as it hath been proved) having only the greek Service, it remaineth clear, that a Nation, yea sundry Nations are showed which h●d their Service not in their common known tongue, but in a learned tongue which they unstoode not.  
Again M. jewel is of the mind in this Article that in Rome the Service was ever in Latin. For he saith, 
pag. 167.  they had their exhortations and sermons in Latin. True it is the Church of Rome had the Service always in the Latin tongue. The Sermons and Exhortations also for a great space. But how long thinketh M. jewel? He confesseth that S. Augustine sent in by S. Gregory to preach the Faith to us Englishmen, prayed in Latin, and said Mass in Latin. And it is evident in the works of saint Gregory that the Church Service in Rome was in his time Latin. 
Lib. 7. Epist. 63.  An● he writeth that the people of Rome answered to Kyrie ●leeson, at the Mass time, as they do to this day. Yet what thinketh M. jewel? Did the people of Rome understand Kyrie eleeson. Those words are Greek. But did they understand Latin in Rome at that time? Verily the histories teach us the contrary. Namely Sabellicus writeth that before the time of S. Gregory, 
Aenead. 8. Lib. 5.  even from the first coming in of the langobards to Italy, they left utterly in Rome to speak latin. This was long before the six hundred years expired. And no marvel. For before that time, the Wandalles and Huns had spoiled Rome. The Goths inhabited the very city of Rome and the rest of Italy many years. The langobards also had their dwellings and remaining there. Yet was the Church Service until S. Gregory's time and ever sithence only in the latin tongue. Thus both in the greek Church, and in the latin, the Church service was in greek and latin, which sundry nations of grece, and the very Romans themselves understood not. Thus the Untruth is justified, and a nation, yea sundry nations showed, which understood not commonly their Common Service, and thus in this Article even at the beginning M. jewel must yield and Subscribe. Which yet, before we come to the end, M. jewel by God's grace, shall divers more ways be forced unto, if at lest he will stand and abide to his large offers and over bold challenge.  
Harding. 
diuis. 3.  If M. jewel, or any of our learned adversaries, or any man living could show good evidence and proof, that the public service of the Church was then in the Syriacall or Arabike, in the Egyptian, Aethiopian, Persian, Armenian, Scythian, French or Britain tongue, then might they justly claim prescription against us in this article etc. But that doubtless can not appear.  
jewel. 
pag. 154. The 124. Untruth Slaund.  The .68. Untruth, For doubtless it will soon be showed.  
Stapleton. This shall appear by the proofs which you bring, M. jewel. Here in this place you say somewhat. afterward you say more. To that which here you bring, I will here presently answer. To that which you bring afterward, I will answer when I come to it, which will be in the Returning of the .78. Untruth. Here you say.  
jewel. For as much as the first tongue that M. Harding nameth amongst other, is the Syriacal, let him read S. Hierom describing the pomp of Paul's funeral. These be his words. 

Hieron in epitaphio Panloe.  
The 125. Untruth For this was no part of the common Service, as it shall appear both here and more at large in the 78. Untruth.   At her funeral all the multitude of the Cities of Palestine met together. The psalms were song in order in the hebrew, greek, Latin, and Syrian tongue. Here may he see that in one City four several Nations, in their Common service used four Several tongues among which tongues is the Syriacal. Which thing M. Harding thinketh all the world can not show.  
M. jewel shooteth fair, but far from the Mark. His purpose is to prove that the Common service of the Church was in the Syriacall tongue. And he telleth us of certain psalms song at the funeral of a noble woman in the Syrian tongue. Of such psalms or songs we shall speak more at large hereafter in the ●8. Untruth, about the allegation of M. jewel touching Ephrem. Presently let us consider shortly M. jewels Argument. Thus he seemeth to frame it.  
Psalms were song of the people at ones funeral in the vulgar tongue.  
Ergo the Church service was altogether in the vulgar tongue. 
M. jewels Argument.   
soothly (good Reader) if it had liked M. jewel to have given the leave to read forth the whole sentence of S. Hierom, thou shouldest have seen this singing of psalms was no part of the Church service, but an extraordinary devotion of that people toward that good woman deceased. For thus it followeth immediately after the words by M. jewel alleged. Psalms were song not only for three days space, until the time she was buried under the Church nigh to the vault of our lord, but also through out the whole week: all that came, thinking it their own funeral and their own sorrow. Now unless M. jewel will say that all the week long they were a saying her diriges, or that in a set service of one Church there should be a confusion of so many tongues, or that the Service was in all those four tongues at once, this can nothing help him. Verily of such psalms as were song at her burial as a part of the service, S. Hierom mentioned that before in these words. Being carried to her grave by the hands of the bishops, 
Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae.  carrying the b●ere upon their neck, while other bishops aryed candles and tapers b●fore her, other guided the choir of the singing men, she was laid in the middle of the Church, of our Saviour. Here is the Service, here be lights and tapers, here is a choir of singing men. Thus M. jewels psalm helpeth nothing his whole Service, but utterly overthroweth the whole manner of their naked funerals. He proveth the whole by a piece, the ordinary usage by a casual solemnite, the common Service by a private Funeral. Upon such bare Gheasses, this great Alteration is builded. And here cometh an other to underprop it.  
jewel. S. Augustin willing the priests to apply their study to correct the errors of their latin speech, 
De ●a●e●hi sandis rudib. cap. 9 The .126. Untruth For it is spoken only of latin tongue.  addeth thereto this reason. That the people unto the thing that they plainly understand, may say, Amen. This of S. Augustin seemeth (126) to be spoken generally of all tongues.  
It seemeth so M, jewel. Yea forsooth, he that seeth no mark must shoot by aim. D. Harding asketh of the Syriacal, Arabike, Egyptian, Aethiopian, Persian, Armenian, Scythian, French or Britain's tongue, and you answer of the Latin service used in Africa. This is M. jewels argument.  

M. jewels Argument.  The Latin Service was used in Africa in Latin and the people thereto answered, Amen.  
Ergo the Arabyans, Scythians, Aethyopians, French men and other had their service in their vulgar tongue.  
This argument hangeth loosely. Every child may see thourough it. The folly of it will appear by the like.  
In Rome at this hour the service is in Latin, and the people answereth Amen.  
Ergo Spain, France, and Dutcheland have their service in their vulgar tongue.  
The truth is. In all places and countries, the priest must so distinctly pronounce the Service, that when the people of duty must answer, he may be understanded, what he say. So children and Parisheclarkes are taught to answer the Priest, knowing well the words what he saith, though not understanding what the words mean. And as now for the whole people one or a few doth answer, being taught and instructed thereto, so in the primitive Church all the people for the most part was so instructed and did so answer. Thus M. jewel hath hitherto proved the Latin Service, but for Service in the vulgar tongue he hath brought nothing. But he goeth forth, and saith.  
jewel. M. Harding himself at the end of his treaty confesseth that the Armenians, Russians, Aethyopians, slavons and Moscovites, 
middot;  have from the beginning of their faith in their public Service used ever more their own natural country tongues. Wherefore by M. hardings own grant, we may justly claim prescription, and charge him with antiquity, and require him to yield to the authority of the primitive Church. 
The .127. Untruth for none of these examples are of the primitive Church.   
It is well, M. jewel, that all other stories, Doctors, councils, and witnesses failing you, yet D. Harding hath stood your good friend, to serve your turn in this distress. Howbeit D. Harding though he might gladly pleasure, you yet could he in no casse so forget himself, as to require you to prove that thing, which he should after grant you. Therefore you shall understand M. jewel first that those Armenia's, Russians and Aethiopians used not such vulgar Service with in the first 600. years, but long after. His question here is of that time and no other. Again he asketh of such practice allowed and taken for good. Your answer upon his grant is of such as used it so in Schism. Thus hitherto it hath not appeared that any Country had their Service, Within the first .600. years in a vulgar Barbarous tongue.  
Harding. I say that if I can show that the people of some Countries of the Greek Church (69) which all had their Common prayers and Service in the Greek tongue, for the more part understood not the Greek tongue, more than Englishmen now the Latin tongue, than I have proved that I promised to prove. etc.  
jewel. 
The 128. Untruth Slaund.  The 69. Untruth. For it is certain that sundry of the East nations had not their Service in the greek tongue, as shall appear.  
Stapleton It shall appear, saith M. jewel. But when and where? Forsooth in the 15. Division of this Article. In that place he repeateth this Untruth, and laboureth to pove it at large. In that place it shall appear, 
It is the 78. Untruth.  that he hath proved nothing. But take heed good Reader, in the mean while. Unless thou eye M. jewel well, he will steal from thee. For in this point lieth the whole pith of this Article. 
The principal Issue of this Article.  D. Harding putteth it here for clear and undoubted, that all the Greek Church, and namely all the lesser Asia being a great part thereof, had their Service in the Greek tongue. This being so clear and true that no learned man. would ever have denied it (for whereof is it called Greca Ecclesia, the Greek Church, or Congregation, but because in all their assemblies and Churches the Greek tongue was used, Scriptures were read in Greek, homilies in Greek, and so forth, as the writings of S. basil, of Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nissa, all bishops in Asia the less do clearly convince?) this I say being in the judgement of all learned men so clear a matter, D. Harding neither proved it, neither thought it need to prove. No nor M. jewel doth not then flatly deny it. But (saith he) jewel. 
pag. 160.  if it be denied, M. Harding with all his learning is not able to prove it. Yet he will not grant it neither, because the granting thereof were a clear overthrow of his assertion. This therefore being put for truth of D. Harding, he proveth that many countries of Asia the less understood not the Greek tongue. Whereof it should follow, that many countries of Asia the less had their Service in a tongue which they understood not. Because of this conclusion so directly following M. jewel seeing the Minor or second proposition to be directly and abundantly proved, and the Mayor or first proposition no whit proved, to the Minor or second proposition, he saith, jewel. 
pag. 162.  M. Harding over much paineth himself, to prove that thing that no wise man will deny him. And then he bringeth some proofs himself to help forth the matter. To the Mayor or first proposition, because it stood unproved, he took his advantage, and now de●ied it utterly, though it were of itself most clear and evident. Now because an universal proposition being denied, an instance in some particular must be given by order of reason, therefore he taketh upon him (as you hear him to say in this Vntrutruthe) to prove afterward that sundry Nations of the East Church had not their Service in the Greek tongue. jewel. Whereby the universal proposition of D. Harding, that all the East or Greek Church had their service in the greek tongue, 
D. Har.  shall be overthrown. This as I said he will prove afterward. In the 78. Untruth I shall have occasion to answer unto the whole. Look (gentle Reader) in that place, and mark how well he proveth it, and remember that if his proofs fail him (as I trust in God they shall every one) that then Some Countries are found in the Greek Church of the first 600. years which had their Service in a tongue that all the people understood not: That so M. jewels Assertion will be overthrown, and he bound to Subscribe, if he stand to his offer.  
Harding. Strabo who traveled over all the countries of Asia, 
Diuis. 8.  near about the time of S. Paul's peregrination there, who also was borne in the same, in his .14. book of geography writeth, that whereas within that Cherronesus that is the strait between sea and sea there were sixtiene Nations by report of Ephorus, of them all only three were greeks, all the rest Barbarous.  
jewel. The .70. Untruth. Missereporting Straboes words.  
Stapleton. 
The .129. Untruth Slanderous..  It grieveth M. jewel, that D. harding should speak any Truth in his whole book. So oft he noteth him of Untruth, not only where none is (as he hath yet hitherto ever done) but also in such matters, which whether it be true or no, nothing helpeth or furthereth the state of the question. D. Harding will prove that in Asia the Less there were sundry Countries which understood not the Greek Tongue. 
D. Hard.  M. jewel sayeth.  
jewel. 
pag. 160.  To what end? For neither is it denied by any of us, neither is it any part of our question. And yet notwithstanding is not M. Harding (130.) able to prove it with all his Gheasses.  

The .130. Untruth For by this authority of Strabo it is clearly proved.  Lo: He will disprove D. hardings proofs, though they make nothing to the purpose, yea though he deny not the thing which is proved. And why so? Forsooth to increase the quantity of his Reply, to deface (as he thinketh) his adversary, and to leave in the Reader some token of his learning and knowledge, though he leave withal a great blot of his honesty. For mark good Reader I beseech thee, the demeanour of M jewel in this point. 
The singular lewdness of M. jewel.  Because by no reason nor truth he could overthrow the report of D. Harding out of Strabo, he in his text, repeating the text of D. Harding hath put in one word more, then either D. Harding spoke, or Strabo wrote, intending thereby to prove D. harding to Missereporte Strabo. What word is that? The word is. Then. For whereas D. Harding out of Strabo reporteth, that, Harding. whereas there were sixteen sundry Nations in Asia the less by report of Ephorus, off them all only three were Greeks, all the rest were Barbarous, M. jewel, repeating these words, repeateth them in this sort, Whereas there were Then Sixteen sundry Nations, 
The .131. untruth, i●altering the text of D. Harding. jewel. pag. 161.  etc. And then he crieth out.  
I know not whether M. Harding be unwittingly deceived him self, or wilfully go about to deceive others. But well I know, that this is no part of Straboes' meaning. For Strabo speaketh not this of his own time, etc. And a little after. For if Strabo had meant this of his own time, to what end, etc.  
Lo you see his proof is directed against the word, Then: which word D. harding wrote not. He will prove it was not so in Straboes' time, which D. Harding said not at all. For evidence hereof I report me to all the copies extant, as well in both the prints of D. Harding'S Answer, as also to the Copy, inserted here in M. jewels Reply. If there be any lie in putting in the word Then, you have made the lie, for you have put in that word. Then beshrew the liar. Thus M. jewel, to fasten an Untruth upon doctor harding, and to prove him a deceiver off the people, hath dealt himself most Untruly, hath deceived the people, and much abused his Reader.  
Harding. Likewise Plinius in the sixth Book. Naturalis Historiae. ca 2. declareth that within the circuit of that land, were three greek Nations only, Doors, jones, Aeolus. And that the rest were Barbarous.  
jewel. The .71. Untruth. Missereporting the words of Pliny. 
The .132. Untruth Slanderous.   
Stapleton. The words of Pliny are these. In omni tractu eo proditurtres tantum gentes Graecas iure dici, Doricam, Aeonicam, Aeolicam, Caeteras Barbarorum esse. Within all that circuit (he meaneth off Asia the less) it is written, that only three nations be rightly called greeks, and that the rest are of the Barbarous. Now how hath D. Harding missereported Pliny his words? M. jewel in his text to prove they are missereported, saith nothing. Let then the Reader judge, by conferring together the words of Pliny and the words of doctor harding, whether he say any thing more or less in effect than Pliny doth. In which two points Missereporting consisteth. Pliny saith. Proditur. It is written. And D. Harding upon his avouching reporteth it. pliny saith. Three Only Nations are rightly called Greek. So much saith D. Harding also. Nay, sayeth M. jewel.  
jewel. 
pag. 160. The .133. Untruth For Pliny can not so mean.  In that he saith, tres tantum gentes Graecas jure dici, that only three Nations be rightly or naturally called Greeks (133) he must needs mean that the rest were called Greeks also, although not so rightly, and naturally as the other: For else the exception of this word, jure, that is, rightly or naturally, had been in vain.  
Stapleton. Touching the language they were not called Greeks at all rightly. That is the saying of Pliny. He saith not, Not so rightly, as M. jewel gloseth. But they were not rightly Greeks, because they neither spoke the greek tongue naturally, neither had arrived into that part of Asia the less, as had the other three, but out of other Barbarous Countries. And the reason why only those three Nations Doors, jones, Aeolus, were rightly called greeks, is not (as M. jewel fancieth) to make an exception between rightly, and not so rightly, but it is (as Pliny expressly telleth us) to make an exception that the other were no greeks at all. And therefore, he addeth immediately to his former words. Caeteras Barbarorum esse. That the rest were of Barbarous. Now Syr. The Barbarous and the Greeks are two distincted Nations touching language at the jest, though living in one Country. As the greeks are not called Barbarous, so neither the Barbarous are called Greeks. And S. Paul maketh a clear difference between the Greeks and the jews, 
Rom. 1.  and the Barbarous. In that word Barbarous, comprehending all other nations not jews nor Graekes. So doth Strabo as we shall anon hear.  
jewel. And thus M. Harding seeking to prove that the people of Asia were no greeks, allegeth Plinius, 
The 134. Untruth For it appeareth not so by Pliny.  by whose words it appeareth necessarily that they were greeks.  
It appeareth by Pliny three only were rightly called Greeks. All the rest were mere Barbarous. But this is not yet the Conclusion of D. Harding. M. jewel saw well enough that he had first alleged Strabo in whom the matter is more plain, and that Pliny was brought but for the like. Therefore having hitherto shot at Rovers, now he cometh home to his long Butts, and saith.  
jewel. But M. Harding will force the matter further. Strabo saith, that these three Nations excepted, the rest were Barbarous: Ergo they understood no Greek. 
Vhe .135. Untruth Slaund.  And hereupon resteth his whole proof. But this is an other falsification of Straboes' mind.  
Stapleton So saith M. jewel, and so he hath added in the Margin. Thus. M. Harding falsifieth S●raboes mind. But now it shall appear that all this is but a Slanderous Untruth. And that M. jewel either understood not in deed Straboes' mind, or else, hath wilfully falsified his mind. For lo thus he followeth the Matter.  
jewel. For Strabo calleth them Barbarous, which understood and spoke Greek. 
The .136. Untruth.   
This is a manifest Untruth. Strabo calleth such, Barbariloquos, men of a barbarous speech, not Barbaros, Barbarous, As it shall anon appear. But first let us hear M. jewels proofs. He saith.  
jewel. And what better witness can we herein have, than Strabo himself?  
Stapl. Verily his witness is good. But M. jewel understandeth him not.  
jewel. Thus he writeth. Barbarismum in hijs dicere consuevimus, qui male loquuntur Grece, non au●em in ●●lis qui Cari●e lóquunur. 
Lib. 14. Geograph.  Sic etiam barbariloquos & barbari sermonis homines eos accipere debemus, qui male Graeca pro●un●iant. We take a barbarismus, or a barbarous manner of speech to be in them that speak the Greek disorderly, and not in them that speak a strange tongue as is the tongue of the Carians. So we ought to take them to be * barbarous, or men of barbarous speech, 

The 137. Untruth in false translation. Barbariloquus. is not barbarous, but a man of barbarous speech.  
The .138. Untruth For Strabo saith not so.   that ill favouredly pronounce the Greek. Thou mayest see good Reader with what faith M. Harding allegeth the authority of old writers. He would prove by Strabo that these people spoke no graeke because they were Barbarous. And Strabo himself (138) saith, not withstanding they were Barbarous, yet they spoke Greek.  
M. jewel hath said. But he hath said many things untruly. As for the faith which D. Harding is presumed not to have used, let it be tried by the Truth that M. jewel him self hath used. Verily he understood not his Author, or else he hath wilfully dissembled the Truth. For thus it is. Strabo calleth not such men that spoke greek ill favouredly, Barbaros barbarous (as M. jewel hath wrongely translated Strabo) but he calleth them Barbariloquos & barbari sermonis homines, men of barbarous speech. You have deceived your Reader M. jewel wilfully, or else yourself grossly and ignorantly, with the similitude of terms.  
For Barbari, barbarous, a●d Barbariloqui, men of a barbarous speech in Strabo are not all one. 
Barbari and Barbariloqui.  For whereas the Ion●s (who spoke clean greek) called the Ca●ians Barbariloquos, men of a barbarous speech, in contempt and contumely, because (as Strabo writeth) they had much contention and continual war with them, and thereupon Anacreon their Poet termed them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Strabo Lib. 14.  men of barbarous speech, Strabo asketh Quare eos barbarici sermonis appellat, Barbaros vero nunquam? Why doth he call them men of Barbarous speech, and not Barbarous? And after he saith. Omnes qui crass loquuntur Barbari dicuntur, quales sunt Nationes omnes praeter graecos. All which speak thick and gross are called Barbarous, such as all nations are beside the graekes. Therefore Chrysostom a Grecian reakoneth the Romans themselves inter barbaros, 
In 1. Cor. 14. Hom. 35.  among the barbarous. In like manner Tully, Livy, and other latin writers call all other Nations (except the pure greeks) in comparison of themselves, Barbarous. 
Lib. 14.  And therefore (saith Strabo) A nacreon called the Carians properly Barbarous at the beginning, because of their hard and rough speech, But afterward we abused that word as a common name to distinguish them from the greeks. Thus much of the word Barbari, barbarous, or (in better english) foreign or strange. After this he speaketh of such as were called Barbariloqui, men of barbarous speech (which M. jewel confoundeth with the word barbarous,) and saith. 
Strabo. Ibidem.  Alia quaedam & quasi barbara loquendi pravitas in lingua nostra videbatur, si quis non perfect graeca pronunciaret, quod & apprimé Caribus contingit. There seemed yet an other and a certain barbarous offence in our tongue, if any pronounced greek not perfectly: which in these Carians is most evident. So he concludeth against Anacreon that the Carians were not called Barbariloqui, men of barbarous speech for their own Carian tongue (for so they were called, Barbari barbarous, as all other Nations beside the greek were) but because they pronounced not well the greek tongue which they learned. Upon this he uttereth the words which M. jewel allegeth, touching those which are properly called Barbariloqui, men of barbarous speech. Which is, that they are such as speak the greek tongue evil favouredly: but barbari, barbarous are they whose language is not greek at all, but a diverse tongue from the greek, as you heard before in Straboes' words. Now M. jewel confoundeth the word Barbaros, barbarous, and the word Barbariloquos, men of barbarous speech, together, and so deceiveth the Reader (as I said) in similitude of terms. It is therefore to be noted that both the words of Strabo before, reakoning by the report of Ephorus but three greek Nations only in Asia the less, and all the rest to the number of sixteen Barbarous, and also the words of Pliny affirming the very same, are spoken not of Barbariloqui, but of Barbari: not of men of a Barbarous speech, which spoke all Greek evil favouredly, but of mere Barbarous, that is (in better english) of foreign and strange Nations, having each their tongues and languages several. For of the Greeks, as the same Strabo in an other place reakoneth, there were in Asia the less but four Languages: the Attica, which yet he confoundeth with the jonica (making but three in substance) Dorica and the Aeolica. 
Strabo. Libr. 8.  So that all that were called Barbarous in Asia the less, as the Carians, the Lycaonians, the Cappadocians, the Phrygians, the Pamphylians, the Galathians and other to the number of Sixteen Nations had their several and distinct languages from the greek. As for example Strabo speaking of the proper language of the Carians, saith of it. Permultae nomina graeca permixta habet. It hath may greek names mingled in it. Like as our English tongue hath a number of French words and that of the best sort in it, 
Libro. 14.  being a language utterly diverse from the French. That the Lycaonians spoke not vulgarly greek, but Lyc●●ni●e in the lycaonical tongue, 
Act. 14.  neither Attice nor Aeolice nor Doricè, and therefore no greek at all, the Acts of the Apostles do expressly witness. Again Cappadocia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, all provinces of Asia the less, spoke a diverse language, that one understood not the other. Else it had been no miracle that all they (as the Acts do mention) hearing S. Peter to preach, 
Cap. 2.  should each of them have thought, that he spoke their several languages. Last of all this is afterward by D. Harding proved so clearly, namely by the Galathians a part also of the lesser Asia, 
Hierom. in proem. 2. ad Gal. Plinius li. 7. c. 24. Hist. Na●.  and by the .22. tongues learned of Mithridates' king of that country, that he might speak to all his people without an interpreter, that M. jewel crieth out and calleth all that labour Vanitas vanitatum, and a great token of idleness to prove that which no man d●nieth. Yet you see how he laboureth by gheasses to overthrow the authorities of Strabo and Pliny, and to prove himself the contrary, though yet he dare not affirm it himself, but saith jewel. 
pag. 164. pag 16● 162.  it is not denied by any of us Whereby it appeareth that if D. Harding had not proved it in deed at large and substantially, M. jewel would utterly have denied it, as he doth utterly deny the other proposition, that all the Greek Church had the greek Service, because there were no proofs brought for it, the matter itself being to all the learned so open and manifest. Thus you see no Untruth on D. hardings part, but a great wrangling folly on M. jewels part, and such a pelting contention, as little becometh a divine, and much less a Bishop as he would seem to be. Thus also you see the proposition of D. Harding clearly proved, that sundry Countries in Asia the less understood not the Greek tongue, but had a several language from the greek as well in substance, as in speech and understanding.  
Harding. Hitherto of the Greek, and of the Service in that language.  
jewel. The .72. Untruth. 
middot; The .139. Untruth Slanderous.  For he hath not hitherto spoken one word of them Service.  
Stapleton. D. harding in this same Article the 7. Division, taketh it as granted of M. jewel that the Greek Church had the greek service, and therefore he saith in that place. 
middot;  Harding. That the Service was in the Greek tongue, and used in the greek Church I grant. And again, Harding. 
Diuis. 7.  Thus much by us both confessed M. jewel, and agreed upon (touching the limitation of the Greek Church) I say that if I can show, that the people of some Countries of the Greek Courche, which all had their Common prai●rs and service in the Greek tongue & caet? And afterward. Harding. 
Diuis. 8.  That the people of the l●sse Asia being a principal part of the Greek Church had their Service in the greek tongue, it is confessed as manifest, no learned man will deny it. In all those places he speaketh of the greek Service. And yet M. jewel saith here stoutly, jewel. that he hath not hitherto spoken one word of the Service. Let now the reader judge who speaketh Untruly. As touching the matter, D. Harding in deed (as I said before) proved it not because as you hear him say, he took it as a matter confessed, and such as no learned man would deny. And M. jewel himself doth not deny it, but he saith that jewel. if it were denied, M. Harding were not able to prove it. Yea farther M. jewel in this Article confesseth no less in a great part, saying.  
jewel. Polycarpus in Smyrna, S. basil in Cappadocia, Amphilochius in Lycaonia all preached in the Greek tongue. 
pag 161. T●e .140 Untruth the people of Lycaonia and of Cappadocia understood not the Greek tongue, as hath befog been proved.  And the people understood them.  
Now all these Countries are in Asia the less. Whereof it will follow that they had the Greek Service, which the people also might understand by M. jewels confession, in a great part of Asia the less, though not in the whole greek Church. Which yet also he must be driven to confess being not able (as it shall appear hereafter, when I come to the .78. Untruth) to give any one instance or exception in any one Country of the greek Church. And so D. Harding though he have not proved it himself, yet M. jewel hath proved it for him. For an Universal proposition is well proved by Order of Schools, and Reason, when no Instance, or Exception can be brought to the Contrary.  
Harding. Because the first preachers of the faith came to these west parts from Rome, etc.  
jewel. 
The .141. Untruth Slanderous joined with a gross ignorance.  The .73. Untruth. The first preaching of the Faith in these West Countries came not first from Rome.  
This Untruth was noted before by M. jewel in the first Article, and here it is repeated to make a number. It was the .32. Untruth. In that place we have satisfied it, and showed that France, Germanye, and the English Nation our Forefathers had all their first faith from Rome. May it please thee gentle Reader to have a recourse to that place, 
See in the leaf. 19 and 20.  and then judge what the impudence of M. jewel deserveth: not only in repeating it now again for an Untruth, but also avoutchinge it in the text and noting also in the Margin that M. harding wittingly and willingly avoucheth Untruth. He bringeth in surmises without Authority that Nathanael, Saturninus and Lazarus preached first the Faith of France. For this surmise and guess of his, you had before alleged a testimony of the French bishops themselves above a thousand years paste, confessing they had their Faith first from Rome. If that suffice not, behold the particular testimony of diverse the principal Churches in France to record the same. Demochares a French Writer of late days reakoning up the Bishops of every bishopric and Archebishoprike in France, 
De Sacrificio Missa lib. 2.  by the records of the Chapters of each Church, nameth us their first bishops to be these. Of Senes the first Bishop was S. Savinianus sent from S. Peter, as also Antoninus witnesseth. 
Cap. 25. tit. 6. primae partis Historiarum.  Of Paris the first bishop was S. Denys sent by Clement, as the Monuments and antiquities of Paris do yet testify. Of Chartres Aventinus sent from S. Peter was the first bishop. Of Orleans Altinus sent likewise with the other two by S. Peter. By S. Clement Pope of Rome soon after S. Peter, were sent also divers. Nicasius the first bishop of Rhone, Exuperius of Basilius, ieux, and Taurinus of Brye. The first Bishop of Antissiodorum was S. Peregrinus sent from Sixtus the Pope of Rome, in the year of our Lord. 30.  
Whereas M. jewel writeth that Nathanael, Lazarus, 
The .142. Untruth For Saturninus preached in France .200. years aft●r the first preachers Petrus de Natalib. lib. ●. ca 5. li 1. cap. 9 & lib. 10. cap. 41.  and Saturninus preached the Faith first in France, he hath taken that by like out of some Legenda aurea, and yet hath not all together truly reported it. For as touching Saturninus, he was bishop of Tolose in France in the persecution of Decius more than 200. years after Christ, and therefore could be none of the first that preached there the faith. For Nathanael, Vrsinus is named to be the first bishop of Burges. Of Lazarus arriving to Massilia with mary Magdalene, and Martha it is written, but that they planted the faith in France it is very uncertain. As for the conjectures of M. jewel, from whence our country received the faith, I have before in the 32. Untruth declared the contrary out of the approved History of Venerable Bede.  
jewel. Tertullian calleth Jerusalem, the Mother and the spring of Religion So doth the Prophet isaiah long before prophecy: 
T●●tul contra Marci. lib 2. Esa. 2.  De Zion exibit lex & verbum Domini de Jerusalem. The law shall come forth of Zion and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem. Our saviour also sending forth his Apostles, biddeth them to begin at Jerusalem, to preach to Samaria, and so usque ad extremum terrae. 
Acto. 1.  even to the uttermost of the earth. In that sense all the world had the faith from Jerusalem. And so S. Augustine in the place by M. jewel alleged, when he saith, 
August. Epist. 178.  The faith sprang first from the Greeks, by the greeks meaneth not the country of grece, but the country of jury, who at that time was a part of the greek Church, as by the greek Liturgy of S. james bishop of Jerusalem, by the greek Homilies of Cyrillus bishop there also, before S. Augustine's time, l●st of all by the words of S. Augustine himself in that self same epistle alleged by M. jewel it is evident. For in that same Epistle showing that we ought not to reject the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expressing the consubstantialite of Christ with God the father, because it was not written in holy Scripture, but made by the greek Fathers, saith thus. Non enim in Africa, aut in cuncta Barbariae sed in Syria vel Graecia ubi & ipsa caro voluit de virgine nasci dominica, decuit vel oportuit verba fidei compendiose firmare. For not in Africa nor in all the rest of barbarous and foreign countries, but in Syria or Grece where it liked our Saviour to take Flesh of the Virgin, the words of our faith ought or might well be established. In which words he calleth jury (where Christ was borne) by the name of Grece. The which also he doth in an other Epistle calling that country. 
August. Epst. 70.  Radicem Orientalium Ecclesiaru● unde evangelium in Africam venit, unde terra si eis afferatur, adorant. The Root of of the East Churches from whence the Gospel came unto Africa, and from whence the earth if it be brought to them is worshipped: which can be meaned of no Land but of the Holy Land. Yet notwithstanding all this, that principally all Christendom hath their faith from Jerusalem: though she be the true Mother to us all, though S. Augustine do confess that from thence the faith came to Africa, yet I say notwithstanding all this Saint Augustine in this very epistle, 70. in number, confesseth also that the Faith came to Africa from Rome. For speaking off the Donatists condemned apud Ecclesiam transmarinam, which was at Rome by Melchiades the Pope, he addeth unde ad istas parts Christianae fidei manavit authoritas, from the which Church of Rome the authority of Christian faith hath been derived in to these parts. And so S. Gregory saith that from Rome, 
Greg. Lib. 7. ep. 32. Indict. 1.  in Africanis partibus sumpsit ordina●io saecerdotalis exordium, In the Coasts of Africa, the beginning of priestly Order did springe. Thus notwithstanding that Jerusalem is the Mother of all christendom, yet the West Church (as we have particularly declared in France, in Germany, in our country, and last of all now in Africa) hath taken their first faith properly and immediately from Rome. And so hath there been no Untruth avouched by D. Harding, but a manifest and wilful falsehood defended by M. jewel.  
Harding. They planted and set up in the Countries by them converted the Service of the Church of Rome or some other very like, and that (74) in the latin tongue only, for aught that can be showed to the contrary.  
jewel. The .74. Untruth. For the first preachers themselves spoke no latin. 
The 143. Untruth Slanderous.   
If this be all that you can show to the contrary, then have you showed nothing. For all those which S. Peter and S. Clement and other Popes sent unto France, those which Eleutherins', Celestinus, and S. Gregory sent to Britanny, those which other Popes sent to sundry parts of Germany and other the north parts as we have before particularly declared, last of all those, which (as S. Augustin witnesseth) authorised the Christian faith in Africa, think you M. jewel that all they sent from Rome, had not the Roman language, which is the latin tongue? Because S. Peter was a jew borne and a Grecian, think you therefore they spoke no latin? Where was then the gift of tongues given to the Apostles? You should have done well M. jewel to have named the first preachers of the west Church, which could speak no latin, and to have proved that also. So you mihgt justly have charged D. Harding with an Untruth, affirming they spoke all latin, for aught that can be showed to the contrary. You have noted it for an Untruth: but you have showed nothing to the contrary. It is an easy matter to deny a Truth. You know the proverb M. jewel. Plus potest Asinus negar● quàm Aristoteles probare.  
Harding. He shall find in the old Fathers, that to Per omnia secula seculorum, to Dominus vobiscum, to Sursum corda, and to Gratias agamus domino deo nostro, the people answered (75) as now also they answer: Amen, & cum Spiritu tuo, habemus ad dominum, dignum & justum est.  
jewel. 
The .144. Slaund. The 145. Untruth For D· Harding knoweth the contrary.  The .75. Untruth. It is not so now. M. harding knoweth, The people now answereth not the priest.  
It appeareth M. jewel, you heard not Mass many a day. If you had heard as many Masses while you were on this side of the seas, as you were present at Communions, no doubt but you should have seen the Catholic people to answer the priest at Mass even now at this day, in all such words and terms, as D. Harding here mentioneth. Doubt you not but these words and answers are kept still in the Mass at this day in all Catholic countries, even as they were in the old Father's days, in the times of Chrysostom, of S. Cyprian, and S. Augustin. 
Chrysost. Homil. de Eucaenijs et Euchaecharistia. Ciprianus in expos. orat. Don. August. in epist. 57 & serm. 44. de tempore.  Yea and the people answereth the priest now as they did then. Come to Mass and you shall see it so. But you say. Then all the people answered the priest, and that in such sort, that saint Bafill compareth the sound of the people to the sound of waves beating against the sea banks, and S. Hierom compareth it to a thunderclap. Then if this be all the difference that at that time the whole people answered, and now a few only of the people, or the Choir for the people answereth Amen, and such other things, it is no Untruth that the people doth answer, though not in so common and Large a manner as they did then, yea though they answer not every one particularly, but some of them for all the rest, or some other for them all: As in great churches the Choir, and in mean parish churches the parish clerk. And thus also the manner expressed in S. Paul to the Corinthians (if that be spoken of the Church Service) is perfectly observed. 
Epist. 1. Cap. 14.  For there it is not required that the people itself (expressed by the name Idiota) do answer Amen, but that he which supplieth the place of the people, do answer Amen. This place of the people is supplied either by the Choir, or by the parish clerk: And so the people answereth, Amen. For he is not Untruly said to do a thing, which doth it by an other. So the Commons give their assent in Parliament by their Burgeoses, and so the Prince executeth justice by his Depute.  
Harding. The Constitution of justinian for celebrating the holy oblation not closely, 
Diuis. 14.  but with utterance and sound of Voice was ordained only for the greek Church, and thereto only it is to be referred for that some thought the sacrifice should be celebrated rather with silence, after the manner of the Church of Rome, specially at the Consecration.  
The .76. Untruth. For it touched the whole empire.  
jewel. The. 7●. Untruth. Fo● the Priests in Rome prai●d aloud, as appeareth by S. Jerome, 
pag. 171. T●e 146. and the 147. Untruths both Slaund.  Leo, Ambrose etc.  
Stapleton. These two Untruths noted by M jewel in one sentence, I will justify also in one labour, perusing along the whole text of M. jewel that appertaineth hereunto. Thus M. jewel in his text proceedeth.  
jewel. The gloze tha● M. harding hath here imagined, wherewith to defeat this g●od Emperors w●ole purpose, may seem somewhat unto th● ignorant.  
jewel. I doubt not but it seemeth also sufficient even to the learned, for aught that you ha●e Replied to the contrary, as now it shall appea●● (God willing) to the unlearned also.  
jewel. justinian (saith he) speaks of the open utterance, and sound of voi●e and agreeth with S. Augustine● p●ace, de M●gi●●ro. Therefore it nothing toucheth Prayers to be had in the vulgar tongue. 
The .148 Untruth. ●or this Conclus●on is good and right.  H●re is a very vulgar Conclusion: as, I trust, hereafter shall appear. Good Christian Reader, if it shall please thee only to peruse these worde● of the Emperor justinian and of S. Augustine by us alleged, I will make thee judge and Arbitrour of the whole.  
Stapleton M. jewel speaketh fair. But when the Fox preacheth, beware your geese. In deed if it will please us to be deceived and mocked by M. jewel, we may soon so be. If it will please us to peruse the words of S. Augustin by him alleged, and to seek no farther, but to trust his allegation, the judgement may hap to go on his side. But if we take S. Augustin and look in his very text, we shall see that M. jewel spoke not so fair without a vantage. For he hath in deed wilfully and of purpose utterly missereported and missealleaged S. Augustine, as anon we shall see.  
jewel. S. Augustine saith. We need not utterance of voi●e to pray unto God. For the Sacrifice of iusti●e is sanctifie● in the temple of our min●e, and in the secret ●hamber of ou● heart.  
jewel. This is hitherto true. S. Augustin saith so in deed. But now M. jewel will juggle.  
Hereupon S. Augustine demandeth this question. Wherefore then doth the P●iest lif●e up his voi●e, and pray aloud in the open assembly in the Church.  
jewel. This is the first Untruth. 
The. 1●9 Untruth. S. Aug●stin demandeth no such question.  S. Augus●in moveth no such question, as it shall straight way appear.  
He answereth, Not that God, but that man may ●eare him, that the people by the sound off his voi●e, and understanding his meaning may be put in 〈◊〉 and by consent be ioy●e● together, an● lifted up to God. This is the very meaning and mind of S. Aug●stine.  
jewel. S. Augustin as he made before no question, 
The .150 Untruth in falsifying S. augustin  so he maketh here no answer. Again these words (and understanding his meaning) ●re not the words of S. Augustin, but of M. jewel prettily conveyed in to the text of S. Augustin, the better to furnish and fashion up his Vulgar Service. Last of all this is not the meaning of S. Augustin, as M. jewel affirmeth. And so in these few words of S. Augustin, M. jewel hath couched four Untruths.  
Stapleton. To prove all this, it shall suffice to recite the whole words of S. Augustin as they lie in the place alleged. If any of M. jewels friends that is unlearned, mistrust my dealing herein, let him ask the advise of any his learned friends, and try my truth thereby. I will put the whole words first in latin, and after give you the true english thereof. S. Augustin writeth thus. Vbi putas Sacrificium justiciae sa●rifi●a●i nisi in t●mplo mentis & in cubilibus cordis? ●bi aut●m sac●●ficandum est, ibi & orandum. 
Lib de Magistro. Cap. 1.  Where thinkest thou the Sacrifice of righteousness is sacrificed but in the temple of our mind, and in the secret chamber of our ha●te? But where we must Sacrifice, th●●● we ●ust pray. And hereof he concludeth in these words. Quare non opus est locutione cum oramus, id ●st sonantibus verbis, nisi ●orte, sicut Sacerdotes faciunt, significandae mentis suae causa, non ut D●us, sed ut homines audiant, & cons●nsione quadam per commemorationem suspe●datur in D●um. ●herefore we need no Utterance of words, that is, no sound of voice when we pray, unless perhaps as Priests do to signify their mind, not that God, but that men may hear them, and with a certain consent through putting in mind, may be lifted up unto God.  
These are the true words of Saint Augustine. Here is no question demanded, wherefore Priests do lift up their voices in the Church, as M. jewel allegeth. But it is brought in of Saint Augustine as an exception against his general proposition, that in prayer we need no utterance of voice. Again the reason why the Priest so lifted up his voice is not (as M. jewel sayeth) that the people understanding his meaning may be put in mind, etc. Saint Augustine hath no such words: but he lifteth up his voice Significandae mentis suae causa, to signify his own mind. And what mind of the Priest is that? No● that God may hear him (who seeth the heart and needeth no utterance of voice) but that the people may hear him. And how? To understand what he saith? S. Augustin saith no such thing. But Vt consensione quadam per commemorationem suspendantur in Deum, to the intent that the people wi●h a certain consent (not of understanding the Priest, but) through putting in mind (by the voice of the Priest) may be lifted up unto God. This is the very meaning and mind of S. Augustin and as M. jewel allegeth,  
jewel. agreeing fully with these words of S. Cyprian, The Priest before Prayer prepareth the minds off his Brothers, 
In exposit. orat. Dominicae.  s●yinge thus. Lift up your hearts. To the intent they may be put in mind, they ought to think off nothing else, but off the Lord For not the sound off voice, but the min●e and understanding must pray unto the Lord with pure Intention. 
The 151. Untruth in Nipping of quite in the midst the words of S. Cyprian.   
S. Augustine as M. jewel saith, agreeth with these words of Saint Cyprian, which should the better have appeared, if he had not nipped quite in the midst, these words. Dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Dominum, while the people answereth (even as they do now in the Mass to Sursum corda, lift up your hearts) Habemus ad Dominum. We lift them up to our Lord. For the priest saying, Sursum corda, and the people answering, Hab●mus ad dominum by answering those words, Admon●ntur (as S. Cyprian saith) nihil aliud quàm dominum cogitare debere: t●ey are put in mind, they ought to think of nothing else but of God. And so are the people put in mind at this day, where the Curate doth his duty, though they understand not the vulgar sense of the words, no more than the common vulgar people of Africa (where S. Cyprian spoke these words) did, who had a punical vulgar tongue beside the latin, (as it is in this Article at large proved) and yet the service in latin. But these words, while the people answereth, Habemus ad dominum M. jewel thought good to nip of quite in the midst of the Sentence, knowing very well, that his New Corrupt Doctrine, can not stand without the manifest Corruption of the Old Doctors. Again the later words of S. Cyprian which M. jewel allegeth, as one continual text, 
The 152. Untruth as appeareth.  of the Author, and as a reason of the words that went before, these words I say, For not the sound of voice etc. are no part● of that sentence nor do pertain thereunto, but do close up an other Principal Sentence following, which is this. Clandatur contra adversarium pectus etc. Let our breast be closed up against the enemy, and be opened to God only, not suffering the enemy of God at prayer to have access unto us. For he creepeth on oftentimes and pierceth in, and guilefully deceiving us calleth away our prayers from God making us to say one thing and to think an other: Whereas not the sound of voice, but the mind and understanding ought to pray to God with pure intention. Here Lo these words are placed of S. Cyprian, not to prove, as M. jewel would force them by wrong placing them, that we ought of necessity to understand the Priest, but that when we pray, we should pray in heart and mind, not in tongue or sound of voice only. Which heart and mind of us is stirred up when the Priest lifteth up his voice more at sometimes then at other, as toward the time of the Holy Consecration of the most Dreadful mysteries, when he crieth out allowed to the people Sursum Corda, as the Grecians also cried out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 
Chrysost. in Liturgia.  though the common people neither in Africa neither in Grece did always customably and generally understand the latin or the greek tongues. Thus with two notorious Untruths committed in the allegation of S. Cyprian, M. jewel hath brought S. Augustin and S. Cyprian both agreeing not with him, but with the Constitution of justinian against him, as it shall anon appear.  
jewel. 
The .153. Vn●r●the For D. Harding s●i●d no such thing.  All thi● (saith M. harding) pertaineth to the sense and understanding of the prayer, and nothing to the vulgar tongue.  
As M. jewel hath corrupted S. Augustin and S. Cyprian, so now he corrupteth the very text of D. Harding. For the words which M. jewel as and for the words of D. harding, allegeth, are not to be found in his text. D. harding saith that this Constitution of justinian maketh not for the Service to be had in any vulgar tongue, but only that the Service be pronounced by the priest aloud, that it be vocal, not mental, speaking not whispering with the breath only. Which Custom agreeth to the manner also of the latin Church as it is recorded by S. Augustin and S. Cyprian both. Who do testify the custom of the latin Mass as we have it now, that the priest speaketh aloud Su●sum corda, and the people answereth, Habemus ad dominum. By which loud speaking of the priest, the people is stirred to prayer. This D. Harding said to be the meaning of Iu●●inians Constitution. Against this what doth M. jewel Reply? Verily to the matter nothing. But having first corrupted S. Augustin, nipped S. Cyprian, and then altered the words of D. Harding, he confuteth tha● which was not avouched and fighteth with his own shadow, thus.  
jewel. And doth he think, the people can understand the praie●, without understanding of the tongue?  
As the people is not bound to understand the prayer of the priest, so neither is it needful that they understand the to●nge. 
Stapl●ton  Such understanding of the people neither Iu●tinian nor S. Augustin, nor S. Cyprian do require, neither the words of D. Harding do affirm.  
jewel. S. Augustine if he were alive, 
Vhe .154. Untruth t●ere is ●o cause of suc● sha●e given.  would be ashamed to see such a Comme●t upon his words.  
Ye● M. jewel not only S. Augustin but S. Cyprian also if they were alive, would be ashamed and highly offended, to see their words so corrupted and mangled, and so used of you to maintain a Schism in the Church which they so grievously abhorred. justinian if he were alive, how would he be ashamed to see his Constitution so racked to prove a Vulgar Service, which he never dreamt of? And had you any shame or regard of yourself M. jewel, you would be ashamed and sorry to, thus to abuse both the doctors and ancient Fathers, and also the very text which lieth open for any man to read and peruse.  
jewel. He saith further. The pries● lifts up his voice, 
The 155. Untruth in falsifying the text of D. Hard.  not that the people may vnderstan●e him, but only fo● a toke● to show, that he prayeth.  
What passing impudence is this? Is the●e nothing in you but Untruth and falsehood M. jewel? Is the answer of D. Harding so good that you can not Reply without altering his words, or adding to his words? For first where you affirm, that D. Harding saith, The priest lifteth up his voice not that the people may understand him, true it is he meaneth so, though he said not so. But here you must remember you make D. Harding to say two contrary things. Before you reason with him as though he had said, the people ought to understand the prayer, when you said And doth he think etc. Now you make him to say, That the priest lifts up his voice not that the people may understand him. But now to come to your present Untruth, when you say But only for a token to show that he prayeth, that is a manifest Untruth. For D. harding told you out of S. Augustin, that the priest lifted up his voice, to the end that the people hearing the priest, might be lif●●d up unto God, and how: By a certain consent, through putting in mind of the priest.  
jewel. And thus he maketh the Minister of God, worse than a b●asen trumpet, 
The 1●6. Vntr●the joined with a Slaund.  which, if it g●ue no certain sound, as S. Paul saith, no man can prepare himself to war. This is the just judgement of God that who so seeketh to blind others, shall be given over, and become blind himself.  
It is an easy matter, when a man's eyes be plucked out, to prove him blind. As long as you make D. Harding to speak at your pleasure, no marvel if you confute at pleasure. In deed if the Priest lifted up his voice only for a token that he prayed, and neither prayed himself in deed, neither stirred other thereby to prayer, then truly M. jewels collection might stand for good, and then the Bells were as good as the Priest. But if the Priest lifting up his voice at the Service time both prayeth himself unto God, 

The .157. Untruth For those words of S. Augustin. are not spoken of the pr●●st August. de Magistro.  
The .158. Untruth For the people understandeth what is tokened according to S. August. meaning.   and stirreth also the people thereunto, as S. Augustin and S. Cyprian both have said, then is the priest a true Minister of God, than he giveth out a certain sound, and both doth well himself, and edifyeth other. And then M. jewel hath lost a good argument.  
And notwithstanding S. Augustine's mind concerning the speaking of the priest be plain in itself, yet afterward in the same Book he openeth it in this manner more at large. We are agreed vpo● this, that the (157) words we speak be tokens. But a token, unless it betoken some thing, is no token. Now if the priest after M. hardings construction utter his words, which are the tokens of his meaning, in an unknown tongue, and (158) the people understand not, what is tokened, according to S. Augustins meaning, he speaketh, and yet saith nothing, and showeth tokens, and yet tokeneth nothing.  
All this cometh to one end. The words of the Priest uttered in an unknown tongue, do utter yet his meaning unto the people,. For his meaning is, not that the people shall understand the words that he speaketh (that hath not been yet proved), But his meaning is that the people thereby be stirred to devotion, be put in mind of their duty in the Church, and with one consent pray with the Priest. This is that which S. Augustin and Cyprian report. This is the meaning of justinian's Constitution. And this is so true that among such infinite diue●site of tongues and languages as well in the East Church as in the West, the Service hath yet never been in any other tongue than Greek and Latin, as it shall the next Untruth, at large appear.  
jewel. Further S. Augustine's words be clear. 
The .159 Untruth For D. Harding said no such thing.  The Priest in the assembly speaketh aloud. Significandae mentis causa, ut homines audiant etc. To the end to declare his mind, that men may hear him and by the sound off his voi●e be put in remembrance. But M. harding saith. No. The P●iest speaketh not aloud, to th'intent to declare his mind, nei●her that men may hear him, nor be put in remembrance, but (159) only to give a token that he prayeth. And thus by his gloze, he utterly destroyeth the text.  
Stapleton Had this place of S. Augustine been clear and evident on M. jewels side, he would not have used such Shifts, such Discourses, such Repetitions, such Alterations, such Coursing and coiling of it, as he hath done. You see how oft he hath turned and tossed it to make it serve, and yet it will not be. For whatsoever S. Augustin said herein, D. Harding said it also, who alleged the whole words of S. Augustin in his text, and by those words interpreted the Constitution of justinian. Now cometh M. jewel and after all other Shifts, affir●●eth D. Harding to say all quite contra●y to S. Augustin. I can say no more herein but desire the discrete and indifferent Reader to peruse the words of D. Harding in his own text. D. Harding denieth not (as M. jewel saith here, he doth) that the Priest speaketh aloud to th'intent to declare his mind, that men may hear him. He denieth not that the Priest putteth the people in remembrance. Neither doth he say that the Priest giveth only a token that he prayeth. But he saith all the Contrary even as S. August in saith, and in S. Augustins own words. These three Untruths M. jewel hath made again upon the words of D. harding.  
jewel. Now let us resolve both S. Augustine's and justinian's words, into their causes: which is an infallible way of understanding.  
Stapleton. This way is very well to be liked, if it be done truly and clerckly. Let us see.  
jewel. The end of them both is according to the doctrine of S. Paul that people may say. Amen. 
The .160. Untruth   
Stapleton S. Augustin speaketh of no such matter in all his words that have been hitherto alleged. This is therefore one Untruth. Yet be it, the end of justinian's Constitution was such. proceed M. jewel.  
jewel. Then further: the people must answer Amen unto the prayer. 
The .161. Untruth. For by the doctrine of S. Paul the people is not bound to answer Amen.   
You should have added, or else one that supplied the Room of of the people. For so run the words of S. Paul. If you will ground upon scripture, diminish not the word of the Lord, M. jewel.  
Then must they understand the prayer.  
Here your Resolution faileth you: And that for two Causes. For it is sufficient that one do answer for the whole people, and then he only hath need to understand it and not the people. Again the people may answer though they understand not, 
The .162. Untruth standing in an Unture Collection.  without the breach of S. Paul's doctrine. And to prove the possibility hereof, we have the Confessed Practise of the universal Church these 900. years. We have also the practice of the first 600. years. At what time the Service was only in Greek and Latin (as it shall in the next Untruth appear) and yet sundry Nations understood not at that time the very Greek and Latin. This therefore is a very weak and false proceeding of M. jewel, in avouching that thing, the contrary whereof is by such an universal practice of Christ's Church proved and justified. For every good Resolution M. jewel, proceeding from the causes to the effects, (as this your Resolution would seem to do) ought to proceed A Causis per se & proximis. from proper causes, and those the nearest, not of bastard surmised causes and those far sought. As you do hear M. jewel. For when you infer, The people must answer, Amen, Ergo they must understand the prayer, making the understanding of the people, to follow necessarily of the answering Amen, you make a Fallax, of Non causa pro causa. For as I said, the people may and have these many hundred years answered Amen to the priest, though they understand not the priest. But the cause why the people must answer Amen, is as S. Augustin and S. Cyprian hath told you M. jewel, partly to give their consent to God's Minister, partly thereby to lift up their hearts to God, and to pray with him. Thus therefore, as one link of a chain being broken, all that followeth, falleth of, and will hang no more together, so your resolution failing here in the midst, that which you draw after, must needs drag behind, and come short of the whole purpose. Howbeit M. jewel limpeth on, as well as he may, and saith.  
jewel. Yet further. The people must understand the prayer: then must the priest utter the same both with a loud voice, and also in the vulgar tongue.  
Stapleton This Conclusion falleth down right: It was broken of before quite in the midst: Therefore it hangeth very loosely. Every Child may see thourough it.  
jewel. Let us again resolve it forward.  
Stapleton You see hitherto M. jewel hath wrought backward, and therefore no marvel if all his work came to nought, Now he saith, he will work the matter forward. 
The 163. Untruth standing in false Collection.   
jewel. The priest, by M. hardings judgement, may pray openly in a strange tongue, then needeth he not to speak aloud.  
Yes forsooth the priest must speak aloud significandae mentis suae causa, to signify his own mind as S. Augustine sayeth, Which is as S. Augustin expoundeth that men may hear him, and by the sound of his voice be put in remembrance, both to give their consent, and also to lift up their hearts to God and to pray with him. All which may be done though the priest do pray in a strange tongue. I say strange, that is, not Vulgar. For the Latin tongue in that respect as it is no Vulgar tongue, is to the Vulgar people a strange tongue. Yet to the Latin Church in an other respect it is no strange tongue. 
The Strange tongue.  But that is strange to the latin Church, which in the latin Church was never used. As is in deed all Service in the vulgar tongue, beside greek in the greek Church and latin in the Latin Church. For this is so strange a thing that these xv. C. years in the Church of Christ it was never used, but upon special privilege, and that in this later age. As it shall in the next Untruth appear. Thus the priest must speak aloud, and his so speaking shall not be fruitless, though he pray in a strange, that is, in an unknown tongue to the Vulgar people. And thus M. jewels Resolution faltreth and shaketh even at the beginning.  
jewel. 
The 164. Untruth For th●re is no breach of S. Paul●s doctrine committed.  He speaketh not aloud, then can not the people understand him. The people understandeth not the priest than can they not sa●e Amen. Thus M. harding must needs conclude his gloze with the open breach of S. Paul's doctrine.  
The people may answer Amen, as far as S. Paul requireth them, though they understand not the Priest. S. Paul requireth not the whole people so to answer, but qui supplet locum idio●ae. Him that supplieth the room of the ignorant. Again to answer Amen requireth not an Understanding of the words which the Priest speaketh, but it requireth a Consent to the words spoken, a lifting up of the heart at the words spoken, and a praying with the priest so speaking. It is not to be doubted but the whole universal Church of Christ these many hundred years, understood the words of S. Paul as well M. jewel doth. And it is not D. hardings gloze, but the continual practice of the universal Church which concludeth with the open breach of S. Paul's doctrine, if to have the Service in a tongue unknown to the common people, 
M. jewel condemneth the universal Church with the open breach of S. Paul's doctrine.  be a breach of S. Paul's doctrine. And thus M. jewels Resolution both backward and forward, faltering and failing in the very beginning, falleth down right in the end, and proveth his purpose nothing. Beside that in the whole drift thereof he rangeth clean wide from the words of S. Augustin and justinian, whose words he said he would resolve into their causes. For neither S. Augustin nor justinian speaketh any one word that the people ought to understand the Service. But both do say that the priest ought to speak aloud. The cause why; out of S. Augustin yond have heard already. justinian also giveth the same, whose words are these, as M. jewel himself allegeth them. 
Authen. Constit. 123.  We command all bishops and priests to Minister the holy Oblation and the prayer at the Holy baptism, not under silence, but with such voice, as may be heard of the faithful people: to 〈◊〉, that thereof the hearts of the hearers may be stirred to more devotion, and honour giving to God. For so the holy Apostle teacheth, saying in the first epistle to the Corinthians. For if thou only bliss with the Spirit, how shall be, that supplieth the room of the ignorant, say, 
1. Cor. 14.  Amen, to God at thy thanks giving? For he knoweth not what thou sayest. Thou givest thanks well. But the other is not edified. For these causes therefore it behoveth, that the prayer at the holy Oblation, and also other prayers be offered with loud voice of the holy bishops and priests unto our Lord jesus Christ with the Father and the holy Ghost. Thus far the Constitution of justinian. His words do require (as S. Augustins also before) that the Priest do speak aloud at the holy Oblation time. And the cause thereof he giveth. Not that the people may understand him. For in justinian's time, few or none of the common vulgar people understood the learned Greek or Latin wherein the Church Service was then only said. But that the people hearing the priest, might thereof be stirred to more devotion, and honour giving to God. To the which devotion the people is stirred, when the priest lifteth up his voice, stretcheth his hands, and knocketh his breast, with other such godly tokens of the inward man, though they understand not the very words that the priest speaketh: Yea and better also then if they understood them, as the very experience of devotion in old time, 
Vulgar Service Distracteth from Devotion.  and at these days doth evidently declare. For now the people (as I have heard them myself complain) hearkening to the Minister reading the Scriptures in English, and understanding the meaning thereof as much as if they were readd in greek, they spend the little time which they abide in the Church rather in wondering at such strange matters, then in private devotion and prayer. Yea by that external noise of the English Service familiar to their ears, and strange to their understanding, they are forced to hearken to that which they attain not, and remain distracted from that which they would do. But in the old Latin Service when the priest said his Confiteor, all the Parish woule kneel down and lift up their hearts to God with him. Likewise somewhat before the Sacring, when the priest speaking more aloud, began to say Per omnia secula seculorum, and that which followeth, the whole Parish would stand up, and lift up their hearts also to God with the priest, devoutly attending the presence of their Maker in those most Holy and Dreadful Mysteries. Neither was there any so ignorant in all the parish which did not at that time lift up his heart to God with the Priest, though he understood no one word that the Priest said. For they came then to the Service to pray unto almighty God: They came to Sermons to learn and to be instructed. In this devotion many a thousand of englishmen, though they understood no one word of the Priest, have yielded their souls to Cod and attained to the bliss everlasting, these nine hundred years and upward, all which time the English Church hath been Christened and hath had the Church Service only in the latin tongue. Thus much of the meaning of justinian's Constitution, of the which M. jewel for all his Reply can not yet pick out his Vulgar Service. But now it shall farther appear, that though that Constitution had been made of such Countries, where the people understood the Service, yet it was no general Constitution nor touched not the latin Church, as you have heard in the words of D. Harding before alleged, upon the which M. jewel though himself to have a good occasion to note a Couple of Untruths. His Note in the Margin you have heard before. Now he prosecuteth it in his text, and saith.  
jewel. M. Harding saith further. This law took place only in Constantinople, 
The 165. Untruth as shall appear. Stapleton.  and not in the Church of Rome. And so he coucheth two manifest Untruths together in one sentence.  
First M. jewel allegeth not the words of D. Harding truly. D. Har. saith, justinian ordained thus for the Greek Church only, and to that only it is to be referred. Now Constantinople is but a part of the greek Church. M. jewel therefore after his manner, hath restrained much the words of D. Harding, thereby to make the Untruth more apparent, and the matter more odious. But now M. jewel: How prove you this to be untrue. Thus he flourisheth.  
jewel. But what? will he say, justinian, was not Emperor of Rome, or had nothing to do in the Church of Rome.  
Stapleton. What need is there, that D. harding should say so much? You know M. jewel by your law, that the laws and statutes of Emperors do not always extend to all the provinces of the Empire. Which shall evidently appear by that which yourself anon allegeth.  
jewel. Verily he writeth himself the Emperor of Rome, of France, of Almanie and Germany, etc.  
justinian doth no where write himself Emperor of Rome. 
The 166. Untruth justinian writeth not himself Emperor of Rome. In prefat. in lib. Novel. Procopius lib. 3. Blondus dec. 1. li. 8. joan. Fab. & ●oa. de P●a. Blood. li. 7. Les Annales de France. Gagn. li. 2. Gagn. li. 1.  And it is evident by the stories he had in Italy (as Contius noteth) But dubium Imperium, a doubtful and not settled empire. It is known that the goths then possessed Italy, that Belisarius the captain of justinian overthrew them in often battles, but did not yet utterly extinguish them. And the first depute of the Greek Emperor at Ravenna in Italy, ●●lled Exarchus, was in the time of justinus successor to 〈◊〉 justinian. Neither was justinian Emperor of France. Fo● though he be called Francicus, yet that was not (as Blondus seemeth to say) of that we call now France, but of a part of Almanie so called, as divers other do write. And certain it is by the Chronicles of France, and other, that in the time of justinian's Empire, Chilperic and Clotarius were kings of France, succeeding to Clovis who one hundred years before the Empire of justinian in the time of Theodosius the second occupied the realm of France. Sense which time France was never subject to the Empire, more than other realms were.  
jewel. 
The .167. Untruth For not I●stinian ●eposed them but the wicked Empress by her Captain Bel●s●rius violently banished them. Tom 2. Conciliorum in vita Si●ue●ij.  And deposed two Bishops of Rome, Syluerius and Vigilius. Whereof it may appear he had somewhat to do in the Church of Rome.  
Verily a small power would serve to bring this to pass. The Empress justinian's wife being an Eutychian heretic and offended with Pope Silverius for not restoring Anthemius the Eutychian bishop of Constantinople, whom Agapetus the Pope, predecessor to Silverius had deposed, and ordered in his place Menna, found the means by her captain Bellisarius, who occupied and defended Rome at that time against the goths, to banish the Pope Silverius. This was no great Act for such a Captain as Bellisarius was to banish a holy bishop. Such Imperial despositions you use. Vigilius in like manner being placed in the room of Silverius by the drift also of Belisarius at the Commandment off the Eutychian Empress, to whom he had promised that being Pope he would restore Anthemius, 
Ibidem in vita Vigilij.  whereas being made Pope in deed he would not perform his promise, nor contaminare that holy See with the approving of any Heresy, he was by a train brought to Constantinople and so banished. 
Liberatus Cap. 22  And all this was done rather by the wicked Empress then by justinian, who as Liberatus w●i●eth restored again Silverius (though by the means of Belisarius he was carried away again into banishment) and Vigilius also as it appeareth in his life, 
Tom. 2. Concil. in vita Vigilij.  though he died by the way in Sicilia. But what will M. jewel conclude hereof: Will he reason thus?  
justinian's wife being an heretic expelled two godly bishops of Rome by violence.  
E●go his Constitution of pronouncing the Service aloud, was made for the Church of Rome?  
This argument hangeth very loosely. Every child may see thourough it.  
jewel. Touching this Constitution, the law saith. Generaliter dictum, 
The .168. Untruth for these laws do not touch this Constitution of justinian.  generali●er est accipiendum. The thing that is spoken general, must be taken generally. And it is commonly said. Vbi le● non distinguit nos distingue●e non debemus. Where the Law maketh no distinction, the●e ought we to make no distinction.  
These laws M. jewel, are as good arguments for truants, and as fit tools for cavillers as can possibly be devised. And you know M. jewel, Dolosus ve●satur in generalibus. The Wrangler walketh in generals. And will you see how many exceptions this law, generaliter dictum, admitteth? It must be restrained and understanded, first according to the matter whereof the law treateth. Then according to the Conditions and qualities of the persons of whom the law speaketh. Thirdly the Circumstances of the place and time must be considered. Again the words which went before, or which come after: The Common manner of speech: Some other law speaking more specially, Last of all (as the learned lawyer Baldus teacheth you) secundum rationem expressam, 
Baldus. L. Si. quis servo. Cod. de fu●tis.  vel subsequentem, vel tacitè inhaerentem, it must be understanded according to the cause expressed, or following after, or secretly pertaining thereunto. These many Conditions and twenty more, if a man would play the Lawyer, might be alleged to restrain this general rule of M. jewel, under the which he thinketh to cloak his error.  

L. i §. Generaliter. ff D. leg praestand.  And to touch some of them particularly, the law saith. Verba generalia secundum sui naturam generaliter intelligi debent. General words must be meaned generally according to their nature. And so do the doctors expound the law alleged by M. jewel. Again the law saith. 

L. plenum §. equitj. ff. d. usu et habit. L. ex militari. ff D. testa. milit.  
L. cum pater. §. dulcis simis. ff. D. leg. 2.   Verba generalia restringuntur, secundum qualitatem person●rum ad quas referuntur. General words are restrained according to the qualities of the persons unto the which they are referred. And so this law of justinian though the words run generally, yet it is to be restrained only to such of the Greek Church as it was made for. Farther the law saith. Verba generalia regulantur a sua ratione. General words are ruled by their reason or cause. And so the reason or cause of justinians Constitution being not the understanding of the priests prayer, but the stirring of the people to devotion, which may and hath long time been done though the prayer be not understanded vulgarly, 
L. filius familias. ff. D. act. et obligat. juncta. L. j ff. ad Sena ●us. Maced. & L. juris gentium, §. si paciscar. ff. d. pact. juncta L. tran sigere & ibi. glow. de transact.  it maketh nothing for M. jewels Vulgar Service. Lex simpliciter & indistincté loquens debet distingui secundum alias leges specialiter & distincté loquentes. The law speaking plainly and without any distinction, must yet be distinguished according to other laws speaking specially and distinctly. So certain it is that M. jewel hath alleged. Where the law doth not distinguish, we must not distinguish. And therefore yet again the law saith, Lex generaliter & indistincté loquens non refertur ad casus specialiter notatos. The law that speaketh generally and indistinctly, is not referred to cases specially noted. And to show briefly what a fickle and feeble ground M. jewel hath laid to build his wrong construction of justinian's Constitution upon notwithstanding his general rules, 
L. sanctio degun. ff. de poenis. L. doli clausula. ff. de stipulat. L. j § quod ait. ff. ne quid in loc. sacr.  the law expressly saith. Verba quantumcunque generalia ad consonum int●llectum restringuntur. Words be they never so general are restrained to a convenient understanding. By all which laws it appeareth that although general words by their own nature be general, as it is proved in M. jewels law, yet circunstaunces do quite alter, order, and dispose the sense thereof. And thus the general words of a law are not unlike to a piece of cloth not yet cut out to make any garment. Which by circumstances being framed to some special thing, do then stand well and rightly for that special thing. Otherwise it would happen which the law saith. Plerumque dum proprietas v●rborum attenditur, sensus veritatis amittitur. 
C. propterea ex. de verb. signi.  Oftentimes while we stick to the propriety of the words, we lose the understanding of the Truth. These rules therefore of M. jewel, make no argument to prove that justinian's constitution is general to all the World, but is only a smothering smoke to dazzle the light of the Truth, because in deed (as M. jewel hath said himself) Dolosus versatur in generalibus. 
pag. 262.  The deceitful and wrangler walketh in generals.  
To come now more particularly to this Constitution off justinian, the law giveth us yet an other Circumstance to lighten this matter more, and that is this. The law saith. 
L. si uno ff. locati.  Verba intelligi debent secundum subiectam materiam. Words are to be understanded according to the matter proposed. And in an other place it speaketh more expressly, saying of words even generally spoken. Generalia verba non extenduntur ad non cogitata, 
L. Empto. §. Lucius et ibi Bart. ff. de pact.  sed ad id tantum de quo agitur. General words are not extended to that which was never intended, but only to the matter whereof it is treated. And so justinian making this Constitution for the greek Church, though he spoke generally, yet his words are to be drawn only to that which was of him intended, which was only the greek Church, as it shall anon appear. As for example. If a law were made: Whosoever draweth blood with in the Court gates, shall be hanged. These general words generally taken (according to the wisdom of M. jewel) will hang the apothecary of surgeon that letteth blood by the Rules off his Art to some Noble man lying sick in the Court: In like manner a general pardon given by the Clemency of the Prince, shall acquit traitors, by the wisdom of M. jewel, though yet the Prince intended not so. But as in both these laws, the general words are to be restrained to the intent of the law maker, which is understanded, either by the Common manner of speech used in such laws (as in the Case of general pardons) or by the persons intended in the law, as in the first Ca●e, where pothecaries and surgians were not meaned letting blood by their Art, even so in the law of justinian, though his words run generally, yet they are not therefore generally to be taken. Again there is in the Constitution of justinian a circumstance secretly included, which declareth the law not to be so general, as to extend to the Roman Empire. In the end of the Constitution Commission is given to the Officier of Constantinople, Vt per prothemata in consuetis locis R●giae Civitatis affixa in cognitionem omnium perdu●ere festinet, 
In Authen. Const. 137  & manis●sta facere omnibus qui provincijs praesunt. That by proclamations set up in the accustomed places of Constantinople the law should be published, and notice be given to all that govern the provinces. Here the Officer of Constantinople is appointed to publish this Constitution. Now would the Romans take notice of him, who had as high Officers to publish such matters, as any was in Constantinople? And therefore justinian in his most general Constitutions when he will have them to extend to Rome, maketh express mention of Rome by name. As when he saith. Et hoc non solum in veteri Roma, vel in hac Regia Civitate sed in omni terra ubicunque Christianorum nomen colitur, obtinere sancimus. This law we will to take place not only in old Rome, 
Cod de Episc. & cle. L Generaliter.  or in this Imperial city of Constantinople, but also in in all the world, where so ever the name of Christians is had in honour. Rome therefore in this Constitution of M. jewel, being not expressed, it seemeth by the law to be omitted. For the law saith. 
L. Item apud. §. h●c edictum. ff. d. iniurijs.  Ea quae notabiliter fiunt nisi specialiter notentur, videntur quasi neglecta. Such things as are notably done, unless they be specially noted, they seem to be as though it were neglected. And thus it appeareth, notwithstanding the general words of the Constitution, and the general rules alleged by M. jewel, not only that therefore the Constitution is not necessarily to be generally taken, but also by the circumstance of the law it is gathered, that it ought not generally to be extended to Rome, or to the Empire thereof. If we listed in other differences and circumstances to use the advise of the lawyers, many more reasons might be brought for this purpose, as the learned in the law do know right well. But these few many suffice to declare that M. jewels General laws can nothing help to prove this Constitution to be General. Now let us consider whether in the residue he bring any better laws.  
jewel. And what reason hath M. harding, 
The .169. Untruth For D. Hard. said not that O●●ly this law took no place, etc.  or what witness more than his own that this only Law took no place in the Church off Rome?  
Forsooth he brought you a right good reason in his text, which you M. jewel thought good to dissemble utterly. For thus D. Harding said. As ●hat Constitution pertained to the Greeks and not to the Latins, so was it not found in the Latin books, until Gregorius Haloander of G●rmany of late years translated the place. This is one reeson M. jewel why this Constitution appertaineth not to the Latin Church. That is. Because it hath been only in Greek and not translated into Latin until now of late years. For if it had been made for the Latin Church, no doubt but it should have been translated into Latin as the other novels were even from the time of S. Gregory hitherto: 
xi. q. i C. 35. Itemin Decretal. tit. de test. cap. 1. & lib. 11. epist. 54. Contius in prefat. in lib. Novel.  as it appeareth by certain of these Novel Constitutions alleged in Latin after the old translation by S. Gregory. And this reason also touched by D. Harding, is noted before of Contius: who giving a reason why many of these Novel Constitutions have hitherto lacked in the Common Latin translation, saith. Cur autem multae deperierint, in Causa haec sunt. Erant inter has leges permultae constitutiones 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & locales, quarum nullus fere usus esse visus est: illis praesertim Longobardis plus aequo Musas & humaniores literas abhorrentibus, nihilque quod non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conduceret, magni facientibus. Why many of the Novel Constitutions have perished, these are the Causes. There were among these laws many Constitutions private, and proper to certain places, whereof there seemed to be no use at all, specially to those langobards (who upon the end of justinian's Empire possessed Italy) men abhorring from all good learning, and regarding nothing that made not for the penny. This is one cause, why this law of justinian took no place in the Church of Rome. And this reason was so good, that you M. jewel, in all your Reply would never come near it. But when the place came that you should have awnswered it, you turn the Readers mind an other way, telling him that D. Harding seemed to touch Gregorius Haloander with corruption of these laws, 
pag. 173.  and so you entre to defend him, whom no man found fault with, Only D. Harding said.  
As that Constitution pertained to the greeks, and not to the Latins, so was it not found in the Latin books, until Gregorius Haioander of Germany off late years translated the place.  
At these words you startle and wince, as feeling perhaps some sore touched, which you were loath any man should come near. And therefore you say.  
jewel. Gregorius Haloander, whom M. Harding seemeth to touch with corruption of these laws, was a learned man, and a faithful translator, and for his diligence deserved thanks: and therefore needeth no excuse. He addeth nothing more than is to be found in the Original.  
What need so much a do M. jewel, if there were not some suspicion in the matter? Let every indifferent Reader judge, whether, the words of D. Harding do charge Haloander with any such matter as you have imagined. But the verse of Cato will always be true. Conscius ipse sibi de se putat omnia dici. The guilty conscience thinketh all is spoken of himself. Yowe say: Haloander was a faithful translator, and added nothing more than he found in the Original. Yet Contius a learned lawyer, calleth this translation of Haloander, 
In praefat. in lib. Novel.  A quodam privato homine propria authoritate contaminatam translationem, A corrupted translation set forth by a private man by private authority. And again he saith of it. Dum vitat barbariem incidit plaerumque in pravam affectationem. While he coveteth to be Eloquent, he falleth oftentimes in to a corrupted affectation. This is the faithful translation which M. jewel so much commendeth, and that beside all purpose. For this being brought in of D. Harding, as a reason why that Constitution remaining all this while until late years in the greek tongue and not translated in to Latin, as the other Novel Constitutions were, should appertain to the greek Church and not the Latin, M. jewel to the reason and to the matter answereth nothing, but seeketh occasion to procure envy to his adversary, charging him with that which he neither said nor intended, which yet other learned men have both said and written. Done truly like a shifting Rhetorician, but not like a true dealing divine.  
jewel. 
The 170. Untruth For many 〈◊〉 them w●re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & ●ocales, proper to certain places.  Certainly the rest of the same Novel Constitutions were made not only for Constantinople, or for Rome, but also for the whole Empire.  
Iff all the rest were so made, then were it very probable that this Constitution should also be so made. But if some only were general, some other were not, than this argument proveth nothing. For as well may this Constitution be of that sort which are not general, as of the other sort which are general. Now M. jewel speaketh indefinitely, and doubtfully, as not knowing himself what to pronounce herein. The truth is, some of these Novel Constitutions were general and some were not, as it hath been before declared out of Contius, and as it shall by that which followeth out of M. jewel farther appear.  
jewel. 
T●e .171. Untruth For in the same ●itle w●ich is Dediver ●s Ecclesias●i. capit. the words alleged are not ●ound.  And the Emperor justinian in the same Title sayeth thus, What so ever things, touching this matter, were needful ●or this Imperial city off Constantinople, we have comprised it in a special law for the same.  
By this it appeareth that all the Novel Constitutions are not general. But some made especially for Constantinople. But what leadeth M. jewel to think that this Constitution should be therefore general? He saw there was small force in these words: and therefore he followeth, and saith.  
jewel. But what need many words? The Emperor himself calleth the Constitution that concerneth the clergy, a law general, by these words. 
In Authen. Col. 1 ut def ●it. numerus ●●eri  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
It is true M. jewel. He calleth such a law a general law. But what law meaned he? Meaned he this Constitution whereof we now treat? You perhaps would have it so. But Contius a better lawyer than you are M. jewel, noteth that the same Constitution was made. In league Graeca de ordinatione Episcoporum quae non exiat. In a Greek law touching the ordaining of Bishops, which is not extant. 
Contius i● mark D. auth. ut def. etc.  Whereby it is evident, that the Constitution which we now treat of, by the judgement of Contius is not that general law which the Emperor meaned. For the Constitution which we now treat of was translated of Contius himself, out of Greek into Latin. Again this Constitution of justinian, 
In Authen. Const. 137  which we now treat of, though it speak in deed at large, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Of the ordaining of bishops, yet it hath no one word, 
Authent. Col. 1. ut def. sunt number. cler.  de ordinatione Mulierum Diaconissarum, of the ordaining and admitting of nuns (for such were the Diaconissaes, which the law speaketh of) such as the general law meaned by justinian expressly treateth of. For so the words do report. 
Eo. §. in alijs.  De ordinatione venerabilium Episcoporum, & reverendissimorum clericorum, nec non Mulierum Diaconissarum. We have enacted in general law touching the Ordering of the reverent bishops, and clerks, and also of nuns. This Constitution therefore of justinian though it concern the clergy, yet is it not that other general law concerning both the clergy and nuns. This therefore can nothing help M. jewel, unless he mind to reason thus. justinian enacted by a general and a Common law concerning the clergy and nuns, which is not extant. 
M. jewels Argument.  Ergo in this Constitution which is extant and of the clergy only, not off nuns he enacted also by a general and Common law. This argument proceedeth very weakly. Unless Master jewel look better to it, I trow it will prove but a childish argument. Yet he limpeth forth as well as he may, and saith.  
jewel. And in the Code entreating namely of Bishops and Clerks, 
Cod. de Epis e● cler. General●ter.  he hath these words. Et hoc non solum, & caet. This Law we will have to take place, not only in the city off old Rome, or in this Imperial city off Constantinople, but also in all the world, where so ever the name off Christians is had in honour.  
Stapleton Hitherto M. jewel hath brought laws in appearance for himself. Now he bringeth a law quite directly against himself. For as I said before, so I say now again, this Constitution extending itself to Rome expressly, giveth us to understand that the other Constitution (which we now treat of) making no such express mention of Rome, doth not extend itself to Rome. And the reason is, because (as the law saith) Such things as are notably done, 
L. Item apud. §. h●c ●dictum ff.  unless they be specially noted, they seem to be as though it were neglected. The special mentioning therefore of Rome in other laws (which of no other province or Country is used) is an evident argument, that this law making no mention of Rome, is not extended to Rome at all. As for example. Because in some laws and certain statutes of our Country, the free Denyses and sometimes other strangers not Denyses are especially comprised, and mentioned, it is an undoubted argument, that other laws wherein they are not so mentioned, do not extend to such persons. And thus far M. jewel hath pleaded the law. Wherein if he have miss the Cuishin, no marvel: his Counsel perhaps had as much good law, as himself hath good Divinity. Verily his law hath not yet been so weak about this matter, but his divinity which followeth, is much more weaker. For thus he proceedeth.  
jewel. And how can M. Harding make himself so sure, that the Church of Rome was never subject to this law?  
Stapleton. Forsooth because that Constitution was never yet translated into the Latin tongue, whereby it might have served the Latin Church, until now of late days in our present age, and also for other reasons above specified. But especially M. jewel, he made himself sure of it, because he knew that you with all your law and Divinity to, were never able to prove that Constitution of justinian to be general, and to extend itself to Rome.  
jewel. Certainly both by Leo bishop off Rome, 
De Ieiu●. 7. me●s· Serm. 6. De Sacra. lib. 4. ca 5 The .172. Untruth For it appeareth not by any of these Fathers that the Church of Rome was subject to this law.  and also by Saint Ambrose bishop of Milan and other holy Fathers it appeareth otherwise.  
Behold good Readers the gross ignorance of M. jewel. He will prove by Leo and Saint Ambrose, that the Constitution of justinian took place in the Church of Rome. Now understand good readers, that justinian was Emperor in the year of our Lord five hundred and thirty. Leo was bishop of Rome in the year of our Lord four hundred and forty, and S. Ambrose was bishop of Milan threescore years before Leo. Thus by M. jewels wisdom the Constitution off justinian took place in the Church of Rome a hundred years and more before it was made. Unless he will say that Leo and S. Ambrose wrote of justinian's Constitution by the Spirit of prophecy. Ah M. jewel. Remember your own poetry. 
Vide Henr. Pantaleon● in Chronograph. Ecclesia.  Nonsa●i co●modè diu●sa sunt temporibus tibi Daue haec. And what were they likely to say of this Constitution of justinian? M. Iowell did well to bring them forth dumb. Of like th●ir words would have stood him but in small stead. Howbeit seeing he hath so diligently quoted them in the margin (for the which quotation to furnish up the Margin I think they were rather alleged then for any weight in their words to M. jewels purpose) I will lay the words forth to the Reader, and leave it to his judgement, how much they touch either justinian's Constiturion, or M. jewels Vulgar Service. The words of Leo are. Hoc ore sumitur, quod fide creditur, 
Leo de Iei●●io. 7. men's. serm. 6. fere in fine.  & frustra ab illis Amen respondetur, à quibus contraid quod accipitur disputatur. That is received by the mouth (he speaketh off the blessed Sacrament) which is believed by Faith: and they do answer Amen in vain, who dispute against that which they do receive. The words of S. Ambrose are. Dicit tibi Sacerdos, Corpus Christi: 
Ambros. de sacram. lib. 4. cap. 5.  & tu dicis, Amen. Hoc est, verum. Quod confitetur lingua, teneat affectus. The Priest saith unto thee. The Body off Christ. And thou sayest: Amen, that is, It is true. That which thy tongue confesseth, let thy affection keep. These be the words of Leo and Saint Ambrose, by the which M. jewel will prove that justinian's Constitution made a hundred years after took place in Rome. Hath not M. jewel (trow ye) showed himself herein a trim Divine? Thinketh M. jewel that wheresoever he findeth the word, Amen, in the Doctors, straightways he hath found his Vulgar Service? Or thinketh he that because the people confessed the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, answering Amen to the Priest, and confessing it to be true that the Priest said, therefore the people had their Service in the Vulgar tongue? By such arguments M. jewel may make his brethren believe that to this day in these Countries here, we have also the Service in the vulgar tongue because in the Mass books here, he may read the like. 
M. jewels Argument.  Now to lay forth briefly M. jewels argument, upon these places thus he reasoneth.  
S. Ambrose about the year of our Lord three hundred and four score, and Leo about the year four hundred and forty do witness the people answered Amen to the Priest.  
Ergo the Constitution of justinian made about the year five hundred and four●y of the speaking aloud of the Priest, or (as M. jewel would have it to seem) off the Vulgar Service took place in the Church of Rome.  
If such arguments may serve, I grant M. jewel hath Replied well. And then if M. jewel had come before his Father, he might have married his Mother. Now let us consider the other holy Fathers which M. jewel allegeth to say the like.  
jewel. 
In psal. 45  S. Augustine saith of the Church of Rome. unum psalmum cantamus. unum Amen respondemus. We sing one psalm, and we answer one Amen. 
The .173. Untruth For S. Augustin said not those words of the Church of Rome.   
Stapleton. 
Psalm. 54  S. Augustine said not those words of the Church off Rome, more than of any other Church. Nay he speaketh it properly of the Africanes, and of the Donatists, which had separated themselves from the unite of Christ's Church in Africa. For expounding the words of the psalm, Veniat mors super illos, descendant in infernum viventes. Let death come upon them, and let them descend into hell alive, making the Catholic to speak to the Donatiste, thus he writeth. Quid pateris frater etc. What ail you Brother? We are brethren. 
August. in Psal. 54.  We call upon one God. We believe in one Christ. We hear one gospel. We sing one psalm. We answer one, Amen. We sound out one Halleluia. We celebrat one Easter. Why then are you without (the Church) and I within? These are the words of S. Augustine both that go before, and that follow the words of M. jewel alleged. By all the which we see he spoke those words especially of the Africanes in his own Country, and touched therein Rome, no more then any other Country. Yet saith M. jewel. S, Augustin saith of the Church of Rome. Thus he hath taken such a custom to lie, that he careth not what he utter. Again what is there here touching the Constitution of justinian? We sing at this day in all Christendom (all that remanye in the Catholic faith) one psalm. We answer, one Amen. We sound out one Halleluia. And so forth. What is this to M. jewels Vulgar Service, which upon justinian's Constitution he would so feign build? Last of all S. Augustin living in the time of S. Ambrose a full hundred years before justinian's Constitution was made, how can he possibly witness any thing for that law to take place in Rome? Where was M. jewels wit and remembrance when he wrote this? Will he ever forget himself, like to Daws? Let us proceed and see whether his next allegation be any better.  
jewel. 
The 174. Untruth in falsifiing the words of S. Hierom as shall appear. Tom. 2. & 7. contra julian. li. 2.  S. Hierom saith. Even in Rome, at the end of the prayer, the people so sounded out Amen, as if it had been a thunderclap.  
This toucheth Rome in deed, and therefore is so much better than the other. But when lived S. Hierom M. jewel? Lived he not in the time of S. Ambrose and of S. Augustine more than a hundred years before justinian was Emperor? Are there not letters extant between him and S. Austen? And doth not S. Augustine allege his writings against the Pelagians? What a forgetful Daws is M. jewel? He hath alleged us here four Doctors to prove that justinian's Constitution took place in Rome, who all were dead and buried before justinian was borne. It is now sense justinian made that Constitution a full thousand years. 
The singular folly of M. jewel.  And in all this time among so many writers M. jewel which spareth none, be he never so base, which allegeth schoolmen, gloss, lawyers of all ages, with whom, Nicolaus de lyra, Thomas of Aquine, Durandus, Eckius, Hugo Cardinalis, john Billet, Cusanus, Scotus, Innocentius the third, and all other late writers are currant, he can yet among them all find not one in the space of a thousand years to testify that justinian's Constitution touched the Church of Rome, but he is fain to run to Leo, to S. Augustine, S. Ambrose and S. Jerome and to make them speak a good word for him that the law of justinian took place in Rome, who all as I said lived and died long before that Constitution was made. Wherein he dealeth as if a man to prove the meaning of a law made in Queen Mary's days would allege the judgement of bishop Warrham that died in king Henry the eights days. Verily this was a mighty Constitution that took place in Rome a hundred years before it was made.  
Touching the place of S. Hierom, his whole words are these. Vbi alibi tanto study & frequentia, ad ecclesias & ad martyrum s●pulchra concurritur? Vbi sic ad similitudinem coelestis tonitrui, Amen reboat, & vacua idolorum templa quatiuntur? Non quòd aliam habent Romani fidem, nisi hant quam omnes Christi Ecclesiae: 
In proaemio li. 2. Comment. in epist. ad Gal.  sed quòd devotie in eyes maior sit, & simplicitas ad credendum. Where else are the Churches, and the Sepulchres of Martyrs with so fervent devotion and with so great company resorted unto? Where doth Amen give so loud a sound like the thunderclap out of the air, so as the temples emptied of Idols do shake with it? Not because the Romans have any other faith, then that which all the Churches of Christ have, but because there is in them a greater devotion, and simplicity to believe. Thus far S. Hierom. His intent in this place was to show that the faith of the Romans which the Apostle S. Paul commended, remained still in the same fervour and zeal, as it did from the beginning. For proof whereof he bringeth in their frequenting of Martyr's toumes. How like you that devotion M. jewel? Then also their crying out Amen so loud and so thick in the Church, that he compareth it to the noise of a thunderclap. Such a noise I have heard in the Churches of France many times myself, and also at Rome in the Lent tyme. Yet I never heard there or otherwhere the Vulgar Service. If the crying out of Amen may either proveth Vulgar Service or the Constitution of justinian to be general and to extend to Rome, then M. jewel hath talked to the matter. If neither of these twain, than what hath he done but trifled and deluded the ignorant Reader, with idle allegations, and show of learning?  
To further the matter, M. jewel hath the added to the words of S. Jerome, these words: At the end of the prayer. For those words are not to be found in S. Hierom. such shifting and toiling is made to prove a Vulgar Service out of justinian, and yet it will not be. Let us proceed.  
Again, if this Constitution served only for the Greek Church, and only the priests there spoke aloud, and the others of the Latin Church spoke in silence, 
The .175. Untruth. For it is not denied that the Latin Church spoke aloud, at th● Common prayers. The .176. Untruth For it is not supposed by D. Hard. that S. August. in Africa prayed in silence, but that in Rome the Consecration was in silence.  how then doth M. Harding expound this law by S. Augustine, who as he supposeth did the contrary, and was never subject unto that law? Or how can he make contrarietes agree together? Hath he so soon forgot himself? Or will he expound speaking by silence, or singing out, by whispering?  
The very words of D. Harding being laid forth will soon answer all this wondering of M. jewel. His words in the text are these. And thus he ordained for the greek Church only, and thereto only it is to be referred, for that some thought the Sacrifice should be celebrated rather with silence, after the manner of the Church of Rome, specially at the Consecration. In these words D. Harding reporteth the manner of the Church of Rome specially at the Consecration time to have been, to speak in silence, where as the greeks uttered those words always aloud. But the agreeing of S. Augustins words with the meaning of justinian is spoken of the Church of Africa not of the Church of Rome. And again of uttering the words before the Consecration, as Sursum corda and such like (as by the Conference of S. Cyprian alleged by M. jewel it appeareth) not of the very Canon of the Mass which in the Latin Church hath ever secretly been pronounced. Thirdly the agreeing is this, that neither justinian nor S. Augustine, do speak any thing for the Vulgar Service, but only for the loud speaking of the priest, which though it were used in Africa, yet will it not follow that it was used in Rome. Last of all though we granted that both Africa and also the Church of Rome used such loud speaking of the priest at the Common Service in Saint Augustins time, yet it will hardly follow that the same was done by the force of justinian's Constitution made a full hundred years after, or that the Church of Rome should therefore be subject to that the law made so many years after. The expounding therefore of the sense and meaning of justinian's Constitution by the words of Saint Augustine breedeth no Contradiction in D. hardings Collection, unless M. jewel will have this Argument to stand for good.  
The Priests in Africa spoke aloud in S. Augustins time according to the meaning of justinian's Constitution, 
M. jewels Argument.   
Ergo the Church of Rome a hundred years after was subject to that Constitution.  
If M. jewel will this to go for an argument, then let him consider it better. Else it will prove I trow but a childish argument.  
jewel. To conclude justinian saith, The Constitutions were general. 
The .177 and .178. Untruths, as shall appear.  M. Harding alone saith they were not general.  
To conclude, justinian said no such thing either of all the Novel Constitutions (of the which Contius confesseth many where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & locales, proper and peculiar for certain places) either of this same Constitution of which we have so long treated, which both the law proveth it was not general, and by the reason of Contius alleged, seemeth to be a mere particular Constitution touching only the Greek Church. Therefore D. harding not alone, but with the law and with Contius affirmeth this Constitution to be not general.  
jewel. justinian saith, They took place in all the World. 
The .179 and. 180· Untruths, as shall appearel  M. Harding alone saith. They took place only in Constantinople.  
In these words M. jewel hath committed two manifest Untruths. For neither justinian spoke those words of these Novel Constitutions of which this is one that now is in Controversy, but he spoke those words in the Code of other laws comprised there: Neither did D. harding say that this Constitution took place only in Constantinople, but he said, Only in the Greek Church: of the which Constantinople is but a part.  
jewel. 
The .181. Untruth joined with an extreme folly. Stapleton.  S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Jerome, Leo, and others say. They were observed in the Church of Rome. M. Harding alone saith. They were never observed in the Church of Rome.  
Leo lived at the least four score years, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin and S. Jerome lived well near two hundred years before these Novel Constitutions of justinian were made, and therefore they could not possibly (except it were by Spirit of prophecy or revelation) speak any one word off or on of these Constitutions of justinian which were so many years after made and written. Beside, the Words of these Doctors, as hath before been declared, have no like matter to the Vulgar Service which M. jewel would so feign pick out of this Constitution.  
jewel. if he will thus deceive us in plain things, how may we then trust him in doubtful things?  
Stapleton Be it a bargain M. jewel. He that deceiveth in plain things, let him never be trusted in doubtful things. But what deceit can be more plain, more evident, more manifest, then to allege for the sense and meaning of a law, the witness off those men, 
M. jewel is cast in his own turn.  who were dead and buried many a score of years before the law was made, yea before the man was borne that made the law? Howesaie you M. jewel? Have you not here deceived your Reader in a very plain and manifest matter? Have you not alleged to prove that justinian's Constitution was observed in the Church of Rome, and that the Church of Rome was subject to that law, the testimony of four Doctors, who all were dead so many years before the law was enacted? Can you deny that those four Doctors lived all and died (as I have said) many a score of years before justinian made that law? Do not all Histories, yea Carion, Pantaleon and your brethren of Magdeburge testify the age of those Fathers all before justinian the Emperor? Then by your own rule Master jewel, You that have deceived your Reader in so plain a matter, let him not trust you in doubtful matters.  
It is written of an Envious man, that to make his neighbour to lose one eye, he was content himself to lose both. Verily M. jewel you have even in such sort dealt here. So that you might by some means bring doctor Harding out of some credit, you have (as it may seem) of purpose made a plain Exception against your own Credit for ever. Pate●e leg●m quam ipse tuleris.  
Harding. It appeareth by Arnobius upon the Psalms, by Epiphanius writing against heresies, and by S. Augustine in his books, De Doctrina Christiana, that by account off Antiquity there were .72. Tongues in the World. 
Psal. 104 Haeres. 39 in Tusc. q.  Cicero sayeth, that they be in number infinite. Off them all (.78.) neither M. jewel, nor any one off his side, is able to show, that the public Service of the Church in any Nation, was ever for space of six hundred years after Christ, in any other then in the Greek and Latin.  
jewel. The .78. Untruth. 
The .182 Untruth Slanderous.  For it shall appear that we are able to show manifest Examples to the contrary.  
Now is the time and place come that M. jewel will acquit himself of his Promise, made now 
* Page. ●55 157.159. and .169.  the fift time in this Article, that he will bring forth his Examples of such Countries that have had their Church Service in a Vulgar known tongue beside Greek and Latin for the space of the first six hundred years after Christ. But mark here diligently good Reader, and for the better understanding of M. jewels proofs, 
Fol. 61. b.  turn back to the .69. Untruth, and remember that his Promise in that place is, not only to bring Examples of the Church Service in some other tongue beside the Greek and Latin, (which is proper to this Untruth here noted) but also to bring Examples of sundry Nations of the East Church, namely of the lesser Asia, which had not their Service in the Greek tongue. For that before was by M. jewel avouched in the .69. Untruth. That he must prove in this Article. Or else his Assertion is overthrown. As thou mayest (good Reader) clearly perceive if thou turn back to that we have said upon the .69. and the .72. Untruths. But let us now hear what M. jewel saith, 
Fol. 61. b. & fol. 66. a.  and how manifest Examples he can bring, that sundry Nations of the east Church, namely of Asia the less, have had their Church Service in the vulgar tongue beside Greek and Latin for the space of the first .600. years after Christ.  
jewel. 
The .183. Untruth For D. Harding altereth not the case, but followeth it. Stapleton  M. Harding being required by me to show any one example that the people had their Common Service in a strange tongue, and as it appeareth, not able to show any, he altereth cunningly the whole case, and willeth me to show.  
No M. jewel D. Harding willeth not to you show that any Country had their Service in their Vulgar tongue, which you yet affirm all the World had, and which he having Tradition with him for the learned tongue, might more reasonably require you to show an Example of your Vulgar tongue, than you require him for the learned, having an universal Tradition of the●e 900. years by your own confession against you, this I say D. Harding requireth not of you, but (and Mark well good Christian Reader) whereas D. harding hath proved abundantly that in the East or Greek Church, many Christened Nations understand not the Greek, and in the West or Latin Church many Christened countries also understood not the latin, he affirming that all the Greek Church had only the Greek Service, and all the latin Church only the Latin Service (whereof it followeth that many countries had their Service in a tongue which they understood not) requireth you M. jewel if you deny it, to give him some instance or Exception of any one Country which had the public Service any otherwise then in the Greek or Latin tongue. This is no Alteration of the Case Master jewel, but a right approved way of reasoning. For, to disprove an Universal affirmative, it behoveth by Order of Schools to require an Instance in the particular. Therefore you have no cause to complain and to say.  
jewel. Which thing notwithstanding I might justly refuse to do by the order of any Schools, 
The .184. Untruth for by order of all Schools ●ou are forced to give an Instance, denying the universal.  yet I am well content to yield to his request, both for the goodness and pregnancy of the cause, and also specially, good Christian Reader, for the better contentation of thy mind, not doubting, but of thee self, thou wilt be able to find some distrust, and want in M. hardings side. Who notwithstanding so many words, and so great vaunts yet is able to show nothing.  
On God's name. Let M. jewels proofs try what weakness there is in D. hardings side, and what assurance in his own Vaunting Challenge. He saith.  
jewel. And, to avoid multitude of words, the case being plain, Eckius saith: The Indians had their Serui●e in the Indian tongue.  
But when, where, and how M. jewel? 
The 185. untruth in mangling the wor●es of ●ckius.  Do you remember the state of the question? See good Reader that M. jewel deceive thee not. He must prove that within the first 600. years in all the East or West Church any other Service was used beside the Greek and Latin. And behold forth cometh Eckius a man living in our days, which telleth us of certain Indians which at this present have the Service in their Vulgar tongue. But I will give thee good Reader the whole words of Eckius, whereof M. jewel hath snatched a piece to serve his turn, concealing from thee the whole circumstance both of time and of place, whereby the question is limited. The words of Eckius are these. Non negamus Indis Australibus permissum, ut in lingua sua rem divinam faciant, quod clerus eorum hody ●bseruat, ut vidimus & audivimus ipsi. We confess it is permitted to the South Indians to have their Service in their own tongue. Which their clergy observeth to this day, as we have ourselves both seen and heard. In these words mark good Reader three conditions, whereby M. jewels assertion is utterly overthrown. First Eckius saith, they have it by permission. This condemneth your late Alteration done without all permission or grant of the 〈◊〉 the only right judge in all such cases. secondarily 〈◊〉 speaketh of a matter of these days, as the which he both saw and heard himself. This is far from the first 600. years after Christ. Last of all. This is an example of the South Indians lately converted to the faith. This is no part of the East or west Church. To be short, this is M. jewels reason.  

M. jewels Argument  The Indians of the South parts at this day have their Service in the Vulgar tongue.  
Ergo Sundry Nations of the East and West Church had their Service in a like manner a thousand years ago.  
jewel. 
The .186 Untruth For Durandus speaketh not one word of jews. De divinis officijs lib. 4. cap. 1.  Durandus saith. The jews that were Christened had their Service in the Hebrew tongue.  
Durandus saith. In primitiva Ecclesia divina mysteria Hebraicé celebrabantur. The divine mysteries were celebrated in the primitive Church in the Hebrew tongue. But neither he nameth the jews that were Christened, neither speaketh of the Church Service: Both which Master jewel affirmeth him to say. And as it is probable that the Public Service of the Church at that time, was not so private, but that the gentiles and the jews newly Christened assembled together thereunto, of whom very few understood the Hebrew tongue, so if this was a Public service, it will well follow thereof that the Service was then in a tongue which the hearers understood not. And thus M. jewel hath brought Durandus against himself. Again this is yet no Vulgar tongue beside greek and Latin, of the which only D. Harding spoke, and to the which M. jewel in this place ought to direct his proofs. For of the Service in some Vulgar tongue the question is, not of the learned Hebrew tongue, which of the common jews themselves how little in Christ's time it was understanded, it appeareth by their well understanding of Christ's words upon the Cross, Eli Eli lamasabathani: My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me. For they thought (as the gospel witnesseth) that Christ had called upon Elias etc. Farther this was no order of Service used and continued in Christ's Church. For Durandus immediately upon the words before alleged, saith. Sed tempore Adriani primi Imperatoris graecé in orientali ecclesia graecorum celebrari caeperunt. But in the time of Adrian the first Emperor of that name (which was little more than a hundred years after Christ) the mysteries began to be celebrated in greek in the East Church of the greeks. This order of Service continued, and of such is the question. Last of all this was not the public Service of any Nation (of such is the question expressed) but as it may seem a matter practised of certain jews in certain places dispersed among other Nations. For the Public Service in Jerusalem itself, the Head off all jury, was in greek, as it is evident by the greek Liturgy or Mass of S. james the Apostle the first bishop in that place, yet extant in greek. So properly M. jewel hath alleged Durandus. A writer otherwise as much esteemed of M. jewel, as one of the black guard. For so he calleth him in his Reply to D. Cole.  
jewel. Yet was neither of these tongues neither Greek nor Latin. Stapleton.  
No truly. And so neither of your Examples serveth your turn. For the one is not within the first 600. years, but lacketh more than 900. thereof, the other is of no Vulgar tongue, nor of no Continued public Service. So neither of them is of any nation in the Latin or greek Church, but the one off South Indians, the other of jews, that I pity you to have sought so far and yet miss of your purpose.  
Nicolaus Lyra, and Thomas of Aquine say. The Common Service in the primitive Church was in the Common Vulgar tongue.  
jewel. 
The 187. Untruth for Thomas of Aquine saith it with a Peradventure, which word M. jewel. hath left out. In 1. Cor. 14.  It goeth hard with M. jewel when he bringeth such doctors. He was wont to call them, the Black Guard. Now they are Sad witnesses and men of authority. And yet God wot, they make as much for him, as doth a quest for the Guilty. The words of S. Thomas are these. Sed quare non dantur benedictiones in Vulgari, ut intelligantur a populo & comforment se magis eyes? Dicendum est quòd hoc forte fuit in Ecclesia primitiva, sed postquam fideles instructi sunt, & sciunt quae audiunt in Communi officio, fiunt benedictiones in Latino. Why are not the Benedictions (which S. Paul speaketh of) made now in the Vulguar tongue, that they may be understanded of the people, and they comforme themselves thereunto? I answer that in the primitive Church Peradventure, it was so. But after that the faithful people were once instructed, and do know such things as they heard in the Common Service, the Benedictions are made in Latin. Lo what a witness M. jewel hath brought for himself. He avoucheth not the matter, but saith. Peradventure it was so. And then if it were so, he giveth a reason of it, which is: the Necessary Instruction off the people at their first Receiving of the faith: whereas now the faith being so long Rooted in the hearts of men, and the People thoroughly instructed in all matters concerning their salvation, neither is it necessary that they understand all things, neither do they misdoubt of any thing which the Priest saith, but answereth unto all Amen, and giveth their consent to his prayers without all scruple or curiosity to know what he saith. What doth all this help M. jewels Vulguar Service? unless he will form his reasons thus.  

M. jewels Argument.  The people is already sufficiently instructed.  
Ergo they must have all things in their vulgar language.  
Or thus.  
The prayers be made in Latin.  
Ergo the people must understand them.  
Verily these are very Vulgar Arguments. But now to his other doctor Nicolaus Lyra, His words are these. In primitiva Ecclesia Benedictiones & caetera communia fiebant in vulgari. Sed postquam populus multiplicatus fuit, 
In 1. ad Cor. 14.  & consuevit se conformare Ministris Ecclesiae, utpote stando quando dicitur evangelium etc. Fiunt in Latino in Ecclesia Latina. Et sufficit quòd clericus respondeat pro toto populo. In the primitive Church the Benedictions and other common things were done in the Vulgar. But after that the Christian people multiplied, and was ones accustomed to conform themselves to the Ministers of the church, as in standing when the Gospel is read, and so forth, things are done in Latin in the Latin Church. And it sufficeth that the clerk do answer for all the people. Nicolaus Lyra as in many other places, so here also followeth S. Thomas. And that which he affirmed with a peradventure, this man putteth out of peradventure. Yet all this proveth not it was in any other language beside the Greek and Latin. For at that time the primitive Church wrote all in Greek or Latin as it appeareth by the Scriptures of the new testaments and by the Father's writings: Which are all together in Greek or Latin, and none at all in any other vulgar tongue. Again the Greek and the Latin were at that time and certain hundred years after vulgar tongues to many Nations, as it is evident and undoubted to the learned. Therefore this doctor helpeth the matter no more than the other did. Unless M. jewel think this reason good.  
The Latin and the Greek tongues were in the primitive Church Vulgar tongues. 
M. jewels Argument.   
Ergo the Service was neither in Latin nor Greek.  
If he conclude not thus, he concludeth nothing against D. Harding. And if he do conclude thus, you see how loosely it hangeth together. Every child may see thourough it. Yet he setteth much by it, and pronounceth it stoutly, saying.  
By these few it may appear, it was but a bravery, that M. Harding said. 
The .188. Untruth For D. Ha●ding added (for the space of 600. years) which M. jewel left out. jewel. Stapleton.  Neither M. jewel nor any one of that side is able to show that the public Service was in any other tongue then in Greek or Latin. For it is easy to be showed, even by the Doctors of his own side.  
By these few it may appear, M. jewel hath made but a simple bravery in this forward of his doctors. And if the body and rearward serve him no better, he may wipe his bill and go to roust. Let us see what followeth.  
But what if Doctor Harding himself have in plain words confessed the same?  
But what if he have not? Then hath M. jewel lost a good argument.  
jewel. 
The .189. Untruth joined with a slander. Stapleton  Although he have wanton denied Christ, yet, I trow, he will not deny himself.  
He denieth Christ wanton, which forsaketh his old religion that he was baptized in, and embraceth a wanton gospel, planted by a wanton friar, yoked with a wanton Nun, not he which forsaketh such wanton lewdness, to return to his old and approved Faith.  
jewel. Consider, good Reader, his own words hereafter following in this self same Article, But S. Paul (say they) requireth that the people give assent, and conform themself unto the Priest, by answering Amen to his prayer made in the Congregation. Hereunto M. Harding answereth thus. Verily in the primitive Church this was necessary, when the Faith was a learning and therefore the prayers were then made in a Common tongue known to the people. What can there be more plainly spoken?  
Stapleton Yes forsooth. If he had added, and that in neither greek nor Latin, then had it been more plainly spoken, then had it been contrary to himself. Now it is no more than S. Thomas and Nicolaus de Lyra said before. And therefore as we have proved before, their sainges to make nothing for M. jewel, so doth not this of D. hardings neither. As they spoke of no other vulgar tongue but of Greek and Latin which then were Vulgar, so doth here D. Harding speak of none other tongues but of greek and and latin also, which them were Vulgar. What needeth now all this mirth and triumph that M. jewel maketh, saying?  
jewel. M. Harding hath utterly forgotten himself. 
The .190 Untruth. For they stand well together. Stapleton.  His sayings can not (190.) stand together, If he be true in one, in the other he must needs be false.  
Put up your pipes M. jewel, and take your ease. D. Harding remembreth himself well enough. His sayings do stand well together, and both are true.  
jewel. Yet good Christian Reader for thy better Satisfaction, it may please thee to know, that in the primitive Church, 
The .191. Untruth For the whole Congregation did never the Office of the Minister.  the Common Service was not ministered by one man alone, but by the Priest and whole Congregation altogether, as may appear by the general consent of the old Fathers.  
M. jewel speaketh fair. It is reason he be heard, and believed also if after such smooth words, he bringeth us sound and substantial proofs. But if all this gay talk wanteth matter, let him be known for an earnest trifler.  
jewel. Clemens Alexandrinus saith. 
Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 7. Stapleton The .192. and 193. Untruths committed in salsifying Clemens.  In orationibus v●luti unam vocem habent communem & unam mentem. In the (Common) prayers they have all as it were one voice and one mind.  
M. jewel hath in these few words used two feats of his Arte. He hath gelded the words of the doctor, and shifted in a word of his own, which utterly altereth the doctors mind. The whole sentence of Clemens is thus. Est ergo quod est hic apud nos altar, terrestris congregatio eorum qui sunt dedicati orationibus, qui veluti unam vocem habent communem & unam mentem. The altar therefore which we have here (he talketh of the Sacrifice of prayer) is an earthly congregation of those, which are dedicated to prayers, which have as though it were one voice and one mind. He talketh of such as were dedicated to prayer, of the clergy or other religious men who pray altogether with one voice and mind, not of the people. He talketh of their usual Service, not of the Common prayer of the people. The word (Common.) M. jewel hath added of himself more than he found in the doctor. Now of the clergy or religious men dedicated to prayer, that you may not think I feign or fable, Clemens mentioneth in this same book, within little more than a leaf after this place, where he saith. Nonnulli certas ac definitas horas constituunt orationi, ut tertiam, sextam, nonam. Many do appoint certain set hours for prayer, as the third hour, the sixth hour, and the ninth howre· But what if all this were spoken of the people, and that they all prayed with the clergy? We know this Clemens was a preacher in Alexandria. And there the Service was in Greek. Therefore this helpeth not yet M. jewel any whit except he mind to reason thus.  

M. jewels Argument.  The people in Alexandria had their Common Service in Greek.  
Ergo they had it in no Vulgar tongue b●side the Greek.  
Such strange Conclusions become well this strange alteration of God's Service.  
jewel. S. Chrysostom sayeth. Not only the Priest giveth thanks to God, but also all the People, 
The .194 Untruth in mangling the words of Chrysostom.  And what dost thou marvel to see the Priests and people in prayers talk together.  
Surely M. jewel, no marvel at all. But a great marvel it is, that a called bishop as you be should blind God's people, First with such patched sentences of the holy Fathers, then with such Betle arguments as you make. For the first, the whole words of Chrisostom are these. Again in the same dreadful mysteries, the Priest wisheth well to the people, and the people wisheth well to the Priest. For (with thy Spirit) is nothing else to say, than this, that all that belongeth to thanks giving, is common. For not only the Priest giveth thanks but also all the people. For taking first their answer, and gathering them together that this Mystery might be done worthily and rightly, he beginneth the Eucharist. And what dost thou marvel, if the people speaketh with the Priest? Whereas also with Cherubin, and other heavenly powers, they sing those holy hymns in common. All this is but the Accustomed answering of the people to the Priest, in the preface of the Mass, as to this day it is used. Which will easily appear to the learned and discrete Reader, diligently considering the whole place. Now touching the Argument these be M. jewels reasons.  
The people prayeth with the priest. And the priest prayeth in Greek.  
Ergo the people had not their Service in Greek.  
Understand good Reader. Chrisostome was bishop of Constantinople a part of the Greek Church. His Mass or Liturgy is yet extant in Greek. He prayed in Greek, and preached in Greek. Ask M. jewel when thou meetest him next, if all this be not true. And then if he grant it, ask how his Greek Mass can prove the Service was not in Greek. Truly he shall have nothing to say, unless he say that Greek is no Greek. Chrysostom is not Chrysostom. Nor jewel is not jewel.  
jewel. And here to leave S. Augustine, S. Hierom S. Basile, 
The 195. Untruth For he leaveth not S. Hieron, nor S. basil, but allegeth them bot●e straightways for his matter.  Nazianzenus, Dyonisius Areopagita, with many other Fathers.  
Here is brought in a whole troop of doctors in a rank. Augustin, Hierom, Basile, Nazianzenus, Dyonisus Areopagita and many other Fathers. And who would not be afraid to see such an army come against him? Howbeit (gentle Reader) be of good cheer. All this is but a Camisado. These be but visards, they be no faces. They are brought in like Mummers for a show, and say nothing. That M. jewel lacked in weight, he would needs make up in tale. But doubtless, if any greater weight had been in these, then in the rest which come after, he would never have forsaken S. Hierom. S, Augustin, S. basil, and Nazianzenus, to allege Isidorus, Aeneas Silvius, Innocentius tertius, and john Billet, or (as he hath already) Thomas of Aquine, Nicolaus Lyra, Durandus and Eckius. Unless the gentleness of M. jewel be such, that he will reserve the best for himself, and give to his Reader the worst. notwithstanding this one thing I will say for M. jewel in his behalf and for the Readers comfort, that though here somewhat rigorously he spareth his copy, and will not part (he saith) from such and such, yet afterward, (so kindness overcame him) he hath beside his promise given us two of his Doctors which here he saith, he will leave. That is S. Hierom and S. basil. But now because M. jewel is in haste, and will leave so many good authorities, let us dispatch the rest that he bringeth. He saith.  
jewel. 
De ecclesi. off. cap. 10  Isidorus describing the Order of the Church in his time, writeth thus. When they sing they must sing altogether. When they pray, they must pray altogether. And when the lesson is read, silence being commanded, they must hear altogether.  
jewel. Stapleton. First Isidorus speaketh of the Choir and the clergy, not of all the Common people. Then he speaketh of the Latin Service, not of any Service in the Vulgar tongue beside the Latin. Last of all, if all this were spoken of the people, and of the Service in a Vulgar tongue beside Greek and Latin, yet hath M. jewel utterly missereckened himself, and so gotten nothing. For this Isidorus was without the compass of the first 600. years. 
Vide Sigebertum de viris illustr. ca 55. pag. 80.  Even about that time that john the Alms giver lived, whom M. jewel rejecteth before for proof of private Mass. Lo thou seest good Reader what stuff M. jewel hath chosen, to leave (as he saith) S. Augustine, S. Hierom, S. basil, Nazianzenus, Dyonisius Areopagita with many other like Fathers. 
The .185. Untruth For all these examples of the old Fathers were of Service in the learned tongue  Let us go forth and see the rest.  
It were very much for M. Harding to say. All these things were done in a learned tongue, and that the Vulgar people in every Country understood either the Greek or the Latin.  
Truly that were very much in deed. But neither have your examples been of every Country, nor of all the Vulguar people, but of three Cities only: of Alexandria in Egypt, of Constantinople in Thracia, and of Hispali in Spain. And then partly not of the people at all but of the clergy, partly of such people as understood the learned tongues Greek and Latin, in which ij. tongues only these mentioned countries had their Service. Alexandria and Constantinople in Greek, Spain in Latin. Therefore as it is no need to say that the Vulgar people in every country, understood, either the Greek or the Latin, so shall it be enough to say, that all these things were done in a learned tongue, and so shall all your authorities sufficiently be answered, until you prove it otherwise.  
Yet for that nothing seemeth hard for him to say let us see what the old Fathers will report in that behalf. 
jews.   
Stapleton. Hitherto it seemeth M. jewel hath but dallied and made as though it were but a flourish to the matter. Hitherto he hath proved nothing. Now he will say somewhat. Hitherto he hath talked at random, now he will follow the game more particularly. For hitherto (as you see) he hath brought nothing for the Common Service in any other tongue beside Greek and Latin within the first 600. years. Which is the matter that he ought to prove, you know. Now then by God's grace, we shall have somewhat worth the bearing away.  
jewel. I have already showed by Theodoretus, Sozomenus, and S. Hierom, that the Service was in the Syrian tongue. 
〈…〉 Vnt●●●h● For th●t hath not been showed, as it s●●ll now appear.   
Yet more posting and delaying M. jewel? Yowe know the pith and ground of this Article lieth herein. And therefore you ransack all the corners of your rusty Rhetoric to beautify the matter as well as may be. First you brought new Doctors, them D. Harding himself, after him old Doctors a couple. This done, you tell us of your Copy which for haste you leave: and yet Isidorus must not be forgot. Then you shuffle in a shift to save all that went before, if it might be, and so you renew the battle again, and provoke your Reader to farther expectation. Which before you come to perform, you put him in mind of your former feats, and stratagems, thus to persuade him, before you bring any thing. But go to. Let us make the most of it. Where have you showed already in Theodoretus and Sozomenus, that the Service was in the Syriacall tongue? I remember in this Article before, you allege them both together for that purpose. These are your words in that place.  
jewel. 
pag. 157. T●eodoret. lib. 4. cap. 29. The .198 Untruth. Ephrem made neither hymns nor psalms.  If M. Harding think this conjecture to be weak, let him understand further, that as Theodoretus reporteth, the same Ephrem made hymns and psalms in the Syrian tongue. And that, as Sozomenus saith plainly, the same Hymns and psalms were song in the Churches of S●ria.  
M. jewel would feign prove the Church Service by singing of songs and sonnets. It seemeth he understandeth not that in the primitive Church there were beside the psalms of David song in the Church out of holy Scripture Vulgares psalmi, psalms or songs made in the Vulgar tongue, which were made of private men of devotion or of some other occasion (as it shall anon appear) and were sometime song in certain Churches. 
Concil. Laodic. cap. 59  Of such the Council of Laodicea hath a Canon in these words. Non oportet ab idiotis psalmos compositos & Vulgares in ecclesiis dici. Psalms made off private men and in the Vulgar tongue shall not be said in Churches. 
Con. Cart. 3. Can. 47  This restraint was made at that time because only holy Scripture should be read there, extept the lives of holy Martyrs which in their feasts were readen. For of the Church psalms that all the people did not sing that listed, men women and boys, as it is now in the deformed congregations, but only such as were admitted thereunto, it appeareth by a Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage holden in the year of our Lord .436. Where we read thus. Psalmista, id est, 
Can. 10.  Cantor potest absque scientia Episcopi sola Iussione Praesbyteri officium suscipere cantandi, dicente sibi prae●sbytero: vide, ut quod ore cantas, cord credas, & quoth cord credis, operibus comprobes. The psalmist or singing man may take the office off singing by the only commandment of the Priest without putting the bishop to knowledge, the Priest saying unto him thus. See that which thou singest with the mouth, thou believe it with thy heart. And that which thou believest in thy heart, thou perform it in thy Works. Thus by Order he was admitted that song Psalms in the Church, and thus the Vulgar Psalms made of Private men as they were for a time suffered in some Churches, so we see by Order off Law they were at an other time forbidden the Church.  
This being premised, let us now come to those Hymns and Psalms, which Master jewel saith, Ephrem made, and which he saith, were song in Churches in the Syrian tongue. Whereof he seemeth to frame this argument.  
Ephrem made songs in the Syrian tongue. 
M. jewels Argument.   
E●go the Service was in the Syrian tongue.  
Unless he will have this to go for an argument, he hath proved nothing. 
What Ephrems Psalms were.  For the Psalms and Hymns which he speaketh of, were no part of the Church Service, but certain songs containing. catholic doctrine, which that good Deacon made, for the people to sing in place of other songs containing Heretical doctrine, which one Harmonious an Heretic had made before, and infected the people withal. This was Ephrems song, and this to be so Theodoretus in his Ecclesiastical History telleth us, even in that place which Master jewel hath alleged. These are his Words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
T●eodor. li. 4. ca 5.  Whereas one Harmonious the Son of Bardesanes of whose Heresy Epiphanius hath written, had lately made certain songs, 
Tom. 1 lib 2. haeresi 56.  and mingling wicked doctrine with the pleasant Harmony enticed the hearers, and hunted after their corruption, this Ephrem following the note and melody of the other, made a godly ditty: and gave to the hearers both a pleasant and a profitable Medicine. These songs also do yet to this day make more royal the feasts of the triumphant Martyrs. Here we see what Hymns and Psalms they are which M. jewel speaketh off. They are by a strange Metamorphosis turned into songs and sonnets, and used to displace songs off Heretics. They are neither Hymns nor Psalms pertaining to the Church Service, (which were only taken out of holy Scripture) but godly songs made for the people's instruction against Heresy and wicked doctrine. Now that these Syrian songs were song at Martyrs feasts, it proveth no more that the Service was in the Syrian tongue than Christmas carolles song in English, French, and dutch do prove the Service at Christmas to be in English, French, or dutch:  
And thus M. jewels Syrian song doth nothing, prove his Vulgar Service, except he mind to reason thus.  

M. jewels Argument.  English Carolles were song at Christmas.  
Ergo the Service was in English.  
Now where M. jewel addeth that Sozomenus saith plainly that such Hymns and Psalms (he should say songs and sonnets) were song in the Churches of Syria, If the words be so plain, he should have alleged them, or at the lest have noted in the margin where they were to be found. But no marvel if he noted not that, which he could no where find. And yet is this Sozomenus at the least iiij. times avouched in this Article, to be a witness of the Service in the Syrian tongue. But remember yourself M. jewel. jewel. 
pag. 10.  If Sozomenus beareth witness to your Vulgar Service, why speaketh he not? Why cometh he forth so dumb? What? Hath he nought to say in this behalf? Or is his word not worth the hearing? Or is he so old that he can not speak? Or must we needs believe M. jewel without evidence? And thus much of Theodoretus and Sozomenus, by whom M. jewel saith he hath showed that the Service was in the Syrian tongue. Hereunto he addeth S. Jerome. To the place of S. Hierom I have answered before in the 68 Untruth. He did well to join Theodoretus and S. Hierom together. For they speak both of Vulgar songs, 
Fol. 60. ●.  not off the Psalms song in Church Service, as I have before declared. Now I trust M. jewel will come to the matter directly; and bring us some clear Example of the Church Service in some Vulgar tongue beside Greek and Latin for the space of the first .600. years. He hath told us what he hath left, and what he hath said, now I trust he will to the Matter. Let us see.  
jewel. Old Father Origens' words in my judgement be very plain. 
The .199. Untruth except he mean, they are very plain beside the purpose.   
Blessed be that old Father which speaketh so plainly for M. jewel, to save his poor honesty in this great distress. For now or never D. hardings Assertion shall be confounded.  
jewel. Writing against one Celsus a wicked heathen, he sayeth thus. The Greeks name God in the greek tongue, and the Latins in the Latin tongue. 
Lib. 8. contra Celsum  And all several Nations pray unto God and praise him in their own natural and mother tongue. For he that is Lord off all tongues, heareth man praying in all tongues, none otherwise, then if it were one voice pronounced by divers tongues. For God that ruleth the whole World is not as some one man, that hath gotten the Greek or 
* Barbaran.  Latin tongue, and knoweth none other.  
Stapleton. As I can easily yield in part that by this old Father's Testimony all tongues and Nations do praise and pray to God, so if M. jewel can prove that this same Origen ever said the Service in any tongue than the Greek, 
Pag. 35.  or in any of all his works once used the name of Service in a vulgar tongue, I will as gladly yield to the whole. But if Origen never spoke word of Service in the vulgar tongue, how is he here brought in to prove the Service in a vulgar tongue? jewel. Howbeit M. jewel knoweth, it is an easy matter to mock the ignorant with the glorious name of old Fathers. Origen saith, that all Nations and all tongues do pray unto God. This thing neither is denied, neither in any point toucheth the public Service of the Church. We confess with Origen and S. Augustin to, 
August. Epi. 178.  that una rogatur ut mis●reatur à cunctis Latinis & Barbaris unius Dei natura, the one nature of God is prayed unto for mercy of all people both Latins and Barbarous. And yet we say with S. Augustin also: Amen & Hallelulya, quod nec Latino nec Barbaro licet, in suam linguam transfer, Hebraeo cunctas gentes vocabulo decantare, that Amen and Halleluya (proper words of the Church Service) are song of all Nations in Hebrew terms, which it is not lawful for neither the Latin or Barbarous to translate into their own tongue. I thought good to accompany S. Augustin with Origen for the better understanding of his meaning.  
Hereof M. jewel seemeth to reason thus.  

M. jewels Argument.  All Nations do pray unto God in their own tongue.  
Ergo all Nations have their Church Service in their own tongue.  
And then against S. Augustin thus.  
All Nations do pray unto God.  
Ergo Amen, Halleluya, and such other parts off the Church Service must be translated into the tongues of all Nations.  
This maketh well For M. jewel: but this utterly overthroweth the doctrine of S. Augustin. 
jewel. Pag. 36.  Little thought that old Father, that ever his words should be thus used or so violently forced to such Conclusions.  
jewel. 
In 1. Cor. 14. The. 200 Untruth In nipping of the last words of S. Ambrose. pag. 62.  S. Ambrose speaking of the jews that were converted to Christ, saith thus. These were jews, which in their Sermons and oblations, used sometime the Syrian tongue, and sometime the Hebrew.  
M. jewel findeth small force in old Father Origen to prove that he seeketh for. And therefore he runneth to S. Ambrose for help. Howbeit for him, I must needs say, he hath taken wrong, and is ill used at M. jewels hand, as being by violence and perforce made both to suppress that he would say, and also to say that he would not say, and yet in the end saith not one word for the Vulgar Service. S. Ambrose expounding the words of S. Paul, In the Church or Congregation I will rather speak five words with judgement to instruct other, than ten thousand words in the tongue, saith that the Apostles meaning is, that it is far more profitable to speak a few words 
* In apertione sermonis.  in preaching that all may understand, then to use a long talk in an unknown language. And then he addeth, who they were that used such long talk in strange tongues, when the Christians were assembled to pray, and saith. These were jews which at Sermons and Oblations, used sometime the Syrian tongue, sometime the hebrew 
* This M jewel left quit● out  ad Commendationem, for a vain glory, and commendation. For they gloried to be called H●brewes because of the merit of Abraham. These words of S. Ambrose as they prove nothing that the jews had their Service, in the Hebrew or Syrian tongue, so it blameth openly the jews for using these tongues at the Service and oblation time. If M. jewel had given thee (good Reader) the whole words and sentence of S. Ambrose, thou shouldest easily have seen, how little they made for the Vulgar Service, unless M. jewel will reason thus.  
S. Paul blameth the jews for using the Hebrew or Syrian tongue in the Service.  
Ergo the Service was in the Hebrew or Syrian tongue.  
For of this premisse it will rather follow.  
The jews are blamed for using the Hebrew and Syrian tongue in the Service. 
M. jewels Argument.   
Ergo the jews had not their Service in the Hebrew and Syrian tongue.  
And thus M. jewel hath brought S. Ambrose against himself, and hath not yet found his Vulgar Service.  
jewel. 
In epist. ad Clericos Neocaesarienses. The 201. Untruth For the Common people of Cappadocia understood not the greek tongue as hath been before proved  S. basil writing unto the learned men of Neocaesarea and showing in what order the people used to resort to the house of prayer in the night season, and to sing psalms in sides, and to pray together, towards the end thereof, hath these words. As it were f●om one mouth and from one heart, they offer up unto the Lord the psalm of confession, and the words of repentance every of them applieth particularly unto himself. Hereby it is plain that the people in S. Basiles time, song the psalms together, and understood what they song.  
Here M. jewel remembreth himself better, and whereas he said before he would leave S. Augustine, S. basil, S. Jerome, and other, (such copy he pretended then to have) now he allegeth notwithstanding S. basil and S. Jerome both, declaring in this point, both his former bravery and his present want.  
These words of S. basil as they make nothing for the Service in the Vulguar tongue other than the greek, so do they very well declare, the ancient custom of the primitive Church of the clergy rising at midnight, and singing psalms together with the people. But what will M. jewel gather hereof? Will he reason thus?  
The people song the psalms together in the Greek tongue.  

M. jewels Argument.  Ergo the service was in neither Greek nor Latin.  
Unless he conclude thus, he concludeth nothing against D. Harding. M. jewel confesseth before that S. basil preached in Greek and the Vulgar people understood him. 
jewel. pag. 161.  And thinketh he by the Greek Service which the people (as he confesseth) understood (the Greek Service and the Greek sermons of S. basil being both in like Greek as his Liturgy and homilies yet extant do testify) to conclude that the Service was not in Greek? Thus by M. jewels reason Greek and not Greek, Vulgar and not Vulguar, something and nothing shall be all one. But he felt himself the weakness of this argument. And therefore he laboureth to add some more force unto it, and saith.  
jewel. And least M. harding should slip away, as his wont is and say, All this was done in the Greek tongue, and not in any tongue barbarous, S. basil hath already prevented him.  
Stapleton. It is well that M. jewel foresaw the Check. I trust he will avoid the Matto.  
jewel. For immediately he addeth further, as it followeth. if ye fli● us for thus singing and praying together, then must ye fly the Egyptians and both the countries of Lybia, and the Thebans, and the Palestines, and the Arabians, and the Phoenicians and the Syrians and the borderers of Euphrates, and generally ye must fly all them that have watchings and prayers, and common psalmody in estimation, I trow M. Harding will not say: All these nations spoke Greek or Latin.  
Stapleton. No more trow I neither. yet if he should so say M. jewel with all his learning is not able to prove the contrary. But what if he say that all those nations had their Service in Greek, although they spoke not all Greek? What if all those countries be but a part of the East Church, which all had the Greek Service? Could they not sing and pray together unless they prayed in their Vulguar known tongue? Or can not the devout apply particularly to himself the words of repentance, except he understand the psalm that he singeth? This is but a guess M. jewel, that because the common psalmody was practised in Egypt and other countries, therefore all those countries understood the psalmody. Let us consider the form of your argument.  
In Egypt Lybya, Syria and other countries common psalmody was had in estimation. 
M. jewels Argument.   
Ergo the Service in all those countries was in the Vulgar tongue.  
With the like reason you might conclude against the Service which with our own ears we hear to be in Latin, that yet it were not in Latin. As thus.  
In Dutcheland France and Italy the common psalmody i● both practised and highly esteemed specially in monasteries.  
Ergo in Dutchelande France and italy the Service is in the Vulgar tongue.  
We see and know the contrary of the conclusion. We see and know the premisse to be true also. Therefore we see and know the argument to be nought. And why? Forsooth because you conclude the whole by a part, and the part by a Surmise. As the whole Service you conclude of the psalmody. And the psalmody you guess, was understanded. Which yet if it were granted, there remaineth for you yet to prove that they understood nor Greek nor Latin, and then that the Service was in neither nother. Thus you see M. jewel, how Soon ye Conclude, and yet how much you lack to make up the Conclusion.  
jewel. 
The 202 Untruth For S. Jerome is not so much as apparent.  S. Hierom writing unto Heliodorus, of the death of Nepotianus, seemeth to avouch the same.  
Yet have you but a guess then. Howbeit all that S. Hierom saith, is not so much as a Seeming guess to prou● M. jewels purpose.  
These be his words. Now both the voices and letters off all nations do sound out Christ's passion and Resurrection. I leave the jews, the Greeks and the Latins, which nation's the Lord hath dedicated with the title of his Cross. The savage nature of the Bessians, and people that f●r their wildness go clad in skins, which sometimes made sacrifices of men's bodies, have turned their barbarous speech in to the sweet harmony of Christ. Christ is now the voice off the whole world.  
Stapleton. It is needless to answer such places as make no show off proof. S. Hierom as M. jewel well knoweth, hath neither here nor else where, 
jewel. Pag. 64.  either the name or the sense of any Service in the Vulguar tongue. Only he sayeth that all the world soundeth Christ, confesseth Christ, praiseth Christ. Now though M. jewel think he may found his vulgar Service upon this place, he may also presume the like upon David's Psalm, that where he said, In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, The Noise of the Apostles preaching the Gospel, went through out the whole earth, he meant to erect a Service in the Vulguar tongue, through out the whole earth. Or else upon the words of saint Gregory, saying of our Forefathers, as saint Hierom said of the Bessians, 
Exposit. in job. lib. 27 Cap. 6.  Behold the tongue off Britanny which knew nothing but to roar rudely, hath of late begun to sing the Hebrew hallelujah, giving praise to God, he may also conclude, that Britanny had the Service in Hebrew. Truly at this present Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Dutchelande, Burgundy, and divers other Catholic countries do sound out Christ's passion and resurrection, do turn their Barbarous speech into the sweet Harmony of Christ, and Christ is the voice of them al. Yet no one of these Nations hath the Service in the Vulguar known tongue.  
jewel. Aeneas Silvius saith, that when Cyrillus and Methodius had converted the slavons unto God, which was about the year of our Lord .860. and were suitors that they might minister the Common prayers and other Service unto them in their Common Slavon tongue, 
In the year of our Lord .860.  and great stay was made therein by the Pope and his Cardinals a voice was heard, as it had been from heaven. Let every Spirit praise the Lord, and let every tongue acknowledge him. And that thereupon they were suffered to use their own language.  
jewel. 
pag. 75.  This is the best proof of all other. A short answer may well serve it. For being but a little viewed, it is able to answer itself.  
Stapleton. It was done by the order of the Pope. And so may it be done now. The matter being so hard that a confirmation from heaven was necessary, declareth very well, that before, other countries had it not so. Last of all, it is far without the compass of the first 600. years. It was about the year of our Lord .860.  
jewel. Touching this matter Innocentius the third hath decreed thu●. and whether it make for the purpose or no, let M. harding him self be judge. 
Extra. de Officio judicis ordinarij. Quoniam in plerisue.  His words be these. Quoniam in plerisque partibus intra eandem Civitatem atque Diaecesim permisti sunt populi diversarum linguarum, habentes sub una fide varios ritus, & mores, districtè praecipimus ut pontifices huiuscemodi Civitatum & Diaecesum provideant viros idoneos qui secundum diversitatem rituum & linguarum divina illis officia celebrent, & Ecclesiastica Sacramenta ministre●t. 
The .203 Untruth, Standing in the notorious and wilful falsifying of the Author alleged.  For so much as in many places with in one City and one Diocese there be Nation● mingled together of many tongues having diuer● orders and Customs under one Faith, we do therefore straightly command that the bishops of such Cities or Dioceses provide meet men to minister the holy Service, According to their diversity off manners and tongues.  
Stapleton. 
jewel. Pag. 81.  Iff this serve not the turn, nothing I trow, will serve. The Authority of the Pope's Canon or rather of the whole general Council of Laterane, wherein this decree was made, is so great, the words so clear, the Commandment so strait. But two things only considered, all this mighty Fort, will prove but a Paper wall. The one is the time and Circumstance of the decree. The other, the legerdemain off M. jewels translation. Touching the first, this decree is far beneath the first six hundred years after Christ, as being made in the Council of Laterane more than twice six hundred years after Christ. Therefore M. jewel hath herein marvelously missereckoned himself. Again the decree is not made for Service in the vulguar tongue which at that tywe in all the West Church was in Latin by the witness of S. Thomas of Aquine, 
S. Thom. I● 1. Cor. 14.  whom Master jewel allegeth living about that very time. The meaning of the decree is, that whereas at that time the great city of Costantinople being subdued to the Latin Church out of the Greeks Dominion by the French men and the Venetians, so that in that one City both the old Grecians and the new Latins inhabited, whereas also their patriarch at that time was either of the French men's appointment or of the Venetians, and so a Latin (for so it was agreed that when the Emperor was French, 
Blondu● li. 6. dec. 2  the patriarch was a Venetian: as at that time Balduin of Flaundres was the Emperor and Maurocene the Venetian was the patriarch) the Patriache (as I said) being of the Latin Church, the Grecians coveted to have an other Bishop beside to serve their Churches according to their tongue and manner.  
The Council therefore to avoid this Inconvenience that one city and one Diocese would have two bishops, commanded straightly that one Bishop being appointed, he should provide to have Pastors and Curates underneath him such as might serve both the Latins and the Greeks, and again every several Nation of the Latins and Greeks, with their own accustomed Service and usual Administration off the Sacraments, and that according to the diversity of their tongues and manners. Not that every Nation should have the Service in their own tongue; but that both, the Sacraments should be ministered to every Nation in their own tongues, and the Service celebrated to every Nation, after their accustomed rites and Ceremonies. This to be the meaning of the decree, both the History of that time considered, and the very construction of the words (which M. jewel hath corrupted), doth make manifest. And this is lo the Legerdemain of his false translation, which now shall be opened. The Latin hath, Qui secundum diversitates Rituum & Linguarum, divina illis officia celebrent, & Ecclesiastica Sacramenta ministrent. The true English is this. Which (he speaketh of meet persons to be provided by the Bishop in such cities where divers Nations do concur) according to their diversity of their Rites or Ceremonies and tongues do celebrate to them God's Service, and do minister the Sacraments of the Church. Here by the order of all good Construction, the first accusative case (diversity of Rites or Ceremonies) is to be referred to the first verb (do celebrate God's Service) and the second accusative case (Diversity: of tongues) to the second verb, Do minister the Sacraments of the Church. So that the literal meaning of the decree must be, that where divers Nations do concur in one city or Diocese, each Nation have divers Pastors and Ministers, partly to celebrate the Service according to their own Rites, Ceremonies, manner and fashion (for in that point not only the Greeks and the Latins, but the very Latins among themselves do differ and vary in some Certain Ceremonies and Rites) partly and that chiefly to minister the Sacraments of the Church: as Baptim, Confession, matrimony, and such other to every Nation in his own tongue. For in such Sacraments the Vulguar tongue is used. Now Master jewel knowing right well that if he had put the whole English with the Latin, every Child would have seen the true Construction and the true Relation of the accusative case with the verb, he therefore hath utterly left out one of the Verbs in his English, which is, to minister the Sacraments of the Church. Thus he hath beguiled the English Reader, making him to believe that the Decree spoke only of saying the Common Service, and nothing at all of Ministering the Sacraments off the Church: unto the which as I said, The diversity off tongues must be referred. This is the plain dealing of gospeling Bishops. Thus must an evil cause be defended. And thus is our dear Country abused by such as occupy the place of Reverend bishops.  
jewel. 
The .240 Untruth or rather a bragging lie.  Here I might allege much more out of divers writers, even out of Abdias himself, whom M. H●rdinge so much esteemeth.  
Stapleton. I find no fault with M. jewels Rhetoric. But I trow Rhetoric in this case maketh small proof. 
jewe. ll pag. 166.  He will always seem to have much store, and that he leaveth more behind than he bringeth forth. This is a great face set upon nothing. M. jewel will leave Abdias a writer in the Apostles time, and whom trow ye, will he allege us in his place? You shall see.  
jewel. 
The .205 Untruth For a Complaint is no prouse  But I will only note the complaint of one john Billet concerning this case, and so make an end.  
Alas, what tool is there so weak that M. jewel will refuse to strike withal? To prove his imagined Vulgar Service, he leaveth Abdias, and (as he said before) S. Augustine, Gregorius Nazianzenus, Dyonisius Areopagita and many other Fathers; and bringeth us forth one john Billet, a good honest man of late years. Well, you are well come home M. jewel. Now your antiquities are spent, a poor man's tale may be heard. But what saith this honest man? Let us hear.  
jewel. His words be these. It w●s forbidden in the primitive Church, 
In summa de Divinis officiis.  that no m●n should speak with tongues, unless there were some present to expound it. For what should speaking avail without understanding? And hereof grew a laudable custom that after the gospel was read literally, it should strait way be expounded in the Vulguar tongue. But w●at shall we do in our days, when as there is none at all, or very seldom that reaveth or heareth and understandeth? It seemeth it were better now to hold their peace, than so to sing.  
Stapleton Lo you have this weighty authority placed last, that it might best be remembered, and brought in place of Abdias and divers other writers. But truly what M. jewel will gather thereof, I see not, unless he will frame his reasons thus.  
When the gospel is read in Latin, 
M. jewels Argument.  it must be expounded in the Vulgar tongue.  
Ergo the Service was in nei●her Greek nor Latin within the first 600. years. Or thus.  
No man understandeth the Service.  
Ergo it is in the Vulguar tongue.  
This is a very Vulguar Conclusion.  
jewel. 
The 207. Untruth For none of all these Fathers have proved M. jewels purpose. The .208 Untruth For this hath not yet been showed.  Here have I alleged for prouse (207) of our purpose of the old Fathers, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, S. Basil, S. Hieron, Theodoretus, Sozomenus, and Isidorus: of the later writers, Aeneas Silvius, Innocentius tertius, john Billet, Thomas of Aquine, Lyra, Durandus, and Eckius. Therefore I trust, M. Harding will no more deny but we (208) are able to show somewhat, that the Common Service in the primitive Church, was in some other tongue, and not only in Greek or Latin.  
Now the Battle is fought. M. jewel crieth a Retreat, and bloweth up the Victory. You see the Rank of his Captains both young and old: you have felt the dint of their weapons. Some have given dry blows, Some have stricken never a stroke. Other came utterly to late. Not one hath stricken right down. And all by the default of M. jewel, shamefully Abusing so faithful Captains. Yet he reneweth the Challenge and saith.  
jewel. 
The 209 Untruth For M. jewel will never yel●●.  If M. Harding be able to show any such sufficient example of his side. I will yield according to promise.  
To the which thus I answer. M. jewel hath brought nothing. Less than nothing M. Harding could not bring. Ergo he hath brought as sufficient examples as M. jewel. And then: Ergo M. jewel must yield according to promise. Again M. jewel hath brought no example of any other Service then in Greek and Latin in the first 600. years. Ergo it is no Untruth to say, that M. jewel can bring no such thing. Ergo In the primitive Church the Service was only in Greek and Latin, Ergo many countries of Asia the less which (as D. Harding hath proved) understood no Greek, France and great part of Africa which understood no Latin, had their Service the one in Greek, the other in Latin, both in a tongue which they understood not. Ergo Some countries in the first 600. years had their Service in a strange tongue. Ergo ones again M. jewel of necessity must yield and Subscribe.  
Harding. The people off Gallia or France had their Service then in Latin, as all the west Church had.  
jewel. 
The 210. Untruth slanderous.  The 79. Untruth. Boldly avouched, but no way proved.  
It is proved M. jewel by the place which yourself allegeth out of Sulpitius, especially if you had put in the whole words, and not broken it of in the middle, as if you had had the Choynecough. The whole place is this. At what time S. Martin should be created bishop of Tours in France, Sulpitius saith. 
Lib. 1. in vita S. Martini.  Inter episcopos qui affuerant praecipué Defensor quidam nomine dicitur restitisse. unde animaduer sum est graviter illum lectione prophetica tunt notatum. Among the bishops that were present, one whose name was Defensor, is reported to have resisted above the rest. Whereof it was perceived he was checked by the prophet, then read. And then it followeth which M. jewel allegeth. Nam cum fortuitu lector, cui legendi eo die officium erat, interclusus a populo defuisset, turbatis ministris, 
pag. 184.  dum expectatur qui non aderat, unus e circumstantibus sumpto psalterio quem primum versum invenit, arripuit. Psalmus autem hic erat. Ex ore infantium & lactentium perfecisti laudem, 
The .211. Untruth In nipping of the last words of Sulpitius.  propter inimicos tuos, ut destruas inimicum & Defensorem (these words M. jewel broke of) quo l●cto clamor populi tollitur, pars adversa confunditur. For whereas by chance the Reader, whose office was to read in the Church that day, was shut out by mean of the throunge, and the ministers were troubled, looking about for him that was not there, one of the company took the psalter and read that verse, that came next to hand. The verse of the psalm was this. Out of the mouth of infants and sucklings thou hast wrought praise, to destroy the enemy and Defensor. Which being read (the name of Defensor being heard) the people made a shoot, and the contrary part was confounded. jewel. 
pag 184.  Here (saith M. jewel) whether it were in the Vulguar tongue or in the Latin, it was a tongue known to the people. To the which I awnswere, that whether the people understood it or no, certain it is the psalm was read in Latin. For the cause of the shoot that the people made was, the word of the verse Defensorem, which is a Latin word and no french. Because thereby they took the bishop (whose name was Defensor) to be noted in that verse. Now as I will not contend but that some of the people there present understood that verse being read in Latin, so is it most manifest that the common french people had their proper french tongue for their Vulguar tongue beside the Latin. This is evident not only by that which D. Harding allegeth in this Article, but by this same writer himself Sulpitius Seu●rus, testifying that then at that time and in that country where the Service was in Latin, as it is before manifest, the people spoke yet Gallicé & Celticé the french tongue and the Celticall. For in this Dialogue of S. Martin's life when the course came to Gallus to speak, excusing his rusticite of language, his fellow said unto him. 
Lib. 3.  Tu vero, vel Celticé aut si mavis Gallicé loquaris, dummodo iam Martinum loquaris. Speak unto us either in the Celtes language, or if thou hadst rather, in the Galloes' language, so that thou speak of Martin. And afterward he calleth sellulam rusticanam, a country stool, in the french tongue tripetiam which the learned call tripodem. Thus in Sulpitius his time all most xii. c. years past the Latin Service was used in France, and yet the Latin was not the Vulgar tongue. Whereof it must follow that either all the people understood Latin beside their mother tongue, or else had their Service in a tongue which they understood not.  

Sn●ygoudanus in praefat. in psal.  For farther proof of the Latin Service in France it is to be remembered that the Latin psalter which S. Hierom translated at the request of Damasus is of the old writers called Gallicanum exemplar, because the Churches of Gallia followed that copy.  
Harding. The faith hath continued in this land among the English people from the 14. year off the reign off Mauritius the Emperor, almost these .1000. years.  
jewel. 
The .211. Untruth Slanderous.  The 80. Untruth. His examples reach nothing so far.  
Mauritius began his reign in the year of our Lord 582· In the xiv. year of his reign, Saint Augustin was sent to our country to preach the faith. The History of Bede in the first book the twenty-three. chapter witnesseth so. Therefore it is no Untruth for D. Harding to say so. Touching the first coming in of the faith to us Englishmen, when I come to the 91. Untruth, I shall speak at large.  
Harding. As concerning the order off Common prayers and public Service in such sort as we have now and that age had not, Saint Paul mentioneth nothing, neither speaketh one word in that whole Chapter, but off the use of the miraculous gift as is said before. And therefore his sayings out of that chapter be not fitly alleged of M. jewel, and the rest of our adversaries, against the manner of prayers, and Service off the Church now received, and of long time used.  
jewel. 
The 212. Untruth Slanderous. The 213. Untruth For no old Doctors do  The 81. Untruth. For Sundry Doctors both old and new allege these words to this self same purpose.  
This Untruth was well noted M. jewel, if you be able as well to prove it. Consider good Readers, the whole Accusation which these disobedient Children of God's Church, have laid in against their Mother for the public Service in the Latin tongue, the only Scripture, by which the● charge all Christendom beside wi●h the breach of God's commandment, 
〈…〉 w●rdes to that purpose.  is the place of S. Paul in the fi●ste epistle the xiv. Chapter to the Corinthians. It behoveth therefore M. jewel and his fellows openly, plainly, and abundantly to prove that the words of S. Paul in that Chapter do prove and Command a Vulgar Service. Upon this place of S. Paul lieth the only Stay of all this Alteration of God's Service. This therefore ought clearly, plentifully and without all ambiguity be proved and discussed. But (good Readers) such is the weakness of their grounds, that they can bring no one old Doctor expounding that place as a Commandment of the Service to be had in a Vulguar and known tongue to the Common people. This weakness, this feebleness shall now appear in M. jewel who will seem to be able to say as much herein, as any of all the rest. For in all that he hath Replied against this place of D. Harding, where this place of holy Scripture, is by him opened and declared, he hath not brought one old Doctor to expound the place as he and his fellows doth expound it. Let us consider M. jewels whole Reply to this place.  
jewel. 
The .214. Untruth For by-this grant your cause is much hindered, as shall appear.  We may safely grant some part of M. hardings long talk, without (214) prejudice of our cause. In deed S. Paul in the place alleged, spoke of the gift of tongues as it was a special miracle enduring only for a while, not gotten by labour or study, but freely inspired by the Spirit of God.  
Lo M. jewel granteth that S. Paul in that place to the Corinthians spoke of the gift of tongues etc. This gift off tongues the Corinthians abused, whiles in Common assemblies not at prayers proper to the Christians, but at Preaching, to the which infidels and all other resorted, they talked in strange tongues, which the assistants understood not, and were not therefore edified thereby. This S. Paul found fault withal, because in such assemblies it was a time of homilies and exhortations, where the people ought to be edified. This then being granted to be (as it is) the principal purpose of S. Paul in that place, let us see how M. jewel can pick out his Vulguar Service out of the rest. He followeth and saith.  
jewel. 
The .215. Untruth For D. ●. said. It is not by way of miracle. He said not It is no● any Miracle at all. M. I●w●ll altered the words to make matter for a scoff. The .216. Untruth joined w●the a Slander and open Injury to the Vniu●rs●ll Courche of 〈◊〉 many h●n●r●d y●●r●s. ●ipr. lib. 4. epi●t. 9  But the Latin tongue (saith M. Harding) as it is now commonly used in the Roman Service, is not given by any such prompting of the holy Ghost, nor is now (215) any Miracle at all. Therefore the place of S. Paul cannot be applied unto i●. We grant well, it is no miracle, as it is now used, nor any way savoureth of the Spirit of God. But this is a great miracle to see either any man so (216) wicked, that so will use it: or so impudent that so will defend it, or so patiented that so will suffer it. This verily is a marvelous miracle.  
Now M. jewelll doth his kind. Now he doth his Father the devil good Service. Now he playeth the right Protestant. He chargeth the Church of God with wickedness, that hath used these xu.c. years the Latin Service in the Latin Church. He calleth it an Impudence to defend the universal practice of so many hundred years, and saith they are very patiented which can so suffer it. If it be wickedness that hath so long and so universally been committed, then let us say to you M. jewel in defence of our forefathers off xu.c. years, that which S. Cyprian said to Pupianus the heretic in defence of six years only. Nisi apud te purgati fuerimus & sententiae tua absoluti, etiam sex annis nec fratern●●as habuerit episcopum nec plebs praepositum, nec grex pastorem, n●c eccl●sia gubernatorem, nec Christus antistitem, nec deus sacerdotem. Subueniat Pupianus & s●ntentiam dicat etc. Unless we be judged innocent of thee, and absolved by thy sentence (o Pupianus said S. Cyprian, and o M. jewel say I) than not all these six years (I say almost these sixteen hundr●d years) neither the brotherhood had a bishop, neither the people an overseer, neither the flock a Pastor, nor the church a governor, nor Christ a bishop, nor God a priest. Let then Pupianus come help and give sentence etc. Let then M. jewel of pity succour the poor departed Christians of fore time, which have wickedly used the Latin Service, and none other. If it be impudence to defend such an universal and Continual practice of God's Church, then what will M. jewel pronounce of S. Augustine, 
Ad ●anu●rium ●pist. 18.  who saith, De hoc quod tota per orbem frequentat Eccl●sia, quin ita faciendum sit, disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. To dispute or call in doubt that which the universal Church through out the world frequenteth, whether it ought to be done or no, it is the point of a most arrogant madness. It is like that M. jewel will say that S. Augustine himself was impudent and mad to write so. Such wickedness we commit, (M. jewel) that use the Latin Service, and so impudent we are that defend the same. For we defend and practise herein that, which the whole Church off God both East and west, both Greek and Latin hath ever in the public and approved Service used and observed. As it hath evidently appeared by that hitherto M. jewel with all his labour, Conference, and help of his fellow protestants that have written before him, hath not yet alleged one poor Country that had the public Service in any other tongue than Greek and Latin, unless he will take part with Schismatics and heretics. Thus M. jewel by his Miracle, hath proved himself a very Monster. For never was there a more Monstrous saying of any Christian man, and one that beareth the room of a bishop, than the words of M. jewel lastly avouched.  
jewel. 
The 217. Untruth Slanderous. For D. Harding made no s●c●e Argument.  M. Harding hereof seemeth to reason after this sort. S. Paul forebadde the Corinthians to use the spe●iall miracle and gift off God without profiting the Congregation. Ergo, Now having the Latin tongue without miracles, we may minister the Service therein although the Congregation ●aue no profit by it. Thi● reason is strange and holdeth as simply as the rest.  
This reason is your own M. jewel, It is not D. hardings. It is strange in deed, and holdeth as simply as the rest do in this your Reply, all of your own making, all slanderously forged upon Doctor Harding, all pevishely and childishly framed of yourself. Such lewd shifting becometh Boys and Children, or rather Contentious sophists in schools. But of this your Demeanour I trust you have heard more particularly in an other place. The reason of Doctor Hadinge is this.  
S. Paul in that Chapter to the Corinthians speaketh not one word off the Public Service but off the use off their miraculous Gift. 
D. Har. Argument   
Ergo Master jewel and his fellows have not fitly alleged those words off S. paul to prove the Vulguar Service.  
This is the Argument of D. harding, as to him that will consider his words above alleged it may evidently appear. To this Argument because. Master jewel either would not or could not answer, therefore he thought good utterly to dissemble it, and to make an other off his own in place thereof. Let us proceed with M. jewels text.  
jewel. Yet hath he given Special Advertisement in the Margin, that this place of S. Paul, serveth nothing to our purpose.  
Stapleton. This was not only his Note in the Margin, but his Conclusion in the text, if you had listed to mark. But what say you to the Note?  
jewel. 
The .218 Untruths. For no old doctors take this place in M. jewel les sense.  If this Note be so certain, and so Authentical as he would seem to make it, than were the Doctors both new and old that took it otherwise, not well advised.  
This is a small absurdity in you M. jewel, specially with your brother Calfhill, who setteth so little by the doctors judgement upon holy Scripture, that he appealeth from them, and protesteth to the Reader (full protestant like) that he will not be bound unto them, as being able (he saith) to charge all the Fathers every one of them from Christ's time hitherto with some gross error or other. 
In his answer to the first Article of the Cross.  And yourself Master jewel when you were once pressed with the universal consent of all the Fathers, touching the Invocation of saints, did you not answer these words. Est communis error Patrum, It is a Common Error of the Fathers? Thus you answered then, yet now you will seem to hold sadly by them. Thus you lay on both sides, and like as the stoics of Athens before the people worshipped the Gods and confessed a multitude, but at home in their houses disputed against all such vanities, so in your challenge and here you will seem to Reverence the Fathers, but an other time when it shall like you, you set nought by them, and care not for them. And thus one of you saith one thing, another saith an other thing. In answering to M. jewel we must stand to the Father's judgement, which we most gladly do and ever have done. In answering to Calfhill, we must prove the Father's judgement to be good, and require him to stand to them. But what are those Fathers which took that place of S. Paul as you do, to prove a Vulguar Service thereby? You go forth and say.  
jewel. 
The .219. Vntruin mangling the words of Lyra, as shall appear.  For Lyra writing upon the same, saith thus. Iff the people understand the prayer off the Priest, t●ey are the better brought unto God, and with greater Devotion they answer Amen. Therefore S. Paul saith. if thou being a Priest b●●sse with the Spirit and the people understand thee not, what profit then hath the people being simple and not understanding thee? Therefore in the primitive Church, both the blessings and all other things, were done in the Vulgar tongue. The vulgar tongue, saith Lyra, was used in the Primitive Church, upon occasion of these words of S. Paul.  
Stapleton This was the judgement of Nicolaus de Lyra. You were wont M. jewel to say, his name was Nicolas the Liar, but afterward was called Nicolaus de Lyar. So much you esteem this writer. This man was a grey Friar of S. Francisces Order, he lived about about two hundred years ago. He was learned and is so accounted: but yet far under the estimation of any Doctor or Father of the Church. To this place I have before answered in the 78. Untruth, and have there declared how little it maketh for the vulgar Service. But now to say somewhat more therein, first it is to be noted that M. jewel hath mangled and falsified his Auhor. For when he asketh the question. What profit hath the people being simple and not understanding thee? It followeth in Lyra (which M. jewel thought good to nip of quite in the midst) Nihil aut modicum: quia nescit se conformare tibi, qui es Minister Ecclesiae respondendo, Amen. Nothing or little. For he can not conform himself unto thee which art the Minister of the Church, by answering, Amen. Again whereas M. jewel sayeth out of Lyra, the blessings and all other things were done in the Vulgar tongue, the words of Lyra are, Benedictiones & caetera communia. The blessings and other Common things, not, and all other things were done in the Vulgar tongue. Last of all Lyra in all these words doth not gather or conclude, that the Service ought to be in the Vulgar tongue, as you and your fellows do M. jewel. And therefore you have brought yet no doctor new or old that applieth this place of Saint Paul as you do. For it is two things to say. In that words S. Paul spoke of the Service in the Vulgar tongue. And to say. S. Paul in those words Commanded the Service to be always in the Vulgar tongue. For the first you have alleged Master jewel no old doctor, but only Lyra and justinian as it shall anon appear. For the last you can allege neither old nor new. This is your own Singular Opinion and Heresy.  
jewel. In the Council of Acon it is written thus. 
Council. Aqu●sg●an. C●●. 132.  The voice and mind off them that sing unto the Lord in the Church, must agree together. The reason thereof is taken out of this place of S. Paul. I will sing with my Spiri●, I will sing with my mind.  

The .220 Untruth This Coouncel of Acon doth not apply this place of S. Paul to the Vulguar Service.  This is a moral application, this is no literal Deduction. He that celebrateth the Service (and of such the Council speaketh) and prayeth for the whole flock, aught to understand that which he saith, to the intent he may pray with spirit and with mind. But the ignorant lay people who are not bound to celebrat the Service, but to assist and give their assent unto it, and of whom that Council in those words speaketh not, are not bound particularly to understand what is said or done, being once first instructed of the whole sufficiently. And therefore in the next Canon of the same Council it is provided who, and what men, and with what Moderation the Synginge in the Church should be used. The words are these. Tales ad legendum, cantandum, & psallendum in Ecclesia constituantur, 
Can. 133.  qui non superbè sed humiliter, debitas Domino laudes per soluant: & suavitates Lectionis ac Melodiae & Doctos demulceant, & minus Doctos erudiant. Plusque velint in L●ctione vel cantu populi Aedificationem, quàm popular●m vanissimam Adulationem. Let such be appointed to Read and to sing in the Church, which may praise almighty God not vain gloriously, but humbly: which with their sweet Melody and soft reading, may both delight the learned, and instruct the unlearned, desiring rather by their reading and singing to Edify the people, then to seek after a vain applause and Commendation of the people. By this it appeareth, the Council applied the words of S. Paul not to prove a vulgar Service, as M. jewel and his fellows do, but to move those which did sing and read in the Church, to do that thing from the heart not by mouth only. Wherein they did but renew the ancient decree off the fourth Councelll of Carthage, where the Priest appointing one that should sing in the Church, 
This was in the y●re of our Lord 430.  (for not every one that lifted, song at that time, as in your disordered Congregation Master jewel, now they do) sayeth unto him these words. Vide ut quod ore Cantas, cord Credas, & quoth cord credis, operibus comprobes. See that that which thou singest with thy mouth, thou believe in heart, and that which thou believest in heart, thou perform in deeds.  
Chrisostom saith, S. Paul driveth (221) the whole tenor of this matter unto the profit of the hearers. These be his words. 
Conc. Cart. 4. Can. 10 The 221. Untruth For Saint Paul doth not by Chrysostoms' mind drive the Celebrating off the Service to the profit of the hearers.  S. Paul's saying standeth thus. unless I utter my words so as they may clearly and plainly be perceived of you, but only show myself to have the gift of tongues, ye s●all have ●o fruit of those things which you know not. For what profit can ye get of a voice, that ye can not understand?  
M. jewel hath soon done with his new Doctors. Now he cometh in with his old. And yet of all the Doctors, he allegeth only Chrysostom. And he is in deed an old Doctor, but yet no old Doctors. Now how doth Chrysostom apply this place of S. Paul to prove a Vulgar Service? Marry he saith, that S. Paul driveth the whole tenor of this matter unto the profit of the hearers. Of which Matter M. jewel? Of celebrating the Church Service? No M. jewel. Yowe may not so deceive us. Chrysostom expounding this fourteenth Chapter of S. Paul in the first to the Corinthians, declareth the purpose of the Aposte in the beginning of the Chapter to be thus. Comparat inter se dona, 
Chrysost. In. 1. Cor. Homil. 35  extenuans illud linguarum, non inutile prorsus quidem, nec utile tamen vehementer per sese ostendens. The Apostle compareth the gifts of the holy Ghost between themselves, extenuating the gift of tongues, showing that it is not utterly unprofitable, yet by itself not very profitable. S. Paul persisting in this comparison, soon after the beginning of the Chapter, transferring the matter to himself saith. 
1. Cor. 14.  Now brethren if I come to you myself speaking in tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak unto you either by revelation, or by knowl●adge, or by prophecy, or by Doctrine? Upon these words of the Apostle Chrysostom said the words which Master jewel hath alleged, ●s expounding the literal meaning off the Apostle, Saint Paul's saying standeth thus. unless I utter my words so that they may clearly and plainly be perceived of you, and so forth, as they lie in the text of M. jewel last alleged. Now I would M. jewel himself would judge whether these words either of the Apostle or of Chrysostom do speak or mean any thing at all of celebrating the Church Service. Here in this place, Donum linguarum, & prophetiae the gift of tongues and of Interpretation are compared together. But prophetare, to have that gift of Interpretation, is (as the Apostle him self in that place expoundeth) hominibus loqui, ad ●dificationem, exhortation●m, consolationem. To speak unto men, to edify them, to exhort them, to comfort them. This is done in homilies and sermons, not in the Church Service, not in public prayers and blessings. If there be in this Chapter any words spoken of the Church Service, they are the other which follow many sentences after, where the Apostle saith, If thou bless in Spirit, how shall he that supplieth the room of the ignorant, answer Amen to thy thanks giving? they are I say these words, not the other above recited, upon the which Chrysostom made that exposition which M. jewel brought. Therefore these words of Chrysostom are by M. jewel brought beside the purpose, as the which speaketh nothing of the Vulgar Service, nor of applying the words of S. Paul thereto, as M. jewel and his fellows do apply them.  
jewel. 
The .222. Untruth For this is S. Paul's own text, not the saying of Chrysostom.  And again the same Chrisostom saith farther. Even so you unless you give a sound that may be known, as the proverb ●●, you shall throw for the your words into the wind, that is to say, ●e shall speak to no man.  
Here M. jewel notably betrayeth himself, and openeth in some part the great affected vanity which he useth in this whole Reply to allege And multyplie Doctors without purpose. For these words which are here laid forth for a show of Chrysostoms' words, are no words of Chrysostom at all: but they are the words of S. Paul and of that text which Chrysostom there handleth. And M. jewel straightways will allege them for Saint Paul's (as you shall hear) but presently he allegeth them solemnly both in Latin and in English, as the words of Chrysostom to make a show (as I said) of Doctors. This is but a part of that vanity in the which he a bundeth through this whole Reply, as hath been in good part declared and published to the world already. Touching the matter they appertain expressly to the words above alleged, as to him which will consider but the text of the Apostle it is evident. They appertain to that which the Apostle calleth Donum linguarum, the gift off tongues, which except it be joined with prophetia or Interpretation, whereby the Congregation may be edified, exhorted and comforted, it availeth little to the Audience, but are as though it were words thrown to the wind. All this is spoken of preaching and opening the words, 
In comment. in 1. cor. 14.  Apertionem sermonis Saint Ambrose calleth it. For as he saith upon this place. Docere nemo poterit n●si intelligatur. No man can teach unless he be understanded of the hearers. And Chrysostom upon this place immediately saith. 
Chrisost. ibidem.  Ita nihil habere magnificum linguas undique fere monstravit. Thus he showeth every way (meaning the similitudes of the Musical instrument and of the Trumpet before alleged) that the gift of tongues is of no great value. And he compareth that gift to a singer. For as if you pluck one finger away from the rest, it can do you no more Service, so if they used the gift of tongues, without prophetia, that is, the Interpretation of tongues, it were but a vain and unprofitable matter. This therefore that M. jewel hath hitherto alleged, toucheth nothing the Vulguar Service, nor is not any whit by Chrysostom applied thereunto. And yet is Chrysostom the only Ancient Doctor that M. jewel here allegeth, promising before to allege Doctors both old and new.  
jewel. 
The 223. Untruth For justinian applieth not this place to the Vulgar Service.  So likewise the Emperor justinian, where he commandeth all bishops and priests to minister the Sacraments and other prayers aloud, and with open voice, he avoucheth the same by this place of S. Paul. For thus he saith. So the Apostle saith: If thou only bliss or pray with thy Spirit, how shall he that supplieth the room off the unlearned, say, Amen, unto thy blessing? For he knoweth not what thou sayest.  
justinian was an Emperor, he was no Doctor of the Church such as M. jewel promiseth to bring. And he applieth this Scripture not to the Vulguar Service, which he never knew other than Greek in the Greek Church, and Latin in the Latin Church. But he applieth that place of S. Paul to the loud speaking of the priest at Service time. Of the which matter we have treated before at large in the 78. Untruth, where the meaning of this Constitution is expounded, by the like sayings of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian. It maketh no more for the Vulgar Service (unto the which M. jewel and his fellows most impudently upon their own heads, without the authorities of the Ancient Doctors do apply this place) then doth loud speaking of the priest at this day in the Mass, where the people also answereth Amen.  
jewel. 
The .224 Untruth For it appeareth never a whit so.  It appeareth by these Authorities, notwithstanding M. hardings note, that S. Paul maketh somewhat for our purpose.  
It appeareth not by any of all these Authorities that the Service ought to be in the English tongue (that was D. hardings note) or in any other Vulguar tongue. It appeareth by none of them all, that the place of S. Paul is applied to prove a Vulgar Service. It appeareth thereby M. jewel can bring not one old Doctor to prove it. And so it appeareth that M. jewel hath noted a wrong Untruth, and that he and his fellows do most Untruly apply this place of S. Paul to prove their schismatical alteration of God's Service. But now M. jewel because all Doctors do fail him, because he can not build upon them, he saith he will build upon holy Scripture itself. For thus he followeth the matter.  

A Burden of Untruths. which particularly shall be noted in the Answer hereunto following.  Howbeit we build not our proofs upon the Miracle and gifts of tongues, that lasted but for a while, but upon these express and plain words of S. Paul, which no man can deny. He that speaketh with tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God. For no man heareth him. If the Trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself unto the war? Even so you, unless ye utter such words, as have signification, how shall it be known, what ye say? For ye shall speak into the wind. I will pray with my Spirit, I will play with my mind. I will sing with spirit, I will sing with my mind. If thou bliss with thy Spirit, how shall the ignorant say, Amen, unto thy thanks giving? For he knoweth not what thou sayest. In the Church I had liefer to speak five words with my mind, so that I may instruct others, than a thousand words with my tongue. Let all things be done to the profit of the people. These words be evident. The exposition of Lyra, of the Council of Acon, of Chrysostom, and justinian is plain. And yet must we upon M. hardings warrant in the needs believe that all this maketh nothing for the English Service in the Church of England.  
Stapleton. There needeth no more but this only place to prove you M. jewel a wicked deceiver of God's people, a wilful Corrupter of God's word, and a most Impudent Forger of Notorious Untruths. This is a grievous Accusation, you will say. Verily it is so. But if it be not a true and upright Accusation, proclaim me for an open slanderer, and never to be credited, at Paul's Cross or where else you list. I say therefore. You have in this place Corrupted God's word. In that Corruption you have deceived God's people, and you have committed divers Notorious Untruths. All this I prove. He corrupteth God's word, which bringeth a part thereof to persuade one way, leaving out the other part which should persuade the contrary way. So do you in this place M. jewel. Ergo, etc. Your end and intent in this place is to persuade your Reader that for the Service to be had in the Vulgar tongue, you have the word of S. Paul to build upon, and to have it in a Strange tongue, you have the same words against us. Is not this your intent and purpose in this place? Go you not about in this place (as you did before out of Lyra, the Council of Acon, Chrysostom and justinian, so now out of the words of S. Paul himself to prove that the Service ought not to be in a strange tongue? The Read● which hath perused the whole issue which I join with you in this Untruth can not be ignorant hereof. Then I say you bring certain words of S. Paul which may seem to lead that way, and you leave out other of his words which do expressly declare that he meaneth no such matter.  

The .225. Untruth in guilefully leaving our the words of the Apostle.  As now to come to your words, first you allege S. Paul's words thus. He that speaketh with tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man heareth him. It followeth immediately which you leave out, Spiritus autem loquitur mysteria. But the Spirit speaketh mysteries, or as the greeks do read that text, Spiritu licet mysteria loquatur. Although he (which speaketh with tongue,) in the Spirit speaketh mysteries. I say if you had added these words, it should have appeared that S. Paul neither spoke those words of uttering the Service in a strange tongue, neither did utterly discommend speaking with tongues. 
Chrysost. et Theodoret. ibidem.  For as Chrysostom and Theodoretus upon this place do say, those words are added, ne vel supernacaneum, vel inutile, temereque concessum put●mus. Lest we should think the gift of tongues to be superfluous, unprofitable, or to be given of God without cause. And again this being added (The Spirit speaketh mysteries, or, In the spirit he speaketh mysteries) the Reader might soon have conceived, that neither that speaking of tongues was utterly to be discommended, neither that same did any thing appertain to the Service in the latin tongue, where every man knoweth, there is no such speaking of mysteries in Spirit. These words therefore have been by you guilefully left out M. jewel thereby to blind the judgement of the Reader, and to make him believe that S. Paul had spoken those words, of speaking the Service in a strange tongue. For to that purpose you alleged those words. Now to omit the long process of S. Paul which here followeth, as is by you with the like fraud utterly left out M. jewel, to omit I say the Comparison that S. Paul maketh between Loqui lingua and prophetare, to speak with tongue, and to Interpret, the one edifying himself only, the other edifying the whole Congregation, whereby also the former words should the better have been understanded of the English Reader, let us consider that which you next immediately allege following in S. Paul not immediately, but after many sentences between. You allege.  
jewel. Iff the Trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself unto the war? Even so you unless ye utter such words, as have such signification how shall it be known what ye say? For ye shall speak into the mind.  
Stapleton All this is spoken of the Apostle to show that the gift of tongues, 
Chrysost. ibid.  is (as Chrysostom expoundeth) pulchrum necessariumque donum, sed tum si qui interpretari possit, accedat. A commendable and necessary gift, but than if one that can interpret the tongue be added also. Here therefore M. jewel (I do not say, hath corrupted the Scripture) but hath deceived the Reader. For all this by the judgement of Chrysostom and Theodoret being spoken of the gift of Interpretation to be joined with the gift of tongues, what maketh it here against the Latin tongue in the Service of the Latin Church, for the which M. jewel alleged it?  
To proceed with M. jewels Allegation out of S. Paul, 
The .226 Untruth, in omitting yet other words of the Apostle.  behold good Readers how much he hath omitted, necessarily appertaining to the understanding of S. Paul's mind. For after these words the Apostle concludeth. Et ideo qui loquitur lingua oret ut interpretetur, And therefore he that speaketh with tongue (that is, he that hath that gift) let him pray that he may Interpret. For (as saith Chrysostom) si diligenter postulabit, potietur. If he ask it diligently, he shall obtain it. And the reason why this gift of Interpretation or understanding is to be prayed for, the Apostle addeth, saying. Nam si orem lingua, spiritus meus orat, mens autem mea sine fructu est. For if I pray in the tongue, my Spirit prayeth, but my Mind or understanding is without fru●e. What meaneth saint Paul hereby? Speaketh he of saying the Service in the Latin or Greek tongue, which are both common tongues to the Latin or Greek Church? Nothing less. Chrysostom upon this place saith. There were off old time many which had the gift of praying and the gift of tongues joined together, 
Chrysost. ibidem.  and they prayed and founded out the Tongue, as the Persian or the Roman tongue, but in Mind they understood not what they said. Therefore (saith the Apostle) if I pray with the tongue the Spirit prayeth, that is the gift which is given unto me and which moveth my tongue: but the mind hath no profit thereby. What then is herein best to be done? What ought we to ask off God? Forsooth to pray both with the Spirit and with the Mind. Thus far Chrysostom. 
In commentar. ibidem.  Thus also Theodoretus, and S. Ambrose do expound this place. All this therefore being so spoken of the miraculous gift of tongues, not of the Service it self in any strange tongue, M. jewel (alleging a long the text of S. Paul) utterly let out. For as before the gift of speaking with tongues, the Apostle called, Mysteria spiritu loqui, aedificare seipsum, to speak Mysteries in the Spirit, to speak to God, to edify himself, so now he calleth it Spiritu orare, to pray in the Spirit, Plena sine dubio Consolationis verba, all words full of Consolation undoubtedly (as Chrysostom saith), and all commending the speaking in tongues, though the gift of Interpretation, be much preferred before it. Because it edifieth more. Which edifying of the Congregation was the chief and only scope of the Apostle in this Chapter. This being so concluded of the Apostle, he goeth forth, and sayeth. Quid ergo est? 
The .227. Untruth For adding to the Apostle. The word  What then is it? Or, as you have heard Chrysostom before to expound it, What is best and most profitable to be done.? The Apostle answereth. And here come in the words that Master jewel allegeth.  
I will pray with 
* My, is not in the text of saint Paul.  my Spirit, I will pray with 
* My, is not in the text of saint Paul.  my Mind, I will sing with 
* My, is not in the text of saint Paul.  my Spirit, I will sing with 
* My, is not in the text of saint Paul.  my Mind. These words what they mean, you have heard before out of Chrysostom. Let us go forth with the text of S. Paul as M. jewel allegeth it.  
if thou bliss with thy Spirit, how shall the ignorant sue Amen unto thy thanks giving? For he knoweth not what thou sayest. In the Church I had liefer etc.  
In these words Lo, M. jewel hath wickedly corrupted and mangled S. Paul. First, where he saith, 
The .228. Untruth in adding to holy Scripture  if thou bliss with thy Spirit· For the word, Thy, is not in the text of the Apostle, but is presumptuosly added to holy Scripture by Master jewel. For it is a matter that skilleth much, and that altereth much the meaning of the Apostle. The Apostle meaneth here B●nedicere Spiritu, to bless in Spirit, as he meaned before, orare spiritu, to pray in Spirit. That is, as Chrysostom saith, P●regrina lingua gratias agere. To bless or give thanks in a strange tongue, even as before to pray in Spirit, was to use the gift of strange tongue in prayer. For the scope of the Apostle being in this place to debace the gift of tongues, not utterly, but in comparison of the gift of Interpretation, because this edifieth the whole congregation, the other not, as before he used the Comparison of the musical instrument, which unless it be in tune, delighteth not the hearer, and of a Trumpet, which unless it be blown after the certain and accustomed noise, it doth not instruct the souldyar, as the Apostle useth also herein the comparison of familiar communication wherein if I understand not the party with whom I speak, nor he me, both I to him, and he to me is barbarous, strange, and unprofitable, as he used also the example of private prayer done by the gift of tongues in a strange language where he that so prayeth, understandeth not himself what he prayeth, and so his mind is not edified thereby, though he pray in the Spirit and useth well the gift of God, so now last of all the Apostle maketh an other example off the Common prayer, and saith. if thou bless or give thanks by the gift of tongues, which is to pray openly in a tongue utterly strange and unknown how shall etc. This much for the word Benedicere Spiritu, to bless in Spirit, according to the meaning of Chrysostom. Now if the Apostle had said (as Master jewel allegeth him) If thou bless in thy Spirit, it could not have been taken, for blessing by the gift of tongues, as Chrysostom taketh it: For that gift proceedeth not of our Spirit, but of the Spirit of God. And it is a kind of blessing not in our Spirit, but in that Spirit, which as Chrysostom saith, is Donum concessum lingua●que movens. A gift that is granted, and that moveth the tongue. Verily a Miraculous gift, given as Chrysostom saith, Olim, in the old time, in the very primitive Church, not given then in his time, or at any time sense.  

The 229. Vnthruthe A foul and wicked deprivation of holy Scripture  But now to an other most manifest corrupting of this text committed by M. jewel: Iff thou bliss with thy Spirit, (saith M. jewel out of S. Paul) how shall the ignorant say, Amen? Saint Paul hath not so, but thus. 
* The true words of S. Paul  How shall he that supplieth the room off the ignorant, say Amen? So have all Copies both Greek and Latin, that are known to be extant. Behold therefore good Reader, a most manifest Corruption of holy Scripture by M. jewel. It is great skill whether we read, the ignorant, or, he that supplieth the room of the ignorant. Indoctum, saith Chrysostom promiscuam plebem voca●. 
Primasius in 1. Cor. 14. Idiota qui. Idio●a ●antum propriae linguae tenet. Se●●ius in 1. Co. 14  By the ignorant the Apostle meaneth the Common people. But he that supplieth the room of the ignorant, and of the Common people, he that (as Primasius saith) pro idiota, id est pro ignaro respond●t, Amen, answereth Amen for the ignorant, he is himself no ignorant, but learned. He is called Idiota, which hath skille only of his proper and Mother tongue: But whosoever hath learned the Common learned tongue beside, as the Greek in the Greek Church, the Latin in the Latin Church, he is no more Idiota, but accounted among the learned, and such a one as may supply the room of Idiota, and answer for the ignorant. Again, Idiotam appellat eum, qui in laicorum ordine constitutus est. The Apostle (saith Theodoretus) calleth that man Idiota, which is yet in the order of the lay people. But he that supplieth the room of the Idiota, 
Theodore●u. in 1. Cor. 14.  is or aught to be of the clergy. Thus much difference there is between the Ignorant, and him that supplieth the room of the ignorant. Why therefore doth M. jewel thus wickedly corrupt the words of the Apostle? Why doth he allege, the ignorant, in stead off him that supplieth the room of the ignorant? Is not this an evident and manifest Corruption of holy Scripture? Had it not been much for the vantage of M. jewel to conceal those words of the Apostle, he would not so shamefully have nipped them of, quite, in the midst. And who will trust you now (M. jewel) in doubtful matters, which do so deceive us in plain things? In deed M. jewel would have S. Paul to say that the Ignorant himself should answer, Amen: whereby he thinketh he might conclude that they ought therefore to understand the priest. But neither Saint Paul requireth the ignorant to answer, but him that supplieth the room of the ignorant, neither doth S. Paul speak here of the Service done in a Common learned tongue, but in a strange tongue used by the way of the miraculous gift of tongues.  
For (and mark well gentle Reader) there was in the primitive Church in the Apostles time beside the Common prayer and set Service of the Church, a certain peculiar gift of praying in a strange tongue, of the which the Apostle here speaketh, and Chrysostom in an other place thus writeth. Vná cum his omnibus (Prophetiae, sanitatum, linguarum donum dicit) erat & precum donum, 
In epist. ad ●om. Hen●●. 14  quod & ipsum Spiritus dicebatur. Quo qui praeditus erat, pro pl●be universa preces fundebat. Beside all other gifts (of prophecy, of healing, and of tongues) there was also a gift of prayer, which was called, the gift of the Spirit. He that had this gift, prayed for the whole multitude. And he giveth hereof the reason, showing also the manner in these words. For whereas not knowing what is good for us, we ask many things of God that are not profitable for us, this gift of prayer came upon some one of them which then lived, who for such things as might be profitable for the whole congregation, both stood himself and prayed for all the other, and also taught the other. The Apostle therefore 
* In the v●●j. to the Romans.  here calleth by the name of Spirit both such a gift, and also that soul which received such gift, and prayed unto God and mourned. For he that was found worthy of this gift, standing up with great compunction off mind, and also with much lamentation, such lamentation I say, as from the heart lieth prostrate before God, and prayeth for all such things as are behoveful for the congregation. Of the which manner, the deacon at this day is a token praying for all the people. Thus far Chrysostom. This praying by the way of a miraculous gift, was no set, ordinary, and appointed Service, to be readen out of the book, as now we have it, and as in Chrysostoms' time it was, but a manner of miraculous praying upon the sooden, so as the Spirit moved. Again he that had this gift of praying, did not only pray himself, but also alios edocebat, he taught and instructed other. To pray, it was not requisite he should be understanded. For that was done gemitibus ijs qui ipsa quidem mente deo se prosternunt: by sighings, such as from the heart do prostrate themselves before God. But to teach other, it was necessary that he should be understanded. Therefore when any man used that gift of prayer with the gift of tongues together, praying in a strange tongue, without prophetia the gift of understanding added thereunto, he spoke mysteries, he prayed to God, he edified himself, he prayed in Spirit. But he edified not the hearers, he prayed not (mente) in mind and understanding. When he so prayed, the learned himself which supplied the room of the ignorant did not understand him, nor could not answer Amen to his prayer. Why? Because he prayed in a strange tongue, because he used or rather abused (touching the edifying of other) the miraculous gift of tongues. 
The .230 Untruth in leaving out again other wo●d●s of the Apostle Chrisost. hom. 35. In. 1. Cor. Theodoretus in. 1. Cor. 14. Oecumenius in. 1. Cor. 14.   
And therefore the Apostle immediately sayeth (which words also M. jewel hath quite in his text left out, and so decevied once again his Reader.) For thou givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. that is, as Chrisostom expoundeth, spiritu concitatus sonas, thou givest out a sound, being stirred up with the Spirit: as Theodoretus expoundeth it. Thou praisest God being moved with that divine gift, but he that heareth thee, is no whit edified. So Oecumenius saith. The Apostle referring worthy praise to the gift of tongues saith, For thou givest thanks well, etc. Thus by the mind of these learned Fathers, all this giving of thanks and blessing in the Spirit, or in a strange tongue, is a giving of thanks or blessing by the way of that miraculous gift of tongues, not by using the set and ordinary Service in any learned or Common tongue known to the learned that, supplieth the room of the Ignorant. The Apostle in all this Chapter speaketh of no such Matter. You see therefore good Readers how fitly and truly M. jewel and his fellows do allege this place of S. Paul against the Service in a common learned tongue, such as the Greek tongue is to the Greek Church, and the Latin to the Latin Church.  
But let us grant a while to M. jewel that S. Paul hath all this while spoken of the Service in a learned tongue unknown to the Common ignorant people, let us I say for a while grant it against the exposition of so many learned Fathers, and against the very evidence of S. Paul's text. Yet S. Paul saith of such a one as so prayeth. Tu quidem bene gratias agis. Thou givest thanks well, Nay, saith M. jewel, It is a marvelous miracle that any man will be so wicked as so to use it. 
M. jewel calleth that thing wicked of the which S. ●aule by his opinion speaking, sai●t● was w●l do●e.  These are your very words M. jewel about the beginning of your text upon this Untruth. Now I ask you M. jewel.  
Did S. Paul speak in this place of praying in a strange tongue by way of the miraculous gift, which the speaker himself sometime understood not, and which was done by some one man moved thereunto upon the sudden? Did he speak it of praying in a learned tongue though understanded of the speaker himself, yet not understanded of the Common people, and ordinarily used for the Service of the Church? If the first, than what maketh this for your vulgar Service? then why do you bring it here against the Service in a learned tongue? then why do you and your fellows all, so stoutly apply this place to prove that the Service ought to be in the Vulgar tongue? 
A. dilemma to M. jewel.  Last of all then how do you bring that miraculous praying of some one man moved thereunto by the Spirit against the Ordinary set Service of God's Church? If the second why do you call that wicked so to be used, and those men impudent which w●l● defena ●●, which the Apostle in express words saith, was Well done. Answer to this dilemma M. jewel with all the shifts, phrases, gloss, and evasions that you can possibly devise. I think the best answer that you can make, is to provide that our books be stayed at Grauesende, and the world may never see your nakedness, wickedness, and abominations.  

The .231. Vnt●●t●e in omitting yet other ●orde o● the ●po●tle.  Before I come to the rest of the words which you have alleged out of S. Paul, I must put the words which go before, left out by you again fraudulently M. jewel. I say, Fraudulently, because the concealing of them hath hindered the truth, as it shall now appear. After that S. Paul had said, Thou givest well thanks but the other is not edified, it followeth. I thank God that I speak (my self also) with the tongue of you all. 
In cō●●ētarijs I●id●m  that is, as Chrysostom expoundeth it, Theodoretus also and Oecumenius, I have the gift of tongues more than any of you all. But I had liefer (here beginneth M. jewel, 

The .232. Untruth For Saint Paul saith not. with my tongue, but In lingua. In the tongue that is, by the gift of strange tongues.  
The .233. Untruth in adding again to S. Paul's text.   leaving out also the word, But) to speak five words with my mind, so that I may instruct others, than ten thousand words with my tongue, Than it followeth after many sentences, which M. jewel strait adjoineth, let all things be done to the edifying of the people. And yet the words, of the people, are not the words of S. Paul. Now what meaneth the Apostle in these words? Forsooth he prosecuteth the using of the miraculous gift of tongues. I myself, saith S. Paul, can speak in as many strange tongues as any of you all, or as the greeks do read, Magis quàm omnes vos linguis loquor, I speak in tongues more than all you. Yet I do not affect this speaking, with tongues. I had rather speak five words to edify other, than ten thousand of words, (not with my tongue, as M. jewel hath falsely translated it, but) in lingua, in the tongue, that is, by the miraculous gift of tongues alone, where the gift of Interpretation is not also used, whereby the Congregation might be edified. Now who seeth not that all this discourse of the Apostle is far wide from uttering the Ordinary Service of God's Church in any tongue known or unknown? Yet that the matter may be more clear and evident even to all men, let us produce and prosecut yet farther the words of S. Paul which do follow: though not alleged by M. jewel at all, until we come to his last words. Let all things be done to edify.  
It followeth in S. Paul. 
The .234. Untruth in omitting, 〈…〉 of the Apostle. C●rysost. H●n. 36. i● 1. Cor.  brethren, be not like Children in understanding. But in evil doing be children, in understanding be ye perfect. For (as Chrysostom upon this place saith) Children use to gape and wonder at small matters, but at weighty things in deed they wonder nothing at all. Therefore seeing th●se Corinthians having the gift of tongues thought th●y had thereby all things, although that were the v●ry lest of all the other gifts, the Apostle sayeth unto them. Be not like children etc. You see the Apostle prosecuteth the matter of the miraculous gift of tongues, and speaketh yet nothing of the Common Set Service. Let us go forth with the text. 
Esa. 28.  For it is written in the law. For I will speak to this people in other tongues, and in other lips: and yet they shall not so hear me neither, saith the Lord. All this is to debace the gift of tongues when it is used by itself alone. The Apostle goeth forth. Therefore tongues serve for a token not for the faith●full, but for the unfaithful. But prophecies (or interpretation) are not for the unfaithful but for the faithful. Such a token or provocation to admiration, the gift of tongues was to the gentiles of Parthia, 
Theodoretus ibidem.  Media, Mesopotamia, and divers other nations, when they heard the Apostles to preach in all tongues upon whitsunday. But prophecies, which consist in interpretation or revelation do serve for the faithful, do move and strike them. So by the gift of prophecy Ananias and Saphira (saith Chrysostom) were stricken to death of S. Peter. 
Chrisost. Homil. 36.  Now to put an example of all this, the Apostle saith. If therefore the whole Congregation come together, and all speak in tongues, and some infidels or ignorant men do enter, will they not say, you are mad? For so, many of the infidels upon whitsunday hearing the Apostles to speak in tongues mocked them therewith, and said, they were drunk. But many other also wondered thereat. 
Ibidem.  Therefore (as Chrisostom here saith) Non signum, sed ruditas accusatur increduli: Not the sign of speaking with tongues, but the rudeness of the unbeliever is here blamed of the Apostle. Thus the speaking of tongues is always debaced, but yet not utterly reproved. But if all do prophecy (that is, do interpret or reveal that which is spoken in tongues) and then any infidel or ignorant do enter, he is convinced of all men he is iudg●d of all men for the secrets of his heart are made open: and so falling on his face, he will adore God, and pronounce that ver●ly God is in you. All this is spoken, saith Chrisostom, ut interpretem adiungere cogat, to force the Corinthians, to add to the speaker in tongues, an Interpreter. Now therefore the Apostle concludeth, and saith. What is it then brethren? When you come together, every on of you hath a psalm, hath doctrine, hath revelation, hath the tongue, hath Interpretation. Let all things be done to edify. Thus far the whole text of S. Paul from the beginning of M. jewels allegation to the end thereof.  
The drift of S. Paul is this. You come together, one of you hath the gift of singing. For (as Chrisostom saith) psallere sic quondam doni divini fuit, sicut docere. In old time, singing was of the gift of God, even as teaching was. An other hath the gift of Revelation, an other of speaking with tongues, an other of prophecy or Interpretation. But to be short. Non est longo donorum dis●rimine opus. una res est quam volo, quam quaero: ut proximus edificetur. 
Chrisost. homil. 36. Ibidem.  There needeth not such a long distinction of gifts. It is but one thing that I desire, that I seek for. That your neighbour may be edified. Lo here is according to the doctores judgements, the whole issue, process and discourse, of the blessed Apostle in that Chapter, which also in that which followeth he prosecuteth yet more, giving a particular order how they shall speak with tongues, and how they shall interpret one after an other, not talk confusely without an interpreter. We see the whole drift of the Apostle is that the Corinthians in using the gift off tongues, should add also the Interpretation thereof unto it, that the Audience might be edified. Here it may be objected. If the Apostle require the Corinthians to have an interpretation and exposition of that which was spoken in strange tongues, at the time of Common Prayer: doth not the same reason bind us also to have our Common prayer either in no strange tongue at all, or else to have with all an Interpretation thereof, to the intent that the people now also may be edified? To this I answer divers ways. And Mark well gentle Reader our answer herein. First I say the Apostle speaketh not of the strange tongues used at service time, at the Oblation time, at the time of celebrating and Ministering the holy mysteries, but at the time of preaching. Prove this you say. Thus I prove it. First, the Apostle persuadeth in all this Chapter, the Corinthians not to affect so much the gift of tongues, as the gift of Interpretation. And the reason he addeth, saying. He that speaketh in the tongue, speaks not to men, but to God. For no Man heareth (that is, understandeth) him. But in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. Now he that prophesieth (that is, which interpreteth and expoundeth) he speaketh to men, he speaketh to edify, to exhort and to comfort. Now who doubteth but this edifying, which consisteth in Exhortations, and in Counforte giving, appertaineth properly to homilies, sermons, and preaching? In this case therefore it is necessary that the people understand that which is said. Now in the Oblation, and holy ministration, it is a time of prayer, not of exhortation and preaching. This to be the end, intent, ad drift of the Apostle it appeareth by this entry and beginning which he maketh. To this purpose hath he alleged all that before hath been said, as the comparisons of the musical instrument, of the Trumpet, and so forth. At the end also of his disputation it appeareth yet more evident. For thus he saith. Si ergo convenit universa ecclesia, & omnes fore loquantur, intrent autem idiotae & infideles, nun dicent quòd insanitis? If there the whole Congregation do mere together, and all speak with tongues, and then both ignorant men and infidels do enter, will they not say, that you are mad? Lo, that which the Corinthians did in these assembles, where they spoke in tongues and so forth, was so open, that infidels and all might enter and both have and see what was done. But such might only come to Sermons, not be present at the holy ministration. Therefore that which the Corinthians did in those assemblies was no part of the holy ministration or oblation, wherein the mystical prayers were uttered. The mayor or first proposition of this argument is the express saying of the Apostle. The minor or second proposition is evident and manifest to all that are learned and expert in the practice of the primitive Church. For as the Catechumins, so much more all infidels departed out of the Church as soon as the sermon was done. To the sermons the very infidels came sometime, and to nothing else. To certain prayers also the Catechumins were admitted, but not to all. Whereof we read of Missa Catechumenorum, 
August. far. de ●emp.  the Mass or service of the Catechumins. Post sermonem (saith S. Augustin) fiet Missa Catechumenis. The Sermon being ended the Catechumins are dismissed. By these therefore it is evident that this using off strange tongues was not at the time of Prayer and oblation, but at the time of sermons and exhortations. And this be the first answer.  
secondarily I make this answer. The Apostle in deed among other examples, as of the Musical instrument, of the Trumpet, of private comunication, of private prayer, bringeth also for example, the Common prayer used in a strange tongue, when he sayeth: If thou bless in spirit, how shall he that supplieth the room of ignorant, answer, Amen. That is, as hath been before declared, if thou give the Benediction in a strange tongue, by that miraculous gift of tongues, how shall etc. But here (and mark well gentle Reader) it is to be understanded, there are two sorts of strange tongues. One is prorsus peregrina, utterly strange and foreign as well to the learned as to the unlearned, as well to him that supplieth the room of the ignorant, as to the ignorant himself. So Chrisostom a greek Father, reakoneth up for such strange tongues, the Persian and the Roman, 
Homil. 35 in 1. Cor. 14.  not the learned greek tongue. which yet to the common people of grece was (no doubt) strange and unknown. This kind of strange tongues was used of them which had that miraculous gift, not only at the time of sermons, but also at the time of prayer. Of such S. Ambrose speaketh, qui aliquando Syra lingua, plerunque Hebraea in tractatibus aut oblationibus utebantur ad commendationem, 
Amb. in. 1 Cor. 14.  which used sometime the Syrian tongue, oftentimes the Hebrew tongue both in their Sermons and in their Oblations, as well at prayer time as at preaching for a vain glory. This kind of strange tongues used in Common prayer, where the gift of prophecy or interpretation is not added with all, the Apostle bringeth in for an example, to show how absurd it is to use the same in preaching. For as in the prayer the learned which supplieth the room of the ignorant, can not answer, Amen, to that which he knoweth not: so in preaching much less can the people be edified when such strange tongues are used without an Interpreter. another kind of strange tongue is that, which to the ignorant only, is strange. For to him every tongue is strange beside his natural and mother tongue. 
Sedulius. in. 1. Co. 14.  For he is in S. Paul called idiota, an ignorant, which understandeth no more than his own tongue, such as are men of the Country and handy cratftsmen, but he that supplieth the room of the ignorant, he hath knowledge of more than his own natural tongue. For there is and always hath been in the Church of Christ a Common learned tongue, which tongue, though to the ignorant it is strange, yet to the Church it is not strange. That tongue in the which, the Scriptures, decrees, the laws, the Counsels, the Father's writings, and the public prayers of the Church are contained, is the Common tongue of the Church, and is no strange tongue to the Church. Such is the greek tongue to the greek Church, and the latin tongue to the latin Church. 
Bessarion in epist. ad Graecos.  Tertia enim dari non potest. For a third Church beside these two can not be given, saith Bessarian a learned writer and a greek borne. Of the Common Greek tongue to all the Greek Church, S. Hierom witnesseth, 
In pr●emio ●. ad Gal.  saying that the Galathians, excepto sermone Graeco, quo omnis Oriens loquitur propriam linguam eandem quam Treuires habuere, beside the Greek tongue the which all the East spoke, had also their proper Mother tongue, the very same, that the people of Trevires (a part of old Gallia) had. This was called the proper tongue of the Galathians, because the Greek, which the Galathians as the rest of the East Church used, was not their proper and natural tongue but a Common tongue to all the East Church. Common to all, not particularly, but generally, not to every one of every part of Grece, but to some of all parts thereof. Common gentium sapientibus, to the wise men of the gentiles, 
Tractat. in joan. 117.  for whose sake as S. Augustine saith, the Greek tongue was so esteemed, and made Common. Last of all the Greek was a common tongue to the East Church, as the Latin tongue was to the West Church. Of the which Venerable Bede a learned light of our Country, writeth very notably, speaking of our own Country of England. 
Lib. 1. Histor. gentis Angl. ca 1.  Hec in presenti quinque gentium linguis unam eandemque veritatis scientiam scrutatur & confitetur, Anglorum videlicet, Britonun, Scotorum, Pictorum & Latinorum, quae meditatione scripturarum omnibus est facta Communis. This Island at this present with five sundry languages, doth study and set forth the knoweleadg of one perfect Truth, that is, with the language of the English, of the Britons, off the Scots, off the pights or redshanks, and of the Latins, which Latin tongue by the study of holy Scripture is made Common to all the rest. Lo the Latin tongue was the Common tongue, and no strange tongue to those people of divers languages: and how? by the study of holy Scriptures. For in that tongue they had their Scriptures, their Doctors, their Councils, and their public Service. Yea this learned tongue was then so Common to us Englishmen, that under Theodore that learned archbishop of Caunterbury about nine hundred years ago, 
Beda. li. 4.  they could speak the Latin tongue (as Venerable Bede reporteth) yea and the Greek also as readily as their own mother tongue. 
Cap 2. Histor. genis Anglor.  And as this was in our own Country, so out of all doubt it was through all the west Church. I mean the Latin tongue was common and familiar to them all. This common tongue he that understood not was called Idiota, 
In 1. Cor. 14.  the ignorant, saith Sedulius. Upon this distinction of strange tongues it is evident that though the Apostle by the way off an example, blameth the blessing at Common prayer made in a strange tongue, that yet he meaneth not by that strange tongue, that which is the Common learned tongue of the Church, and which he that supplieth the room of the ignorant is acquainted with all, though it be a tongue of the ignorant himself not understanded, but that he meaneth thereby such a strange tongue, as was used by the miraculous gift of speaking with tongues, and which was so strange, that neither the ignorant, nor he that supplied the room of the ignorant understood, yea and the which the Minister or priest himself understood not. Therefore Chrysostom saith. If thou give thanks in a strange tongue, 
Hom. 35 in 1. Cor. 14  which neither thou dost understand thyself, nor dost interpret unto other (such was not the Common learned tongue, which every Minister in the Apostles time understood right well) subijcere Amen plebis non potest. He that is of the people can not awnswere Amen, and when thou sayest, secula seculorum, which is the end of the prayer, he that heareth thee, will not say, Amen. For why? Thou talkest in a tongue utterly strange, which thyself understandest not. This was not the Common learned tongue, which both then and now every priest understandeth, but it was a strange tongue, used by the miraculous gift of the holy Ghost. To answer therefore shortly to the objection made, I say. The Chief disputation of the Apostle in that Chapter is not of strange tongues used at the Oblation and prayer, but at the Sermons and preaching. Therefore his disputation in that place toucheth nothing the Service of Christ's Church now used in the Common learned tongue. secondarily the Apostle though he speaketh by the way of an example of the Common prayer used in a strange tongue, yet he meaneth that strange tongue which was used by the way of miraculous gift, he meaneth not the Common learned tongue, which to him that supplieth the room of the ignorant (whose duty it is to answer Amen.) is not strange, though to the ignorant himself it be perhaps strange. that is, not utterly unknown, but not distinctly understanded. The third awnswere may be, that the same blessing in Spirit in a strange tongue (which the Apostle by the way of example bringeth in) though it was done in the Common prayer, yet that blessing was no part of the Common prayer, set in books, and ordinarily used (as we have it now, and as in Chrysostom's time they had it) but it was a blessing or thanks giving that some one of the Congregation used upon the sudden being moved and stirred thereunto by the Spirit, as we have before out of Chrysostom proved at large. By all this it may appear that this fourteenth Chapter of the first to the Corinthians, as of M. jewel and all his fellows not only unfitly, but very grossly and ignorantly applied to prove their Vulgar Service.  
What will they say, if it may now be proved out of Saint Paul, that in the public prayers of the Church, as no strange tongue is to be used, which he that prayeth or he that in stead of the ignorant doth answer, can not understand, so also no mere Vulgar tongue must be used? Let us consider the rest of Saint Paul's comparisons and examples in this place of the which B●nedicere Spiritu, to bless or pray openly in Spirit, that is, in a strange miraculous tongue is one. The musical instrument must have a certain and proper time. But for whose sake? Forsooth only for his which hath skill in that art, to whom every light discord is a great annoying. The Trumpet giveth out a certain, proper, and distinct sound. But to whom? To the souldyar which is acquainted therewith, and who hath learned to guide himself thereafter. To other men the sound of it signifieth nothing. Again if I speak or talk privately with one, I must speak to an English man in English, to a French man in French and so forth. If my talk be to a French man, though all that stand about be English, and understand only English, yet I will speak French only, because my talk is to none but to him. Fourthly, if I pray privately to myself, and will pray (mente) in the mind my words must be such that I myself may understand. And then if I understand Greek, French or Latin: I may pray in Greek, French, or Latin: though an other perhaps should not understand that prayer. For why? I pray in this case by myself alone. last of all, to come to the last comparison which the Apostle useth of public prayer, if I bless or give thanks in the public Service, I must be understanded. But of whom? Of all the people? That is not necessary. But of him or them which ought to make answer, and to whom I speak in that public office. Who is that by the word of the Apostle? Not idiota, but, qui supplet locum idiotae. Not the ignorant, such as promiscu● pl●bs common people (saith Sedulius) is, but it is he that supplieth the room of the ignorant, which is learned, which hath skill of the Common learned tongue. He must make answer, to him I speak in the public prayer. He therefore must understand me. Now that he may answer me and that he may understand me, I need no more to use the Vulgar tongue, than the Musician, the Trumpeter, the talker, or the private prayer, need to apply his music, to blow his trumpet, to utter his talk, and to pray after such a sort as all other may understand and take profit by. But only it sufficeth, that he which supplieth the room of the ignorant, do understand me, it sufficeth that I speak in the Common learned tongue, which he is acquainted withal, even as the Musician playeth to please the skilful, the Trumpeter bloweth to give warning to the soldier, and so forth. Marry to preach, as I then direct my talk to the whole people, so it is nccessarye that I speak in such a language, as all the people may understand me. And so the Church of Christ doth and always hath done, as well in the one as in the other. Thus the disputation of saint Paul in this place, not only helpeth nothing your Vulgar Service M. jewel, but, I may say to you, it giveth a great crack thereunto: Let now every indifferent Reader judge, whether the Latin Service be used in the Latin Church with the breach of S. Paul's Doctrine, as you most wickedly and fondle do babble at Paul's Cross, and as you M. jewel in this your facing Reply do impudently brag and crack.  
jewel. 
The. 2●. Vntr●●●. For not upon D. hardings warrant, but upon the Doctors of Christ's churches warrant you must so believe.  And yet must we upon M. hardings warrant needs believe that all this maketh nothing for the English Service in the Church of England.  
Not upon D. hardings warrant, but upon the warrant off the holy Fathers, saint Chrysostom, Theodoretus, S. Ambrose, Primasius, Sedulius and Oecumenius above alleged, you must so believe, if you will be a Child of those Fathers, M. jewel.  
Harding. And for as much as all the people can not hear the priests prayers at the Altar, (which hath from the Apostles time hitherto ever been a place to celebrat the oblation at) turning himself for the most part to the East, according to the Apostolic tradition, in what tongue so ever they be uttered for distance of the place they remain in, it is no inconvenience (such admitted in to the Choir as have better-understanding of that is said or song) that the rest remain in seemly wise in the neither part of the Church etc.  
jewel. 
The .236. Untruth. Slanderous.  The 82. Untruth. The Altars or Common Tables stood in the mids of the Church, as shall appear.  
No man saith the contrary M. jewel. We know in Ancient Churches, at Ments in Germany, and in divers Cities in italy, especially in Rome itself, divers Altars stolde at this day toward the middle of the Church, so that the priest at Mass hath his face to the people, as we have seen in those places. Neither doth D. Harding say that the Altars stood otherwise in the Apostles time. Only he saith. Altars have been ever sense the Apostles time. Now M. jewel to show his good will to D. Harding, and to utter some Copy of his knowledge, maketh D. Harding to say that he doth not say, to make an untruth where none is, and to pro●e that no man denieth. Therefore in repeating the words of D. Harding he altereth them in to sundry Frames and fashions, to pick matter of quarreling, and to multiply untruths, and saith.  
jewel. There have been Altars (saith M. Harding) even from the Apostles time.  
Stapleton. It is true he saith so, and saith it truly, as shall appear.  
jewel. 
The .237. Untruth. In falsifying the text of D. harding jewel. The 23●. Untruth. as before.  And that as it is used now far of from the Body of the Church.  
That is not true. D. Harding saith it not. His words may be seen before alleged.  
jewel. 
The .239. Untruth.  Neither could the people beneath hear the priest standing above at the Altar  
jewel. 
The .240. Untruth.  This is an other Untruth. D. Harding speaketh of no such manner in the Apostles time.  
Or understand what he meant.  
This is the third Untruth touching the Astostles time.  
But only were instructed by holy reverend Ceremonies.  
This is the fourth Untruth. Neither D. Harding saith so, nor any mane●●. For beside Ceremonies, the people by preaching is taught.  
jewel. 
The .241. Untruth in like manner.  And gave consent unto all that was said by the priest, and yet knew not what be said.  
This maketh the fift Untruth. D. Harding saith no such matter. Now after that M. jewel hath charged D. Harding with all these propositions, as if he had affirmed them each one, printing them all in a distinct letter, as the words of D. Harding, than he crieth out and saith.  
jewel. 
The 24●. Untruth joined with a Slander.  This man could never utter so many Untruths together without some special privilege.  
O M. jewel. You could never have avouched so many Untruths of your own, nor so untruly have charged D. Harding with such a Number, but that your book was printed with Special Privilege. And now we understand M. jewel why your book is come forth, more than other books are, with Special Privilege. Forsooth (as it may seem) because you might utter your Untruths with some special privilege. For without some special privilege, you say, 
The cause why M. jewels Reply is printed. With Special Privilege.  D. Harding could never have uttered so many Untruths. You did well therefore M. jewel to get you a Special Privilege, For the better avouching of your so special and so many Untruths. Now touching Altars which D. Harding saith have been sense the Apostles time, and you deny, what have you to the contrary? You say.  
jewel. There were no Churches in the Apostles time. And shall we think that Altars were built before the Churches.  
Stapleton. This is a good Mason's reason in deed. But it is no reason of a divine, and much less of a bishop, as ●ou write yourself. For how say you M. bishop? Your brethren of Frau●ce, how minister they the Communion without Churches. With you (as you say after) an altar and a holy table is all one. How say you then? Think you they minister without tables because they have no Churches? Or if they have holy tables without Churches because they have a Communion, think you the Apostles had no Altars, because they had no Churches, having yet a Sacrifice. You know M. jewel. An altar in greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. as much English, as The place of a Sacrifice. Then to prove the Apostles had no altars, if you will reason like a divine, this is a good reason. They had no Sacrifice, ergo they had no altars. But you knew it was a harder matter to prove that they had Churches, then that they had a Sacrifice: And therefore you had rather to reason like a Mason, then like a divine. Howbeit that there were Churches built even in the Apostles time, certain old Churches yet standing in France do bear witness. As at Orleans a Church called yet S. Pierre le vif. because it was builded S. Peter yet living. And an other at Paris called S. Estienne de gr●●s, because it was builded by S. Denys and his companions which were greeks, in the honour of S. Steven. Verily of altars in the Apostles time, Martialis, Dyonisius Areopagita, and Ignatius living all with the Apostles do testify. 
In epist. ad Burdegal.  Martialis saith. Sacrificium deo creatori Offertur in ara, non homini neque Angelo. A Sacrifice is offered unto God the Creator upon an Altar, 
●pist. 6.  not to man nor to Angel. Ignatius saith. unum est altare toti Ecclesiae. The whole Church hath one Altar. Dyonisius Areopagita writeth of the bishop going Down from the Altar to the neither part of the Church, with incense, ac rursum ad altare ipsum sacrificij consummandi causa reremeantem, 
Hierarch. par. 3· ca 3·  and then returning up again to the Altar to make an end of the Sacrifice. That Origen and Arnobius (whom M. jewel allegeth) affirmeth the Christians to have neque arras neque templae, neither altars, nor churches, they mean the Christians had none such in honour of stocks and stones, not that they had none at al. Else by the same reason M. jewel may pluck down churches as he hath done altars, because those doctors say, the Christians had no churches. S. Augustin herein speaketh very notably saying. 
Augus. Epis. 49.  They which understand Christian letters of both testaments, find no fault in the wicked rites of Pagans, they build Churchy, ordain priesthoods, and offer sacrifices, but for that they do these things in the honour of idols and devils.  
Last of all we confess and know, the Altar is commonly called the holy table among the Doctors, because of the heavenvly banquet ministered therein. But an altar or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the very sacrifice. Therefore the plucking down of altars is not heretical because the stone is broken, but because the external Sacrifice is denied, 
Augu lib. 17 ca 20. & lib. 10. c. 6. et 20 De Civit. Dei. Harding.  the true proper and due worship of Almighty God, as S. Augustin vehemently and at large proveth in his books de Civitate dei.  
For the priest understandeth it for the better part, if he be learned, and (83) the people be not utterly ignorant. Because of often preaching, long custom, solemn feasts and sundry Ceremonies.  
jewel. 
The .243. Vntr●uhe Slanderous. Stapleton.  The 83. Untruth. For the simple people understandeth not one word or syllable of the latin tongue.  
How hangeth this reason of yours M. jewel? The people understandeth no one Syllable of the latin tongue, Ergo neither by often preaching, nor by long custom, nor by solemn feasts, nor by Ceremonies they understand not the Service. The fondness hererof will easily appear by the like. The people understandeth not one word or syllable of the latin tongue, Ergo by no preaching nor instruction they can understand the doctrine of S. Augustin, S. Hierom and other Fathers written only in the latin or greek tongue. Or thus, Ergo the people can not understand a great part of M. jewels Reply, which hath so much latin in it. Although the english be annexed strait, and the whole expounded unto them. No doubt but the people both may and doth understand gre●t part of the Service, where the Curate doth his duty. But if the Curates do not their duty, or rather because in deed off long they have not herein done their duties, therefore God whippeth us justly with these your heresies and schisms M. jewel. Howbeit we trust of his mercy, he will at length cast the rod in the fire, and restore us to unite.  
Harding. And when we shall appear before Christ in that dreadful day of judgement (84) we shall not be required to give an account of our understanding, but faith presupposed, of our charity.  
jewel. 
The .244 Untruth Slanderous. Stapleton.  The 84. Untruth. For it is written. He that knoweth not, shall not be known. 1. Cor. .14.  
It appeareth hereby M. jewel, that either you have small divinity or little charity, either you are a petite doctor, or else a very malicious wrangler, and a pelting hicke scorner. For as touching this matter whereof you note here D. Harding as speaking untruly, you may take your pen Master jewel, and score it up also for untruth upon holy Scripture which saith that in the day off judgement God shall reward every man according to his works, not according to his knowledge. And again. opera illorum sequuntur illos. their works do follow them. And in the gospel where our Saviour describeth unto us the form of his judgement, he ●aieth to our charge the lack of good works, as not visiting the sick, not clothing the naked, not feeding the hungry, and such like. S. Paul also after he had declared, that in the Church were Apostles, prophets, teachers, the gifts of miracles, of healing the sick, of speaking with tongues, of interpretation of tongues, yet he saith adhuc excellentiorem viam vobis demonstro. I tell you yet of a more excellent way. And that is charity M. jewel, 
Matt. 2●.  which S. Paul in the next chapter following commendeth above all knowledge, all gifts, all speaking with tongues, yea above faith itself, 
1. Cor. 12,  concluding at the end of the chapter these words. Now therefore remain these three. Faith, ●ope, charity. But the greater of these is charity. 
Cap. 13.  And is it now an Untruth M. jewel to say that we shall give an account of our charity (faith presupposed) and not of understanding? You know S. Paul again saith knowledge puffeth up, but 〈◊〉 edifi●th. And the inferiors are commaunden to obey their overseers, which watch and ward for their souls. But you allege us a text of S. Paul, where he saith. 
1 Cor. 14.  He that knoweth not, shall not be known. What knowledge is that M. jewel? Let S. Paul himself teach you. He saith. I have judged myself to know nothing among you, but jesus Christ and him crucified. To know Christ is the sufficient knowledge (for salvation) for every Christian man, not called to the charge of others. And so according to the saying of S. Paul, he that knoweth not Christ, he that hath no faith, shall not be known of God. But faith presupposed, not knowledge but charity shall be required of the people.  
Harding. For as much as the Service consisteth in manner altogether of the Scriptures.  
jewel. 
The .245. Untruth. Slanderous two w●ie●.  The 85. Untruth. In the Romish Service there are infinite vanities besides the Scriptures.  
This is but a slanderous lie M. jewel. I have perused your whole text in this place, looking to have found some one of these infinite vanities, noted by you. But I find not one word thereof. Therefore M. jewel as it was soon said, so, until you prou●i●, it will be thought to be a lie, as it is in deed, and a very slanderous lie against the Church of God. Malice made you speak it. But Truth choked you; not able to prove it.  
Harding. Though we understand not the (86) words of the Scripture, which we utter with our mouth, yet the heavenly powers and Angels (saith Origen) understand them, and thereby be invited, and that with delight to help us.  
jewel. 
The .246. Untruth. Slanderous.  The .86. Untruth. For Origen speaketh of the ignorance of the Allegory, not of the words.  
Stapleton. That Origen speaketh of the words and not of the Allegory, it appeareth evidently by the similitude which he maketh in that place. His similitude is thus. As among the infidels (saith Origen) the Contrary powers (he meaneth devils) by such and such names in verses or enchantments, do serve and attends, and apply that, unto which they are called by such and such names, performing at though it were their bounden duty therein even so and much more the heavenly powers and Angels of God, which ac●●mpanie us (as our lord in the gospel of the little ones of the Church saith, that their Angels do always assist in the sight of God beholding his face) do take it gratefully and gladly if we always utter out off our mouth the words of holy Scripture, and the sound of these names, like as certain verses and enchantments. For though we understand not that which we utter with our mouth, yet those heavenly powers which assist us do understand them, and are delighted, as invited with a certain verse to help us and secure us. Thus far Origen. By this similitude it is evident he meant of words and not of the allegory first because the similitude consisteth in enchantments. These enchantments are done by bate words, not by any allegory, and that when those words are not understanded. Then by Origens' mind the Angels are also delighted to hear us pronounce the words of Scripture though we understand them not. secondarily Origen speaketh of the ignorance of that which we utter with our mouth. But that are the words only, not any allegory. Therefore he speaketh of the ignorance of the words not of the allegory  
jewel. 
The 247 Untruth For Origen spoke off the Scriptures read in homilies and lessons, a part of the Service.  Now whereas Master jewel saith, Origen his purpose was here to speak of reading the Scriptur●●, not of the church Service, and noteth therefore both in the text and in the Margin very solemnly, that D. Harding wresteth Origen, having cast such a blot upon him, he saith it only and proveth it nothing. But that Origen spoke of the Scriptures read in the Service, it appeareth probably first for that the Scriptures were at that time in Alexandria first read in the Service as lessons, and after expounded by the way of homilies: and also that Origen himself was at that time the Common and ordinary maker of such homilies: and last of all that these very words of Origen are a part of such an Homily ordinarily made after the Service. Let now the truth speak, whether D. Harding hath wrested Origen, or M. jewel slandered D. Harding.  
Harding. If all prayers made in an unknown tongue be a mocking of God (as Beza saith) then were the prayers uttered by miracle in the primitive Church with tongues, which the utterers themselves understood not (after the mind of Chrisostome) a mocking of God. For I see nothing, whereby they are excluded from his (87) general saying and universal proposition.  
jewel. 
The 248. Untruth Slanderous and peevish.  The 87. Untruth. This general saying of Chrysostom is Untruly reported.  
Here M. jewel for lack of better game, hunteth after letters and rippeth up syllables. Upon the term (His) he would found an Untruth, himself construing untruly the saying of D. Harding. For D. Harding by these words (his general saying) meant not any general saying of Chrysostom, but the general saying of Beza, which went but few lines before, and is this. What Prayers so ever be made off any man in a tongue that he understandeth not, they be to be taken for a mockery of God. From this general saying off Beza M. jewel, they are not excluded (saith D. Harding) which in the primitive Church uttered the prayers with tongues which the utterers themselves (after the mind of Chrysostom) understood not. For even these also by the general saying of Beza were mockers of God. This is no bishoplike demeanour M. jewel, but a childish behaviour: no sad writing, but a rascal wrangling: no show of honesty but a mere scurrilite, to fight upon terms, and quarrel about syllables, either contrary to your own knowledge and iudgegement, or else without all judgement, with much oversight, lightness and rashness.  
Harding. As the Vulgar Service pulleth their minds from private devotion, to hear and not to pray, to little benefit of knowledge for the obscurity of it: so the Latin giving them no such motion, they occupy themselves, whiles the priest prayeth for all, and in the person of all, in their private prayers, all for all and every one for himself.  
jewel. 
The 249 Untruth Slanderous.  The 88 Untruth. For the vulgar Service increaseth devotion, as by sundry Authorities it shall appear.  
Stapleton. Whether vulgar Service increase devotion or pluck from devotion, it is not the authority of learned men, but the experience of the people that trieth it. Verily in our country the people itself confesseth, they are much distracted from their devotion, by attending to the Minister reading the Service and not understanding it. Yea do not your own doings M. jewel confess it? You have taken order in certain places of the realm (as we certainly understand) that between your matins and the Communion there be a stay made of half an hour or so, to th'intent the people in that mean while may attend to their private prayer and private devotion. Why is this order taken, but because at Service time the people is distracted from private prayer, and private devotion? And truly herein, whether the private devotion of the people be not much more now distracted by hearkening to there english Service which yet they understand not altogether, than it was at the latin Service, when they understood nothing, I dare to make the people itt self judge thereof. The reason M. jewel, why you esteem the english Service to increase devotion, more than the latin, is because you imagine for certain that the people understandeth it. As I will easily grant they do sometimes understand some part thereof: so that they do always understand the whole, though you would grant, yet no wise man will grant it, and the people itself, I dear well say, will deny it. Verily I have heard of a Gentleman which reading the Book of the Statutes in english, confessed he oftentimes understood not what the Statutes meaned. And doubtless Holy Scripture though it were not much harder than the english Statutes are, so many learned commentaries should not have been made thereupon: so many heresies had not been grounded upon the doubtful interpretation thereof. Briefly itt had not been so many hundred years read only in the learned tongues greek and latin. The Scripture therefore being not always understanded though in the mother tongue, no marvel if the people be some times distracted. For when the Minister readeth on still, and the people hearkening thereunto knoweth not what it meaneth, what shall they do? Shall they hearken? It is to no profit. Shall they let the Service go and fall to private prayer? Your order is against it, whereby if any hearken not to the Service, he shall be taken for a papist. Thus by your vulgar Service the people oftentimes either is forced to be idle, or if he will be well occupied, incurrech displeasure. What is distraction from private devotion, if this be not? Thoching your authorities, the saying of Chrisostom (that praying together in the Church with our brethren, 
De incomprehensibili dei natura Hom. 3.  availeth more than when we pray alone etc.) maketh directly against your first protestanticall doctrine off praying under headges and in chambers when you should come to Church, but for common prayer in a vulgar tongue itt maketh not so much, as for the private prayer of each one praying in the Church each by him selue, and all with the priest. Lyra saying that the people answereth Amen to the priest with more devotion when he understandeth the prayer, saith truly touching the duty of answering. 
1. Cor. 14.  But that (according to the Doctrine of S. Paul) standeth not in the whole people, but in him qui supplet locum idiotae that supplieth the room of the ignorant, which words M. jewel in alleging the whole place of S. Paul pag. 194. guilefully and fraudulently left out, to make the reader believe that the whole people was bound to answer Amen. justinian speaketh of the loud speaking of the priest, not of the Service to be understanded as we have before at large declared. 
In the 70. Untruth  The saying of S. Augustin (how can he sing duly which knoweth not what he singeth? 
In prologo super psal. ) pertain evidently add Psalmistas to such as were appointed by order of the priest to sing (as we have before declared out of the 4. Council of Carthage) not to all the people, whose duty it was to pray in the Church, not to sing psalms. The particular application of the psalms which are song to our own selves (whereof S. basil speaketh) may as well be done of devout people in the latin Service as in the english. 
Ad clericos Neocaesarienses.  Certain it is the people of Cappadocia (of whom S. Basil there speaketh) had not the greek for their vulgar tongue, as hath been before proved in the 69 Untruth, and yet were these psalms, (as all the other Service under S. basil) song and said in the greek tongue, as appeareth by the prayers yet extant in greek in the Mass or liturgy of S. basil. Then as the people of Cappadocia applied the greek service to themselves, so may the people of England apply the latin Service to themselves, if they will assist devoutly, give their assent to the priest gods Minister, and lift up their hearts to God with him. So hath the Church these many hundred years used. It is not now to learn of you M. jewel. She hath, and at all times hath had (mark this well M. jewel) the holy Ghost to prompt her, to guide her, and to assist her, and shall so have in aeternum for ever, 
joan. 14.  if Christ be true of his promise. Thus are your authorities answered. Thus is the truth avouched and proved M. jewel: and you found a slanderer not so much of D. Harding, as of the Truth, which shall at length confound all that be against her.  
Harding. The nations that have ever had their Service in the vulgar tongue, the people thereof have continued in Schisms, errors, and certain judaical observances, so as they have not been reakoned in the number of the Catholic Church. As the Christians of Moscovia, of Armenia, of prester joan his land in Aethiopia.  
jewel. 
The 250 Untruth Slanderous, and peuis●.  The 86. Untruth. For the Service in the Vulgar tongue never was cause of Schism or heresy.  
D. Harding saith not so much. Their Vulgar Service was not the cause of their Schism. But there schism and other heresies were the cause of their Vulgar Service. For having once divided themselves from the Church in Doctrine, they chose also that order of Service, which was contrary to the Church. I perceive M. jewel. It is all one with you, whether a man bid you drink ere you go, or go ere you drink.  
Harding. Wherefore to conclude, seeing in six hundred years after Christ the Service of the Church was not in any other, then in the greek and latin tongue, for that any man is able to show by good proof, etc.  
jewel. 
The 251. Untruth Slanderous. The 252. Vntr●the For the Contrary hath not been proved at all.  The .90. Untruth. The Contrary is sufficiently proved in the 15. division of this Article.  
All M. jewels proofs are sufficiently and particulary at large disproved in the same division. See the answer to the 78. Untruth. So the conclusion of D. Harding is sure, and M. jewel according to promise must subscribe.  
The heap of Untruths, which M. jewel saith in his margin are here laid together in the Conclusion, have been all before particulary examined and justified.  
Harding. As the bold assertion of M. jewel is plainly disproved, so the old order of the Latin Service in the latin Church whereof England is a province, is not ráshely to be condemned: especially whereas (91.) being first committed to the Churches by the Apostles of our country, and the first preachers off the Faith here, it hath been authorized by the continuance off almost a thousand years without control: etc.  
jewel. 
The 253. Untruth Slanderous. Captain and Notorious. pag. 190.  The 91. Untruth. For the first preachers off the Faith in this I●elande we●e greeks and Hebrews, and not latins.  
This hath been told us twice or thrice before, and now to awnswere it fully, I think it good, both for Country sake, that the State of her touching the first coming of Religion unto her may be known, and that Truth also may not be suppressed, by any alleging of an other truth. And first, what M. jewels discourse is about this matter we shall consider. After that, we will shortly declare who were in deed the Englishemens' first Apostles, with defence of their honour and worthiness. Touching the first.  
jewel. 
190.  Ghildas saith, that joseph of Arimathea, that took done Christ from his Cross, being sent hither by Philipp the Apostle out of France, began first to preach the Gospel in this Realm, in the time of Tiberius' the Emperor.  
Stapleton But what success had it? How deep root took it? How was it spread abroad? How was it received? For, the coming of joseph hither, proveth not, that the whole country was converted, but that the Gospel was there preached. And an argument may hereof be gathered, not that they openly professed the Christian faith, but that they had the way showed unto them, by which they might come to the knowledge and love of their Salvation. So that you can not infer, The whole State of Britain was turned from their Idolatry to the Christ by coming of joseph of Arimathea, but this you might say, that even in the uttermost parts of the world the sound of the Gospel was heard immediately after Christ's Ascension, and that all the world might see his mercy and Salvation, and that all excuse was taken away from Idalotours, if they would not repent and believe in the only and true and Almighty God.  
jewel. Nicephorus saith, that Simon zealots about the same time, came in to this Ileland and did the like.  
Stapleton He came in deed as Nicephorus sayeth, but he came not like a Lieger, but like and Ambassador: not to tarry and covert the whole, but to do a message for the whole in the hearing of a few. 
Niceph. lib. 2. cap. 40.  For Simon zealots (saith he) in preaching the Gospel went thourough Egypt, Cirene and Aphrica, and afterward, through Mauritania and all Lybia, and brought the same doctrine even to the west ocean, and to the Isles of Britanny. So that it appeareth he went a pace like a Cursor that telleth good news, but he converted not (I trow) every country through which he went.  
jewel. 
The 253. Untruth For Theodoretus maketh no singular mention of S. Paul or the time of his coming.  Theodoretus saith, that S. Paul Immediately after his first delivery in Rome, under th'emperor Nero, preached the Gospel in this Ileland, and in other Countries of the west.  
It is wonder that he should not hear, that joseph of Arimathea and Simon zealots had converted it already: if, as you imagine, Brittany received the Faith when they preached there. But doth Theodoretus say, that S. Paul, by name, preached the Gospel there?  
I beseech thee (gentle Reader) to consider in this place, how particularly and distinctly M. jewel setteth forth unto thee, the coming of S. Paul in to Britanny. He nameth him singularly (S. Paul) he noteth the time (after his first delivery in Rome) he setteth it forth by the name of the Emperor (under the Emperor Nero) and all this he doth, to make the believe, that Theodoretus speaketh so distinctly of S. Paul's coming in to our country and preaching there, in his own person, that it were impossible to doubt thereof. Now, if Theodoretus say so much, then is M. jewel discharged: if he do not, what a bold and shameless fellow is he that dareth so to make witnesses speak at his pleasure, and so to abuse the credulity of the unlearned. Theodoretus words are these. Nostri illi piscatores, 
Lib. 9 de curate. Grecarū●ffect.  ac Publicani, sutorque ille noster, cunctis nationibus, leg● Euangelicam detulerunt etc. Those our fishers, and Publicans, and that our sower (of tents) have brought the law of the Gospel unto all nations. And they have persuaded, not only the Romans, and them that live under the Roman Empire, but the Scythians also, and Sauromatas, and further, the Indians, the Aethiopians, the Persians, the Seres, the Hyrcanians, the Britanus, the Cymmerians and Germans, and (at one word) all man kind, and all nations they have persuaded, to take the Laws of the Crucified, (Christ.) And they have not used herein harness or weapons, nor infinite numbers of peeked shouldiars, nor Perficat and Barbarous Violence, but persuasion of words, declaring by them, the Utility and Profitablin●sse off the law which they preached. Thus far Theodoretus.  
And where now is here, that special coming of S. Paul in to Britanny. And that after His first delivery in Rome? Where is it M. jewel? And being not here, why report you it so, as though it were here? What singular thing here is attributed to S. Paul, which may not be said of every of the Apostles? And think you, that every one off them, went through out and about the world, and that every one of them preached personally in the isle of Britanny?  
If you had said (as of Theodoretus authority) that all the Apostles came at the beginning to this Ileland, It would have seemed incredible. For, there were more Countries (beside Britanny) to be gone unto, and all the Apostles neither could nor would go to every place, nor it is likely they would all of them go to one little Ileland, so far from the most populous nations of the world. But now, craftily, you cull out S. Paul out from the rest, and to make it probable, that he should have time and leisure to do it, you say, that it was after his first delivery in Rome. That he came to Britanny. Yet not only S. Paul, but all the Apostles are mentioned by Theodoretus.  
But what to have done? To have gone personally over the world? No truly, but to have instructed the world and to have brought them unto him that was Crucified. And how think you, might not that be done without their presence. Who doubteth thereof, but he that hath no experience. For even at this day the Fishers and Publicans and sowers of Tents, whom Theodoretus speaketh of, which are S. Peter, S. Andrew, S. john, S. james, and S. Matthew, And S. Paul, these do instruct the world at this present. But how? By their successors by their Gospels and Epistles by their Prayers, and not by personal and visible presence of body.  
See then how openly M. jewel deceiveth thee (Christian Reader) by drawing that specially to S. Paul, which is spoken of all the Apostles generally. And by referring that to the Persons themselves, which is understanded of their writings only or their succession.  
jewel. Tertullian saith the Ileland off Brittany was subject unto Christ in his tyme. And Origine witnesseth the like of the same Ileland in his tyme. At which time Lucius the king of this realm was baptized, and received the Gospel and sent to Rome to Eleutherius the Bishop there for his advice touching the ordering of hi● Church and Realm.  
Stapleton Who was Elder, think you Origine or Lucius? It seemeth Lucius. For he was now at man's state when Eleutherius was Pope An. D. 181. And Origine was not then borne but somewhat after about the year of our Lord .190. Then further Eleutherius was Pope xu years, and of him Lucius received the Gospel, so that before Origine was xu year old the Ileland of Britain was converted. The testimonies therefore, which Tertullian and Origine geave, of the Gospel of Christ, unto which the Ileland of Britain should be subject, was not of the time before Lucius reign, but of the state which it had after his receiving of the faith from Rome.  
For, besides the manifest account of years, which will not suffer either Tertullian either Origene to have been able to write upon the Scriptures, or speak as in the place by you alleged, they do, before king Lucius received the faith: how unreasonable and absurd were it, that (as you say out of Tertullian and Origene) when the Ileland of Britain was subject unto Christ, then should Lucius send to Rome and receive the Gospel.  
For what needed any sending to Rome, if the Realm were already now subjecteth unto Christ?  
Bu● here also, your Craftiness appeareth, that whereas the truth is, that before Lucius reign the Gospel was not by public Authorye received in the isle of Britain, you to make the matter less, 
Craft in placing of witnesses.  set Tertullian and Origine before to say that it was subject unto Christ in their tyme. So that by alleging of Lucius after them, it should be thought, that his sen●ing to Rome, was not for any Gospel to be planted in his Realm, but only for some certain advise of Eleutherius bishop, touching the ordering of his Church and Realm. So that, as much as he can, M. jewel seeketh always, how to diminish or take away the praise, Thanks, Obedience, and Reverence, that are due to the Bishops of Rome, for their labours taken in converting of Britain's and Saxons both.  
jewel. Helen● being an English woman, wife unto Constantius the Emperor, and mother unto Constantinus, is notably praised for here Faith, and Religion, by S. Ambrose, by Eusebius, by Sozomenus and others.  
Stapleton. True it is, and so much is proved hereby that there were Christian folks in England, after that Fugatius and Damianus sent from Rome by Eleutherius, had established the Faith there, and before the Saxons had utterly destroyed it, by chase away the Britain's.  
But note here (gentle Reader) what difference there is betwixt Protestant and Protestant, Civil and Frantic, speaking by Authority or prating of his sense. I praise you in this place (M. jewel) that you commend that Godly Empress Helena ●o notably, and that you agree so well in that point, with Saint Ambrose, Eusebius, Sez●menus and others. It is well done of you, to honour her with your Testimony, whom saint Ambrose and others, do notably praise for her Faith and Religion.. And what beast then must he be that calleth that A Tale, 
Calf. arti. 3. pag. 86.  which Saint Ambrose and other, whom you allege, do not only take for a true Story, but also worthy to be readen and regarded? The Story I mean of her, going a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. and seeking of the holy Cross, and so devoutly ordering it when she had found it, & caet. Certain it is (saith he) Superstitius she was. Again, She was a Concubine to Constance. As for her Superstition, it is to evident. O worse than beastlynes. to Object unto any person A fault forgiven. Small Grace surely is in that mind, which without cause will speak to the dishonour of Excellent personages, and deprave the good gifts of God in any off his Servants, what should a man say to such fellows as wise as Calves or as wanton as Calves? A little soap of the good milk, which you (Master jewel) have given in this place, would profit him much. For, if he will be instructed off you, then can you tell him of saint Ambrose, Eusebius, Sozomenus, how they praise her notably for her faith and Religion. And if he will not, it shall be known, I trust, how obedient the inferior ministers are to their Superintendents. But you perchance yourself will play the shrewd cows part, and kick down with your heels, this fair deal of praises which you geave here to Helena if you shall be asked whether her pilgrimage to hierusalem, and seeking and honouring of the Croosse, were commendable. Well, how so ever you esteem of her in deed we deny not but she was an English woman and Christian, and that in her time the Faith was there, as afterward also itt was in S. Chrisostomes' time, whom for that purpose you allege. The Conclusion is: that as before Lucius time the Catholic faith was not openly received in England, so we wonder not if it remained there afterward, as you have proved by Tertullian, Origene, Helena, and S. Chrisostome.  
But that it was not altogether given to Idolatry at the coming in of S. Augustine what say you thereunto?  
jewel. Now let us consider, in what state this Realm stood, touching Religion, at the coming of augustine, at which time M. Harding surmiseth the whole faith was utterly decayed.  
Stapleton Yea marry let this be considered. And here prepare thyself (Gentle Reader) to see what A discourse M. jewel will make.  
jewel. First Beda saith there were among the Britain's, Seven Bishops, and One archbishop etc.  
Stapleton You say truth. This was in wales, but you promised, to show what state England was in, touching Religion at the coming of Augustine. To that point speak I pray you and show against D. harding that the Faith was not utterly decayed.  
jewel. As touching the English nation itt appeareth by Beda that the Queen herself was Christened, and had S. Martin's Church appointed unto her, freely to pray in, with her company.  
Stapleton But where was she Christened? in England or France? In France truly. For she was the Frensch and Christian kings daughter, and being married to a paynim, yet she obtained to use (for her own person and her company) such religion as was in their own country of France. By which it appeareth, that (as D. Harding saith) the Faith was utterly decayed in England, concerning the natural Inhabitors of the Country, and the state thereof. And that you have brought nothing to the contrary, by telling us of the Queen's Faith and Godliness which was no English woman. Yet you reason and say.  
jewel. 
A guess.  Whereof it may be thought the king was no great enemy unto the Faith.  
Stapleton. In deed he was no such enemy to it, but he did suffer his Queen to do as she would, but what of that? did he himself allow it? or went he to church with her? And this special privilege granted to her, doth it not prove that the common order and Service of the Realm was otherwise? but, go ye forth.  
jewel. And therefore the like also may well be thought of a great number of the number of the people.  
Stapleton Be it so. As the king was, so were many of the people: but the kying suffered his best beloved to have her church and Religion after her tradition, ergo many of the people also suffered it. All this M. jewel, is reasonnable. For the paynims than were not so cruel and desperate as hugonotes and protestants are at this present. For they having the government in their hands could suffer Christians to follow the faith in which they were borne, but heretics now are so Spritishe and Impatient, that where they have no jurisdiction at all, yet they dare to kill Priests, to change magistrates, and to set forth the Gospel with sword and terror. But what have you with all this concluded? That English men Favoured the Gospel at S. Augustine's coming? Nothing less. But only that the king with some other were no great enemies unto it: that is to say, they loved it not themselves, yet they hated not the Queen the stranger and her company which loved it. And yet you be not sure neither of this, but you say as it may be thought, Which argument is not grounded upon any others Autho●ite but a guess of your own. It followeth.  
jewel. Thus much shortly of the first planting of the religions of Christ within this Ileland etc.  
Stapleton Surely then you have deceived us: For when you moved attention, and prepared a way to further matter, saying, Now let us consider in what state this Realm Stood touching Religion, at the coming of Augustine: I thought you would have disproved D. Harding by good and substantial Record, and showed thath in the English Nation the Faith was not utterly decayed. But now, before you had well begonn, you have sodanely made an end; and can say no more, but that, as it may be thought, the Saxons were not enemies to the Gospel. By which it appeareth, that A short horse is soon curried, and that a Faint cause can not strongly be maintained.  
Thus then endeth M. jewels discourse. He showeth that the Faith was among the britains, from the beginning: but that is nothing to us which speak of Englishmen and not of welchemen. he cometh to the Englishmen, and giveth a great guess at a matter nothing tending to any purpose, Concluding that as it may be thought the Englishmen were not enemies to the Faith, because forsooth the Queen a stranger borne served God after the Catholic and true manner: but when they were made friends of God, and partakers of Christ's Faith he saith nothing. Let us therefore now declare that, which M. jewel is afraid to have known and credited. And let us show, how the Faith hath come to us Englishmen only from Rome, that the unkind and cruel children against their only parents, may in time, whiles Repentance will b● taken; return again to the Obedience of that See, by whose Authority and provision the English were first converted unto the Faith. Which to make the more open, let us shortly rehearse in what State Religion was in Britanny before the coming of the Saxons in to it.  
Of the coming of joseph of Arimathea, of Simon zealots or of any other, in to this Ileland, there shall be no question between us and M. jewel. For who so ever came, and how so ever they came, The first open and known profession of the faith in this Ilelande was by the preaching of Fugatius and Damianus, sent from Eleutherius then Pope of Rome, at th● request of Lucius king of Britanny, as Polidore writeth. 
The faith openly professed among t●e Britan's. P●l●dorus lib. 2.  For at the coming in of those ij. preachers, notwithstanding the faith preached by joseph of Arimathea, there were in Britain at that present, eight and twenty Flamines of infidel's and three Arch flamines, in whose room Lucius the first christian king of Britanny placed so many bishops and archbishops. These three Archebishoprickes were of London, of York and of Gloucester. This was done about the year of our Lord, Clxxxij.  
From this time the faith continued in Britanny until the time or the raging persecution of Diocletian and Maximinian, which fell in the year of our Lord three hundred and odd. In that persecution S. Alban with sundry other Britons suffered martyrdom, 
Beda lib. 1. the 6. and 7. chap. The f●ith decayeth among the britains Lib. 2.  as Polydore, and Bede do witness. Through the rage and fury of that persecution (sayeth Polydore by the report of Gildas a Britain himself) ita relegio refrixerat ut sit penè extincta, the religion waxed so faint that it was well near extinguished.  
After being received somewhat in the time of Constantin the great, 
Beda lib. 1 the 8. and the 17. chap.  it was much infected with heresies, first of the Arrians, and after of the Pelagians. The faith notwithstanding remained among a number of the Catholic Britain's, sound in substance and perfitt. Before the infection of the Pelagian heresy, the Britons being forsaken of the Romans, and overpressed with the invasions of the Scots and pights or redshanks, 
The first book, the xv. chapter. Britan's driven out of their Country.  called to their succour out off the high Germany, Saxons, English and Wites. For these three nations (as Bede calleth them) arrived in to Britain out of Germany. This their arrival fell in the year CCCC. xxix. These peoples as they delivered the Britons from the foreign invasions of the Scots and the redshanks, so in short time, they drove away the Britons themselves in to the straights off wales, which their posterity now occuieth, and possessed themselves all the rest of Brittanny, except Scotland,  
All these peoples that come out off Germany were utterly heathens and infidels. The greatest number of them were Angli, English. they possessed for their share at the first spoil, all that is now called England, except Kent, Essex and Sussex. Which the Saxons possessed, and except the i'll of Wit, 
England out of th● knowledge of God. 150 years.  Hampshere and part off the westcountre, which the Vites or Wites possessed. In time the whole was called England and the people English. These people's English or Saxxons continued heathen and infidels for the space of a hundred and fifty years. All which time the Britain Christians (as Gildas a countryman of their own bitterly complaineth) never vouchsafed to preach the gospel of Christ unto them. But the goodness of God (saith Venerable Bede) did not so forsake his people, 
The xxij. Chap.  whom be foreknew to be called to salvation. But provided for the English people much more worthy preachers, to bring them to the faith, than those unmerciful Britain's were. And who were they M. jewel? Were they Hebrews or Greeks? It followeth in the History of Venerable Bede a learned and holy man by the verdict of all Christendom, these many hundred years, in the sort. The year off the nation of our Lord VC. lxxxij. Mauritius the 54. 
Bede the first book, the twenty-three. Chap.  Emperor after August reigned Emperor of Rome xxj. years. In the tenth year of whose reign, Gregory a man of the greatest virtue and learning of his time, was Bishop of the Roman and Apostolic See, which he governed xiii. years, vj. months and x. days. This Gregory the xiv. year of the reign of the said Emperor, and about the hundredth and fifty year of the coming in of the English men in to Britanny, being moved by inspiration of god thereunto, sent the servant of God, Augustin, and certain otheer Monks, which feared God, with him, to preach the word off God unto the nation of the Englishmen. Who obeying the bishop's commandment &c. 
The first conuersi● of england to the Faith.  (as in the History itself it may at large be seen in many Chapters following.) This man of God (as Bede oftentimes calleth him) Augustine, arrived into Brittanny then possessed for the most part of the Saxons and englishmen our forefathers, he preached unto Ethelbert then king of Kent, he converted him and all his people to the faith. His companions and scholars in few years after converted the whole nation. This Augustine with other monks that accompanied him, at their first coming, expressed (as Bede writeth) the very Apostolic order of living of the primitive Church, serving God in continual prayer, watching and fasting, and preaching the word of life, to as many as they could, despising the commodity of the world, as things non● off their own. taking off them whom they instructed, only so much as might serve their necessities, 
A●●i. 8. fol. 151.  living themselves according to that they taught other and being ready to suffer both trouble's, and death itself in defence of the truth that th●y taught. By these means God so wrought, that (as I said) the king and his people were converted and Christened. 
The 255. Untruth. For he converted thousands of infidels, but killed no godly.   
This w●s a sh●rte Victory saith M. jewel Peter and Paul could never so easily conquer kingdoms. But this matter stood not so much in winning the unfaithful, as in kil●ing the godly.  
O impudent, shameless and blasphemous jewel. I speak in God's cause, in the quarrel of our Apostle blessed S. Augustin, in the defence of all our forefathers the Christian inhabitants of the realm of England. The planting of that Christian faith, by the which, so many hundred years, the whole estate of England, the Noble Princes, the honourable nobility, the holy bishops, the learned clergy, the devout people have yielded their souls unto God, the preaching of that faith which all Christendom beside, of Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Africa, Germany, of all the Northecountres, of Grece itself in great part have holden with us and we with them, the planting and preaching I say of that faith, shall impudent and blasphemous jewel, bring out of credit, calling it, a kill of the Godly? Let here that impudent varlet answer, not worthy no more the name, either of English man or of Christian man, let him answer I say, what godly did Augustin kill. Is the converting of infidels to the faith of jesus Christ, a killing off the Godly▪ Is this the voice of a Christian man, of a preacher of God's word, of a bishop?  
Venerable Bede saith of S. Gregory which sent this Augustine to preach the Faith. 
Lib. 2. ca 1  We may well and are also bound to call him our Apostle. For he being high bishop over the whole world (saith Venerable Bede) made our Nation the Church off Christ, which had been ever unto that time the bondslave of Idols. And how was that (os impudens) but by the means of holy Augustine whom he sent to preach and to convert us? Let the epitaph written upon the toume of that holy man testify. Which (as S. Bede recordeth) was thus conceived.  
Here lieth Blessed Augustine, 
The .3. Chap.  the first archbishop of Caunterbury, who was sent hither off holy Saint Gregory bishop of Rome, and strengthened of God by working of miracles. Who converted king Elbert and his realm from the worshipping of Idols to the faith of Christ. Was this no winning of the unfaithful, was this a killing off the Godly? Who would so speak and write, but some infidel himself or jew, M. jewel? Hath heresy so rooted out all shame and honesty from your heart, that the converting from infidelity and paganism unto Christ, and that of your own countrymen and Forefathers, you call the kill of the godly?  
Let us I pray you, consider your scoffing Spirit. This was a short victory, say you, Peter and Paul could never so easily conquer kingdoms. O Syr. Must the Spirit of God be measured with the wisdom of your brain? Must God work at your leisure and appointment? Go Sir and scoff in like manner at S. Paul, 
Rom. 15.  that he (as he witnesseth himself) had filled all places with the gospel of Christ, from Jerusalem as far as Illyricum. another jewel may scoff and say here also: This was a short victory, & cet. But think you by the cankered malice of your scoffing Spirit, to blot the Blessed memory of our Apostole, the signet of whose Apostoleship we are in our Lord, who though not to other, yet to us, is an Apostle: For by the Gospel he begot us in Christ.  
jewel. 
pag. 185.  Is there now, after the continuance of that faith well near a thousand years planted by him and his companions or scholars, upstart one, and that in the room of a bishop, in that self country, and of that country and nation, which writeth him an Hypocrite, a superstitious man, cruel, Blowdye and proud above measure?  
Know you the words M. jewel? Remember you whose they are? They are the Cankered words of the Spirit that speaketh out of you. The Spirit of Malice, Rancour and Contradiction. They are your own words M. jewel. In the third Article, pag. 185. Thus you speak of Saint. Augustine our blessed Apostle.  
jewel. 
The .256. Untruth. For none that knew him ever sa●ed so of him. Galfrid. li. 8. cap. 4.  He was a man, as it was judged by them that saw him and knew him, neither of Apostolic Spirit, nor any way worthy to be called a Saint: But an Hypocrite, a superstitious man, Cruel, bloody, and proud above measure.  
Stapleton. If Severus that heretical bishop of Antioch had his tongue cut out of his head, for his blasphemies that he uttered against the holy Council of Chalcedon, what you should deserve M. jewel, if you met with an other justinus, it is easy to be considered. His blasphemy followed of one heretical opinion, your intolerable Malice proceedeth against the whole cause of Christian Religion. He resisted the Catholic doctrine in one or two points only. You ●aue against your Apostle, of whom you received Christ. It had been your part (if any such Report had been made of our Apostle) either to have suspected the author, or to have bolted out the Truth by other writers, or at the lest to have dissembled it. But you are one of them off which the Prophet saith. 
●s●i●. 1.  Filios enutrivi & exaltavi: Ipsi autem spreverunt me. I have brought up my Children, yea and I have exalted them to high vocations. but they have despised me. What England hath done for you, and how much you are bound to that country, you know best yourself, and we can not be ignorant. And have you now for all reward, blazed out the Apostle of that people, with these Charitable Titles: Hypocrite, Superstitious, Cruel, Bloody, and Proud above measure. You, you M. jewel have uttered this blasphemous Slander, and Slanderous blasphemy, (against our blessed Apostle) A Blasphemy I say, not to be controlled with the pen, but to be whipped which the Scourge. For they are (as I have said) your own words. They are not the words of Galfride of Munmouthe, whom you allege in the Margin. He hath no such words. You bely Galfride and you slander our blessed Apostle. Galfrid off all his nine books written of the Acts of the kings off Britanny, only in the eight book the fourth Chapter (the place by you quoted) speaketh of our Apostle S. Augustin. 
The 257. Untruth For Galfride hath no such words as M. jewel referreth unto him Galfr. lib. 8. cap. 4.  In that whole Chapter he hath no such words, nor any like or leading thereunto. Only he telleth. how Augustine was sent in to britanny by S. Gregory, to preach the Gospel unto the Englishmen, which were paynims at that tyme. And how he required subjection of the britons, and that they would together with him, take the pains to preach the Gospel to the Englishmen: And how Edelbert king of Kent seeing their disdainfulness, stirred king Edelfride king off Northumberland, and other princes off the Saxons against them: And how the britons where overcummed and a great number of monks slain. But to S. Augustine he giveth not one Title good or bad, and much less such cruel and bloudieones as M. jewel allegeth.  
If Galfride had so reported being A Welcheman, and one that lived at the least iiij. hundred years after the time of S. Augustine's arriving unto Enlande, and being a writer otherwise, (I report me to Merlines prophecies libr. 4. to king Arthures Conquests against the Emperor Leo, and his host of C C C C. and LX. thousand men, to the two Giants etc.) so fabulous, vain and poetical, 
lib. 7.  that he resembleth more the Bevis of Hampton or Guy of Warrycke, than a grave or true historiographer, you might certainly without any partialyte, have judged, that being of that Country he speak of Affection, or living so long after, might well miss the Truth, or at least, that he was not worthy to be a witness against Venerable Bede and holy S. Gregory, who both do highly commend our Apostle S. Augustin, as partly I have before declared, partly shall straight ways declare. But now seeing that Galfride, your alleged Author sayeth no such thing, of what a facing and desperate Spirit be you, so to Slander our Blessed Apostle, and then to father your Slander upon an other.  
jewel. 
185.  But it maketh you to be the more bold to say as you do off S. Augustine, Because they that saw him and knew him, judged him to be a man neither of Apostolic Spirit, nor any way worthy to be called a Saint. And what are their names I pray you then? Or from whence came they, or whither will they? was Galfride one of them? It were hard for you so to say, considering that he lived iiijC years after S. Augustine the monk, and by reason therefore could not see him or know him. And if it were some other, why named ye him not in your text or the margin?  
Yet who so ever he were did he see him or know him better than Saint Gregory, who choose him, who sent him, who commended him, who honoured him? If there were nothing in all S. Gregory's works to the praise off S. Augustine, yet, this being so well testyfied, that himself first, (before he was Pope,) was minded to go in to England to convert it, and that afterwards he continued in his holy and merciful and gracious intent in sending an other to do that Office: who but unsensible could Imagine, that so wise A man, would commit so great a cause as the conversion of a whole Country is, either to him whom he never saw, or whom he did not know? Undoubtedly therefore, If we had no other argument, yet this alone, that S. Gregory trusted him in so great a matter and so greatly tendered of his holiness, is sufficient enough to prove, that he knew S. Augusti●eth right well what he was. But we have other Arguments out of S. Gregory himself, by which it shall be perceived not only thath he knew S. Augustine, but also liked and praised him.  
For he commendeth him to Desiderius and Sigarius bishops or France, by special letters, 
Gregor. li. 5. ep. 54.  requiring them to help and comfort, Augustinum servum dei, praesentium portitorem, cuius zelus & studium bene nobis est cognitum, Augustine the servant of God, the bearer of these present letters, whose Zeal and good will is well known unto us. By the self same words he commendeth him also to Theodoricus and Theodebert kings of France calling him The servant of god: 
lib. 5. epist. 58.  whose Zeal and good mind is well known unto us.  
Besides this, he calleth him, his brother Augustine, 
lib. 7. epist. 5. ep. 30.  And in an other place testifieth that he was A Monk of his Monastery, and sent by him into England, which unto that time continued wicked and nought, in cultu lignorum ac lapidum, in the worshipping of Stocks and Stones. And further, he testifieth that either Augustine himself, or they that were Sent with him, did shine by so many miracles in that Country, that the notable things which they do, may seem to follow and resemble the works and Power of the Apostles. And again. That at Christmassetyde, S. Augustine baptised more than ten thousand Englishmen,  
He saith further, to the praise of S. Augustine, that so great a multitude of the English nation was turned to the grace of the Christian Faith, 
Lib. 9 ep. 52.  that he had need to send more labourers thither, And in that epistle he calleth him, 
epist. 58.  our most reverent brother and felowbishope Augustine To be short, God so wrought by the hands of S. Augustine, to the conversion of England, 
Who would think that any man would dare think him Cruel, bloody or proud above measure, whom God, commendeth by gift of miracles and S. Gregory by so many good words?  that S. Gregory thought it good to write unto him, a most wise and loving letter, lest the greatness of his gifts and miracles should extol him, For after he had wondered at the might Grace of God which had brought great things to pass in England, by the means of simple and weak men: yet (saith he) there is in this heavenly gift (most dear brother Augustine.) a thing that with, great will, aught to be feared most vehemently. For I know, that almighty God, hath showed, by means of the great wonders, towards that Country which he would to be Chosen, Wherefore it is necessary that of the self same heavenly gift thou both rejoice with fear, and be also afried with gladness. I mean that thou shouldest be glad, because the souls of Englishmen are drawn by the outward miracles unto an inward grace, and that thou shouldest, fear lest among the signs and miracles which are wrought, the weak mind should lift itself up, with presuming upon itself  
Now lest any perverse interpreter, should think S. Gregory, by this care over S. Augustine lest he should be puffed with any vanie glory, to signify; that he was a proved and high minded fellow, it followeth in the same epistle. Haec autem dico & c? But I speak these things, because I would lay down the mind of my hearer upon humility. As for thy humility (saith he to S. Augustine) Let it have her proper hope and trust, for Sinner as I am, I hold this most Sure hope, that, by the grace of our almighty maker and redeemer, God and lord jesus Christ, thy sins are already forgeaven, and that thou art an Elect and Chosen, to the end other men's Sins might be forgiven through thee. Thus far S. Gregory.  
Let M. jewel now come forth and show, either that there is One which better saw and knew Augustine than S. Gregory Or that S. Gregory did ever count him Superstitious, Cruel, Bloody, or Proud above measure, Or that ever any man that knew S. Augustine hath reported so wickedly, Cruelly and Proudly of him. Galfridus to whom only M. jewel referreth us could not know S. Augustine, and again he hath no such words against him, as are objected by M. jewel. On the other side S. Gregory knew his conversation, allowed his behaviour, sent him of Trust in to England, Commended him to bishops and kings, wondereth at the works that God showed by him, calleth him servant of God, most Reverend felowbisshoppe, most dear brother, and hopeth most certainly that he shall have no account to be made after this life for any fault or gyltines remaining. And dareth a wretched heretic laden with Sins, either to burden an holy and Virtuous Father with Slanders unproved, either to refuse the testimony of true and well deserved praises given to S. Austen, by S. Gregory himself which knew him so well?  
jewel. 
Pag. 186. The ●58. Untruth pregnant and full.  Now that which M. jewel allegeth out of the History of Beda, to bring that holy man S. Augustine our Apostle out of credit, is with passing impudence avouched of him. I beseech thee (good Christian Reader) to have recourse to the History itself, it being now set forth and published in the english tongue. If thou be learned and missetrust the translation, confer the latin therewith all. Read the whole second Chapter of the second book, out of which M. jewel hath culled a piece for his purpose, and thou shalt easily see, that Venerable Bede in recording that History had a far other judgement in it, than the spiderlike venom of M. jewel hath sucked out. But one thing I may not presently omit to warn thee of. M. jewel allegeth out of Bede, that upon the refusal of the Britain's accord with S. Augustin, Ethelbertus the king raised his power, and slew great numbers of the Britain's, and a thousand and two hundred godly Religious men. For in this one sentence he hath couched three moste manifest Untruths. First that the same slaughter was made upon the refusal of the Britons accord. For long before that slaughter the holy bishop Augustin departed this life, 
Lib. 2. Cap. 2.  as Bede in that Chapter recordeth. Whereby it is evident that. S. Austin was not the cause of that slaughter, 
Polidore also witnesseth the same Libro. 4.  as M. jewel would have it to seem. secondarily it was not Ethelbertus the king of Kent whom S. Austen had converted, who made that slaughter, but Ethelfridus the king of the North parts of England, whom Bede in the last chapter of the first book compareth to Saul for his great Victories. M. jewel named for Ethelfridus the heathen, Ethelbertus the Christened king, that it might seem to have been done by S. Augustins procurement. Thirdly he calleth them godly religious Men, who were in deed obstinate schismatics, as the which being gently admonished of their schismatical Observations, continued notwithstanding perversely in the same, 
Lib. 2. Cap. 2.  as appeareth more largely in Bede.  
Thus much by occasion of M. jewels blasphemies I have said in Defence of our Apostle blessed S. Austen, and of the faith first planted by him among us Englishmen.  
Harding. She Service of England that now is, lacketh some things necessary, and hath some other things repugnant to the Faith and custom off the Catholic Church.  
jewel. 
The 259. Untruth Slanderous.  The 92. Untruth, joined with a slander. Our Service containeth nothing contrary to the faith.  
Stapleton. As the Crede of the Arrians was judged by the Fathers of the Nicene council, contrary to the faith, because it lacked the Consubstantialite or unite of Substance of Christ with God the Father, though otherwise it had no words in it contrary to the faith: so the English Service containeth in it, things repugnant to the faith, in that it wanteth the Consecration and the oblation of the Holy Mysteries, as I have before proved. Also Prayer for the souls departed, Memories and invocations of the blessed Saints, All which the Catholic faith believeth and practiseth in the Church service, though in the english Service, no word were expressed contrary to the Catholic faith.  
But I pray you M. jewel, are the homilies part of your Church Service or no? You will not deny but they are. Then your homilies of only faith justifying, are contrary to the faith of S. james the Apostle, saying expressly, man is justified by works not by faith only. Your homily against Images is contrary to the faith which the seventh General Council of Christendom established against the peevish heretics Iconomachis, your forefathers. 
jacob. 3.  To be short the very Order of your Service being in the Mother tongue, contrary to the practice of all Christendom hitherto (as it hath in this Article appeared,) and of all the Catholic Church beside, at this present, is mere schismatical, and damnable: So is also the Ministration of your bread and wine in both kinds, by private authority, and condemning withal, other Catholic Countries which use the contrary. So is in like manner the not mingling of your Communion Cup with water: which the Catholic Church both Greek and Latin hath practised: 
Fol. 12. & seq.  as I have before in the first Article at large proved. In these many points Master jewel your Service partly lacketh some things necessary, partly hath some things repugnant to the Faith and custom off the Catholic Church, as D. Harding most truly said. And thus M. jewel you were slandered with a Truth.  
Now good Christian Reader for the better contenting of thy mind, and for a full declaration that in justifying only these Untruths, which it hath pleased M. jewel to score upon D. Harding (most slanderously, as now thou seest) the chief and principal points of this Article have been discussed, and M. jewels Reply in the most weightiest points answered, I beseech thee to look back and to consider the whole substance of these M. jewels Untruths in this Article, 
Fol. 56. b. & 57 b. e● seq. item fol. 100 ●  and to remember what hath by occasion thereof been said. First it hath been showed and proved that not only in our Country from the first beginning of the faith among us Englishmen, but also long before both in the greek Church, and in the Latin namely in Rome, and France, the Service was in the greek and Latin tongues, which the common Vulgar people understood not. And herein M. jewel is forced if he will abide to his promise, to yield and Subscribe. Next the Constitution of justinian which hath so long served M. jewel and his fellows for a mighty and principal Achilles to fortify their Vulgar Service withal, 
Fol. 69. b. & seq.  is proved at large to make nothing therefore: and M. jewels long lying Reply in that behalf at large confuted. 
Fol. 86. et seq.  Thirdly M. jewels Examples (as he calleth them) wherein he laboured to show that within the first 600. years some Countries had their Service in the Vulgar tongue, are all and every one particularly answered, confuted, and proved no Examples of any Vulgar Service in that age. Whereby it remaineth, that no Vulgar Service in all that time in any one place appearing, the Only Service was then in the learned tongues Greek and Latin, as it is now. 
Fol. 101. & seq.  fourthly the Only place of holy Scripture that M. jewel and his fellows have to maintain their Vulgar Service by, namely the fourteenth Chapter of the first to the Corinth. is proved at large to make nothing for the Vulgar Service, but rather to overthrow the same. And M. jewel in that place is found ten times to have corrupted the text of S. Paul. Last of all the blessed memory of our Apostle holy S. Austin the Monk sent by holy S. Gregory to preach the faith to us Englishmen then Heathens and paynims, is defended and delivered from the most impudent lies, 
Fol. 122. & se. q.  detestable Slanders, and desperate Reproaches, wherewith the tender heart of M. jewel hath with passing Impudence charged him. Other Untruths as they were of less weight, so they are with less labour, sufficiently yet and thoroughly, discharged. It is now thy part, gentle Reader, indifferently to Consider the uprightness of M. jewel, and the Truth of the Cause.   

THE FOURTHE ARTICLE. Of the Supremacy of the B. of Rome.  

D. Hard. Diuis. 1.  THe Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, that is to say, Supreme power, and authority over and above all Bishops, and chief government of Christ's flock in matters pertaining to Faith and Christian Religion, was in the first six hundred years, acknowleadged and confessed.  
jewel. The .93. Untruth. For there was no such power confessed. 
Pag. 220   
Stapleton. 
The .260. Untruth Slanderous.  This power is confessed by S. Gregory a Bishop of Rome within the first six hundred years. I allege him to you M. jewel though he be a bishop of Rome himself, because you have in this Article alleged him so Plentifully and so stoutly against D. Harding, as if he had clearly condemned such Supreme authority himself. I will allege and urge the very place that D. Harding bringeth, and answer to all that you say against it, that the Christian Reader may see with what Passing Impudency you allege S. Gregory against himself, and yet cry out with open mouth against D. harding, as though he had done so. The words of S. Gregory are these. Cunctis evangelium scientibus liquet, 
Gregorius lib. 4. epist. 2.  quòd voce Dominica Sancto & omnium Apostolorum Petro Principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est. Ipsi quip dicitur: Petre amas me? pasce oves meas. Ipsi dicitur. Ecce Satanas expetivit cribrare vos sicut triticum: 
joan. 21 Luce. 22  & ego pro te rogavi Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua: & tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos. Ipsi dicitur. 
Matth. 16  Tu es Petrus & super hanc petram aedíficabo Ecclesiam meam, & portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam. Et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum etc. Ecce claves regni coelestis accepit, potestas ei ligandi & soluendi tribuitur. Cura ei totius Ecclesiae & principatus committitur. Et tamen universalis Apostolus non vocatur. It is evident to all (saith S. Gregory) that knoweth the gospel, that the cure and charge of the whole Church hath been committed by the words of our lord to the holy Apostle Peter, Prince of all the Apostles. For to him it is said. Peter lovest thou me? Feed my sheep. To him it is said. Behold Satan hath desired to sift you as it were wheat, and I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith fail not. And thou being once converted strengthen thy brethren. To him it is said. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall nor prevail against it. To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: etc. Behold he receiveth the keys of the heavenly kingdom, the power of binding and losing is given unto him. The charge of the whole Church and principality is committed to him. Yet Peter is not called the Universal Apostle. Thus far Gregory. In whose words I beseech thee gentle Reader consider three things. First that the Charge of the Whole Church and Principalite thereof is committed unto Peter. secondarily that the Commission of that charge was made by our lord and Saviour himself to Peter by name, and that in three several times in the gospel. In S. Matthew at his Confession of Christ. Before Christ's passion, when the Apostles were in most danger to fall, and after Christ's passion for full confirmation of all that went before. Last of all that not withstanding all that pre-eminence of Peter, notwithstanding the Charge that he had of the Whole Church, not withstanding he was Prince of all the Apostles, and had the Principalite of the whole Church committed unto him, notwithstanding I say all this, yet by the name of an Universal Apostle he was not called.  
Touching the first point, note the matter and pith of this Article to be confessed, which is the chief government of Christ's flock in the Bishop of Rome. For as Peter was Bishop of Rome, as the Church to him committed endureth for ever, as that authority was not given for Peter only, so are the Bishops of Rome his successors, so doth that commission endure for ever, and so doth that authority take place, force, and effect for all the Church of Christ, from that time forward for evermore. Therefore Chrisostom saith expressly, that Christ did shed his blood, ut pecudes eas acquireret, 
Lib. 2. de sacerdotio.  quarum curam tum Petro, tum Petri successoribus committ●bat to win those sheep, the charge of whom he did commit both to Peter, and to the successors of Peter. Of the which charge in an other place he saith. Ecclesiae Primatum gubernationemque Petro per universum mundum tradidit, 
Homil. 1. de p●enitentia. Tom. 5.  that Christ delivered to Peter the Primacy and government of the Church throughout the whole world. In which words we see M. jewel the chief government in Christ's flock to be confessed in Peter the Bishop of Rome, and in his Successors.  
Touching the second point, that this chief government so confessed is grounded upon the Scriptures, and authority of our Saviour himself. For S. Gregory after he had affirmed this chief government in Peter, he added the reason thereof and said. Ipsi quip dicitur. For to him it is said: Feed my sheep. Lo upon this Commission of Christ given in holy Scripture to Peter Only, Gregory groundeth the authority of Peter. So doth also Chrysostom in the place above alleged.  
Touching the last point, mark I beseech thee (good Reader) diligently, that though such principal authority over the whole Church be granted in Peter, yet he is not fo● all that called an Universal Apostle. The Power is confessed, the Name or Title is denied. Right so of any Bishop of Rome ever sense Peter, that title or name of Universal Bishop, was neither desired nor usurped. And yet the authority notwithstanding hath been both confessed and practised. Never Pope more practised this universal authority than Gregory himself. His writings, decrees, and Epistles yet extant do most evidently declare it. Yet no man ever more abhorred the name than he. M. jewel in all this Article hath not showed One Pope that ever called or wrote himself Universal Bishop. It is therefore a great vanity and but a point of a contentious spirit in M. jewel, to cry and call upon the name of Universal Bishop in the Pope, the power and authority universal being confessed, the name also by the Pope himself neither desired, neither usurped. For as S. Augustin most truly telleth you M. jewel. Quid est contentiosius quàm ubi de re constat, certare de nomine? What is more Contentious then to strive upon the name, 
Epist. 174.  when the thing is confessed? Let us see therefore what you answer to this place of S. Gregory alleged by D. Harding. You say.  
jewel. 
Pag. 225.  
The .261 Untruth Slanderous.  If S. Gregory were now alive, he would charge M. Harding with open injury, not only for altering his whole meaning, but also for mangling and maiming his very words.  
Stapleton. Here be two great faults in deed M. jewel. First to alter the meaning of S. Gregory, then to mangle and maim his words. But how prove you these two faults to have been committed? Let us see. You follow and say.  
jewel. 
The .262 Untruth as appeareth.  M. Harding to prove that the Bishop of Rome was called the universal Bishop allegeth these words of S. Gregory.  
Stapleton. Untruth M. jewel. D. Harding doth not allege them therefore. You bely him impudently. He saith in the very beginning of this Article. Harding. By what name so ever the Bishop of Rome was called &c. this is clear, his Primacy and Supreme power is confessed. Which thing being so, whether then he were called by either of these names (he meaneth of the Universal Bishop, or Head of the Church) or no, it is not of great importance. And yet for the one of them (he meaneth the name of Universal Bishop) somewhat, and for the other (of head of the Church) an infinite numbered of good authorities may be alleged. But thereof Hereafter. hearken M. jewel. Of these Names D. Harding saith he will speak Hereafter. What then will he prove now at this present? He telleth you. Now Concerning the chief point of this Article, which is the Primacy of the Pope Peter's successor. First it hath been set up and ordained by God. This, this, M. jewel is the thing that D. harding first will prove. For this matter he alleged before Anacletus, and now he allegeth Gregory. For this point I say, to prove that the Pope's supremacy was ordained by God, Gregory is alleged. And we have heard Gregory to prove it in Peter, whose successor the Pope is, 
The Shameless Impudence of M. jewel.  by no less than three several authorities of holy Scripture. Here therefore I beseech thee (gentle Reader) consider and mark the shameless impudency of M. jewel. Which not being able to answer to the Matter itself of the Pope's supreme authority, telleth thee that these words were alleged to prove the Name and title. He deceiveth thee, he mocketh thee, he abuseth thy patience gentle Reader. He turneth thy mind away form the Matter, to make thee behold only the Name. For thou shalt see that upon this Name and against this Name he driveth all his talk that followeth, utterly beside the Purpose, and quite out of the Matter. For now he allegeth the words of S. Gregory.  
jewel. 
The .263 Untruth Captain and Notorious, in falsyf●ing. S. Gregory. Stapleton.  Ecce Petrus claves regni coelorum accepit, & potestas ei ligandi soluendique tribuitur. Cura ei totius Ecclesiae & principatus committitur. Behold, Peter receiveth the keys of the kingdom of heaven. To him is given power both to bind and to loose. The charge and chief rule of the Church is committed to him.  
Here is an other notable and exceeding legerdemain of M. jewel. He hath left out in his English, the word Totius Whole. where he should have said, the charge and Chief rule of the Whole Church, he turneth it, of the Church, and leaveth out, Whole. O M. jewel may we not most justly and truly turn over to you your own words, both that which go before, and these which follow now? If S. Gregory were now alive he would charge M. jewel with open injury, not only for altering his whole meaning, but also for mangling and maiming his very words. For in taking away the word Whole from the Church, you have maimed his words, and altered his sense. Which was, that to Peter the Charge and chief rule Totius Ecclesiae of the whole Church was committed by Christ himself. But now let us hear forth your words.  
jewel. 
The .264. Untruth Slanderous and Scornful.  Thus far Gregory, saith M. Harding. And why no Farther? was he stayed with the Choynecough, and forced to break of his tale in the midst? But mark well gentle Reader, and thou shalt see S. Gregory set to School, and kept in awe, and not suffered to utter one word more, than M. Harding will give him leave.  
Stapleton. Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. Change the name, and all this tale is told of you M. jewel. For when you Englishing the words of S. Gregory, said the charge of the Church, for, the charge of the Whole church was committed to Peter, when you could not cough out that word Whole, were you stayed with the Choynecough M. jewel, and forced to break of that word in the midst? Have we not seen S. Gregory set to School by M. jewel, kept in awe by M. jewel, and not suffered to utter one word more than M. jewel would give him leave? S. Gregory would fain have said in English the whole Church, as he said in Latin, Totius Ecclesiae, but M. jewel would not give him leave to say so much. Thus M. jewel, you have told a good tale for yourself. Now let us see how you have told it for D. Harding. It followeth in your text.  
jewel. The next words that immediately follow in the same sentence are these. Tamen Petrus universalis Aposto●us non vo●atur. Yet Peter is not called the universal Apostle.  
Stapleton. It is true M. jewel. They follow in deed. And they are left out by D. Harding. What of that? Is not the sentence full ended before? Is not the Supreme authority of Peter fully avouched before? Do these words any thing deerogate from that Supreme authority? If they do not, how is S. Gregory either maimed or mangled, when his whole sense and words are fully reported, and nothing concealed that might alter, weaken, or diminish the same? If they do, then by like you will show it. Let us see how you follow the matter.  
jewel. 
The .265. Untruth as appeareth.  M Harding saith, The Bishop of Rome was called the universal bishop.  
Stapleton. Untruth again M. jewel. D. Harding in this place saith no such thing. You ever shoot at a wrong mark.  
jewel. But S. Gregory even in the self same sentence, that M. Harding hath here so hastily broken of, saith. Peter himself being the Apostle of Christ yet was not called the universal Apostle.  
Stapleton. 
The .266. Untruth for D. Hard. hath not broken of any part of the Sentence alleged.  This doth not derogate from the Power before confessed in Peter, but from the Name which is not the question at this present.  
jewel. 
The .267. Untruth Slanderous. These words do follow: they were not in the mids. Council Constantinopol. 8. ●●●ione. 8.  And would M. Harding have the world believe, that the Pope's power is greater and more universal than S. peter's?  
Stapleton. Lo, how you run from the Name to the thing, from the Calling to the power. S. Gregory confesseth the Power, but denieth that Name. You because he denieth the Name, would have him to deny the Power. S. Gregory confesseth the one and proveth it by Scripture, but yet denieth the other. You because he denieth one, would force him to deny both. Thus M. jewel (not D. Harding) altereth and mangleth S. Gregory. We will not have the world to believe that the Pope's power is greater than S. peter's, but that the Pope being successor of Peter hath the same power which Christ gave to Peter, and not only to Peter, but to his successors, as we have heard Chrisostom expressly say.  
These words M. Harding thought good to nip of in the mids. Such is his dealing in the allegation of the Ancient Fathers. If I list to use his own terms, I might well call this Foisting or Cogging, or I know not what. Certainly the holy Fathers in the Council off Constantinople say thus. It is not meet for Catholic men thus to chop and to pair the sayings of the holy Fathers. It is rather the very property of heretics.  
You teach us still M. jewel how to answer your own demeanour. This word (Whole) wherein the effect of S. Gregory's meaning stood, M. jewel thought good to nip of in the mids. Such is the dealing of M. jewel in the allegation of the Ancient Fathers: So he corrupted before Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Ambrose, Severus Sulpitius, S. Hierom and others. If I list to use M. jewels terms, I might say he had the Choynecough etc. Certainly the holy Fathers in the Council of Constantinople say thus. It is not meet for Catholic men thus to chop and to pair the sayings of the holy Fathers. It is rather the very property of heretics. Exore tuo te judico serve nequam. 
Luc. 19   
As for the sentence which M. jewel chargeth D. Harding to have nipped of in the mids, neither was it in the mids, but a sentence following, neither did the omitting thereof any thing deerogate from the meaning of S. Gregory. M. jewel therefore hath talked hitherto against himself pleasantly and largely, but to the matter he hath yet said nothing. Neither doth he say any thing in many words after. He imagineth D. Harding to object that S. Gregory though he blamed the name of universal B. in john of Constantinople, 
A feigned objection of M. jewel.  yet he claimed the same to himself, as a title only belonging to the See of Rome. Hereupon he heapeth up a Main number of sayings of S. Gregory against the title of Universal bishop as well in himself, as in any other. All that is to no purpose. For it is not here defended by D. Harding. And it is not in this place at all disputed of, nor at all in any other place upholded in that sense as S. Gregory blameth it. It is neither required nor used of any Pope. Therefore M. jewel I may well call your labour therein Vanitas Vanitatum. For it is a great token of idleness to be so earnest and so copious in disproving that thing that no man affirmeth. And yet M. jewel so forceth this matter, as if all the right of the cause lay upon it. It is a lewd kind of logic so stoutly to disprove that no man defendeth, and to leave that thing untouched, which only should be answered. Therefore you conclude nothing against D. Harding, when you say.  
jewel. 
Pag. 227  By these it may appear that S. Gregory being Bishop of Rome would not suffer the Name of Universal Bishop to be given neither to any other Bishop nor to himself.  
Stapleton. All this is confessed. The Name of Universal Bishop, as being the only Bishop for all, No Pope hath ever required, taken or used. But to the authority of the Pope S. Peter's Successor what say you? You answer at the length, and you say.  
jewel. 
The .268 Untruth For S. Paul spoke not in like Sense. 2. Cor. 11 The .269 Untruth in missereporting the Text of S. Paul.  And whereas S Gregory saith: The char●e and chief●y of the whole Church is committed unto Peter, in the sense it is spoken in, we deny it not. S. Paul likewise saith of himself in like sense. Incumbit mihi quotidiana cura omnium Ecclesiarum. There lieth upon me the Daily charge of all Churches. And further saith. I reckon myself to be nothing inferior in travail to the highest Apostles.  
Stapleton. The words of S. Paul are not truly reported of you M. jewel. You have left the common Latin translation, and made an other of your own. The Latin and the Greek also do read thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praeter ea quae extrinsecus sunt, instantia mea quotidiana, Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum. Beside the foreign troubles and adversities, my daily occupation, the care of all congregations. And how? It followeth. Who is troubled, and I am not troubled, who is offended, and I am not offended? 
2. Cor. 11  In this sense M. jewel every good Bishop, and Priest, yea every good Christian man hath a care of all the Churches in the world. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sollicitudo not cura & principatus, a hopefulness and care, not a charge and Principal rule, such as is confessed in Peter. Again if Paul being a chosen vessel, beside all the other Apostles, had also such a care and charge as Peter above the rest had, yet he had no Successor therereof, except at Rome, where it pleased God he should take the crown of marrtyrdom with S. Peter. 
Gregor. li. 1. Epist. 24. Petrus Authore Deo ●anctae Ecclesiae principatū●e●●ens.  Wherefore that authority either died in him, or if it had any Succession after him, the See of Rome hath it. But M. jewel that S. Gregory spoke of a far other charge and chiefty over the whole Church in Peter, then was in Paul or any other Apostle, (though other holy Fathers, as S. Hierom and S. Cyprian seem to make all the Apostles equal) it appeareth evidently by an other Epistle of S. Gregory, which yourself allegeth in this place. 
Lib. 4 Epist. 38  Thus he saith. Certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae & universalis Ecclesiae est. Paulus, Andreas, joannes, quid aliud quam singularium pl●bium sunt capita? Et tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. Truly the Apostle Peter is the chiefest member (under Christ) of the holy and Universal Church. Paul, Andrew and john what other thing are they then the heads of Particular flocks? And yet all are the membres of the Church under one head, Christ. The charge therefore and pre-eminence given to Peter by S. Gregory's confession, is greater and more ample, than the charge of Paul, or any other Apostle. Peter had the charge of the whole Church, Paul and the other, of particular flocks. And doth M. jewel think to persuade the world that. S. Peter had the charge of the whole Church, in the like sense, as S. Paul had the carefulness of all Churches? Or is it likely that M. jewel knoweth S. Gregory's mind better than ever S. Gregory knew it himself? This shift therefore can not serve M. jewel. What other hath he? We shall see by his words.  
jewel. 
The .270 Untruth in forging a false Argument upon D. Harding.  And will M. Harding hereof reason thus, Peter had the charge of the whole Church. Ergo the Pope is an universal Bishop?  
Stapleton. No M. jewel. It becometh only your scoffiing spirit to reason so. D. Harding reasoneth thus. Peter is confessed by S. Gregory to have the charge of the whole Church committed unto him, by Christ himself. Ergo the Primacy of Peter by the testimony of S. Gregory hath been set up and ordained by God. Ergo the Pope Peter's Successor, hath his Primacy jure domino by God's law, not only by man's law. Ergo the power and authority over all Christ's flock is acknowleadged and confessed in the Bishop of Rome. And that not only by S. Gregory, but by Chrysostom also. Ergo then the Untruth which you noted, is no Untruth, but you M. jewel stand guilty thereof. Ergo whether the Name of Universal Bishop were given or no, it is not of great importance, the authority and Power being confessed.  
jewel. 
The .271 Untruth Slanderous. For the Pope at this day challengeth no such title.  certainly S. Gregory saith▪ Peter himself notwithstanding he received the whole charge, yet is he not called the Universal Apostle. And can the Pope be that thing, that S. Petre himself could not be? S. Gregory driveth his reason thus. If this title of Vniuer●alite might belong to any man, it should ch●f●ly belong unto S. Peter, but it belongeth not unto S Peter. Therefore it can belong to no man Hereby it is plain that the Bishop of Rome challengeth this day a title S Peter never had, that no holy, nor godly man would ever take upon him, that S. Gregory utterly refused and detested and called blasphemy.  
Stapleton. M. jewel always harpeth upon a wrong string. By such idle talk his Reply is waxen to a great quantity. We answer M. jewel. You talk of that no man affirmeth. You slander the Pope. You abuse the Reader. We call not the Pope Universal Bishop. The Pope writeth not himself so, but servum sernorum Dei. the servant of the servants of God. D. Harding goeth not about to prove it. Therefore you fight with your own shadow.  
jewel. And yet will he seem to maintain his estate by the authority of this holy Father.  
Stapleton. Yea forsooth the state of his Primacy is by this holy Fathers not only writings, but much more doings so maintained and established, that M. jewel shall never avoid it, if (as he doth here stoutly) he will stand to the authority of this holy Father. But the Name of Universal Bishop, neither we, nor the Pope maintaineth by this, or by any other holy Father.  
And now because M. jewel hath heaped out of the Epistles of S. Gregory a main number of allegations against the title of Vniuersal● B●shop, quoting them with such Ambition in the Margin, that one very allegation he quoteth 
* jewel. Pagina. 226, thus  three times immediately one after the other, 
k lib. 4. Epist. 39  
l lib. 4. Epist. 39  and in the same sentence two other allegations, 
m lib. 4 Epist. 39  as lib. 4. Epist. 32. and lib. 4. Epist. 38. he quoteth thrice also (each of them) where as for these nine several quotations in the margin of both book and Epistle, one only quotation of the book and three several quotations of the Epistles had been sufficient, because I say, he hath with such extreme Ambition so heaped and multiplied his Allegations against that Title, which (as it hath been said) is of no Bishop of Rome usurped, required, or maintained in that sense as S. Gregory reproveth it, (that is, to be a Bishop Alone excluding all other) I will now (by God's help) declare by the Epistles of S. Gregory himself, that notwithstanding he so abhorred that Name, calling it a puff of arrogancy, a new Name, a Rash, 
Grego. li 6 Epist. 2. & .24. Item li. 4 Epist. 32.38. & .39  a Foolish, a proud, a pompous, a Perverse, a Superstitious, an ungodly, and a wicked title, a Name of error, a Name of singularity, a Name of vanity, a Name of Hypocrisy, and a Name of blasphemy, notwithstanding he saith, that Whoso ever calleth himself Universal Bishop, 
Lib. 4. Epist. 38  or desireth so to be called, is in his pride the forerenner of Antichrist, last of all, notwithstanding, he uttertly refuse that Name, to be given either to any other Bishop or to himself, that yet I say all this notwithstanding, he practised himself the Universal authority over the whole Church, and every part thereof, through out all Christendom, as occasion served. M. jewel saith.  
jewel. 
Pag. 226 Grego. lib. 4. Epist. 38. The. ●72 Untruth For the reason that S. Gregory forceth, serveth not against the Bishop of Rome.  The reason that S. Gregory forceth against the Bishop of Constantinople, may serve as well against the Bishop of Rome. For thus he saith. What answer wilt thou make unto Christ, that in deed is the head of the Universal Church, at the trial of the last judgement, that thus goest about under the Name of Universal Bishop to subdue all his membres unto thee? This is the very definition of an Universal Bishop. Thus the Bishop of Rome attempteth to subdue the whole Church of God, and all the membres of Christ unto himself. Therefore by S. Gregory's judgement he is the forerunner of Antichrist.  
Stapleton. The reason that S. Gregory forceth against john of Constantinople, can not be so forced against the bishop of Rome, neither is that reason only so forced as M. jewel imagineth. For the first, touching the Subjection of the whole Church of God to the B. of Rome, as members unto their head, and sh●pe unto their Pastor, S. Gregory himself shall anon be witness sufficient, that it was so, and aught to be so. Though therefore john of Constantinople, who was no head of the universal Church, might worthily be blamed of S. Gregory, for subduing the whole Church unto him, under pretence of that proud and unlawful Title, yet the Bishop of Rome (whose Supremacy over all the Church none more than S. Gregory himself practised) can not be blamed if he claim that universal authority. But this is not the chief or only reason that S. Gregory forceth against john of Constantinople for usurping that Name of universal Bishop, that thereby he would make himself head of the universal Church, but that thereby he would make himself, the Only Bishop of all the Church, and all other no bishops at all. In this sense S. Gregory reproved that Name not only in john of Constantinople, but also in himself or any other. Therefore writing to the Emperor Mauritius he useth these words. 

Gregorious lib. 4. epis. 32.  
This Nestorius and Macedonius were both Bishops of Constantinople.   What man is this which against the commandments of the gospel, and decrees of the Canons, presumeth to usurp to himself a new Name? Would God, the same man might well be one Bishop, without the hindrance of other, which desireth to be called the universal bishop. Certainly it is known that many bishops of Constantinople, have fallen in to the whirlpool of heresy, and not only been heretics but also Archeher●tikes. For from thence came Nestorius, which teaching that Our Saviour Christ was two persons, not believing that God could be made man in one person, fell even to juish infidelity. From thence came Macedonius who denied that the holy Ghost was God consubstantial with the Father and the Son. If therefore any man in that Church (of Constantinople) do take that Name unto him (of universal bishop) what was the judgement of all good men? Then forsooth the Universal Church lost her state and being (which God forbid) when he which is called Universal f●ll. But God keep this blasphemous name from the hearts of all Christ●n men. In the which the honour of all priests is taken away while it is of one man arrogantly usurped. Verily for the honour of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles that Name of Universal bishop was offered to the bishop of Rome by the reverent Council of Chalcedon. But no bishop of Rome did ever take that Name of Singularite unto him, or ever consented to use it. And why so S. Gregory would none of your predecessors use this Name or title? It followeth immediately. Ne dum privatum aliquid daretur uni, honore d●bito sacerdotes privarentur universi. Lest that whiles any Singular thing should be given to one, all priests should be defrauded of their due honour. In this sense S. Gregory abhorred that Name, as it was a Name of Singularite, as a Singular title defrauding other of their right, as a name in the which the honour of all other priests is taken away. For so did this john of Constantinople affect this Name of universal bishop, as it signified the Name of one only bishop for all. Therefore S. Gregory in a letter written at the same time to Constantia the Empress saith thus. 
Lib. 4. Epis. 34.  Triste valde est, ut patienter feratur, quatenus despectis omnibus praedictus frater & coepiscopus meus solus conetur appellari episcopus. It is a heavy hearing, that it should be patiently tolerated, when the said john my brother and fellow bishop, coveteth to be called The only Bishop, setting all other at nought. And again in an other epistle to this Io●n himself of Constantinople he saith. 
Lib. eodem epis. 38.  Ad hoc quandoque perductus es, ut d●spectis fratribus episcopus appetas solus vocari. Thou art brought at length to this point that setting thy brethren at nought, thou covetest to be called the Only bishop. And in the same epistle again. Generalis pater in mundo vocari appetis. 
Lib. 7. epis. 69.  Thou covetest to be called the General Father in the world, as desiring in deed to be the Father and Master of all alone. And to the Bishop of Thessalonica he writeth of Cyr●acusthis john's Successor coveting in like manner that Title, Si unus (ut putat) universalis est, restat ut vos episcopi non sitis.  
If one (as he supposeth) be an universal bishop, it remaineth that you be no bishops at all. In this sense that Name was so grievously abhorred of S. Gregory, and for that cause (because it emplied such a sense, as might do injury to all other bishops and rulers of the Church) never used of S. Gregory, or of his predecessors, or of any Pope sithence, that M. jewel is able to name. And therefore S. Gregory (giving the same reason) saith expressly in an other epistle to Eulogius the patriarch of Alexandria, in this wise. Your holiness knoweth, 
Lib. 4. Epis. 36.  that by the holy Council of Chalcedon this name of universality was offered to me as bishop of the Apostolic See, But none of my predecessors ever consented to use this profane title: Because verily if one patriarch be called universal, other are made no patriarchs at all. Which reason also in the same epistle he repeateth yet again, 

Patriarcharum nomen coeteris derogatur.  
Honour patriarcharum omnium negatur.   as being in deed the chiefè and only cause why he and his predecessors other bishops of Rome, utterly refused and abhorred that Title. Thus it appeareth that S. Gregory forced not that reason only or chiefly against the bishop of Constantinople, which M. jewel imagineth, because by that Title he would become Head of all the Church, but the reason which S. Gregory principally forceth against the bishop of Constantinople, and for the which he himself and his predecessors refused that Title, is, that by the same Title he would be the bishop Alone, the patriarch Alone, the priest Alone. To Conclude. S. Gregory forceth two reasons against the bishop of Constantinople, why he may not be called the Universal Bishop. And he giveth one reason why he and his predecessors have refused that Name. The two reasons against the Bishop of Constantinople are these. First and principally because appetit solus episcopus vocari, he coveteth to be called the only Bishop: because by that Name, Patriarcharum nomen coeteris derogatur. Other patriarchs are made no patriarchs at all. This was a new, a profane, a blasphemous, and an Antichristian attempt. The second reason is by a consequence. For so it would follow that he would subdue all the Church to him, whose Church is known to have been oftentimes the Ringleader and founder of wicked heresies: Which were the greatest absurdity that might be devised. For thereof it would follow that the whole Church should perish, the Universal Bishop perishing. The one only reason that S. Gregory giveth, why he and his predecessors, though by the whole general Council of Chalcedon Vniversales oblato honore vocati sunt they were called Universal Bishops that honour being offered them, 
Lib. 4. epist. 38.  
Why the Pope is not called universal.  would yet never use or enjoy that title, is (not because he and his predecessors should thereby become heads of the universal Church, as if that authority were injurious, but) lest that (as in four several epistles he repeateth) si sibi in pontificatus gradu gloriam singularitatis arriperet, 
Lib. 4. epist. 32.36. &. 38 & lib. 7. epist. 30. Meus honor est fratrum meorum solidas vigour.  hanc omnibus fratribus denegasse videretur. if any of his predecessors should take unto him that singular preferment in the degree of bishopric, he might seem to deny the same (preferment of bishopric) to all his brethren, that is, the Pope by that means might seem to become the Only Bishop over all Christian people, as that john of Constantinople attempted to be. For this reason, for this inconvenience emplied in that Name, no bishop of Rome ever usurped, or desired that name, though of other men before Saint gregories time they were so called, as it shall in the ●. 8. Untruth appear. Now the other reason off being Head over the universal Church of Christ, Saint Gregory fo●ceth not against himself or his predecessors the bishops of Rome, both because the See of Rome fell never to heresy, but by the especial prayer of Christ for Peter the first bishop thereof is preserved, ut nunquam deficiat fides eius that their faith may never fail, 
Luc. 22.  as in the 108, Untruth we shall more particulary declare, (whereby the absurd consequence falling in the bishops of Constantinople hath here no place) and also because S. Gregory himself as his predecessors before him, was in deed the Head gowerner of the Universal Church of Christ, and practised that Headship and jurisdiction in all parts of Christendom, as occasion served. Which now according to promise, out of the very Epistles of S. Gregory himself, I intend God willing to declare.  
To omit the particular jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in all Italy itself, where he is the Metropolitan, and where only at this present M. jewel and his fellows would limit his authority, if at lest they will grant him so much (for by some of their judgements he should rule only his own diocese, and by some other not them neither, for such would have no Bishops at all touching Order and jurisdiction) but to omit the practised authority of S. Gregory within the bonds of Italy itself where in Rome standeth, let us consider how the same was extended, as well over the Alps to us ward north and West, as over the sea to all the world beyond, both south and East.  
The jurisdiction and Supreme authority of S. Gregory over the Realm of France appeareth evidently in one of his Epistles directed Vniue●sis Episcopis Galliarum, 
Gregorius lib. 4. Epist 52  to all the Bishops of France. Where thus he writeth word for word. Because the place is long, 
France.  and the book is common to be had, I leave the L●●ine, and give thee (gentle Reader) the English thereof faithfully and sincerely translated. Because (saith S. Gregory) every duty is then seemly performed, 
1. S. Gr●go●y the Pope hath his Legate in France.  when there is one Ruler, to whom recourse may be had, we have therefore thought it conu●nient to appoint our brother Virgilius Bishop of Arles our Legate according to the old Custom, in those Churches which are subject to our most Excellent Son Childebert the king (of France, 
2. According to the old Custom. ) to the intent that both the right Catholic faith (that is, such as by the four general Councils is defined) may with hofull devotion by Gods help be preserved, and also that if perhaps any contention arise among our brethren and fellow Priests he may appease it by virtue of his authority, as occupying the room of the See Apostolic, according to his discrete moderation. To whom also we have enjoined that if such questions of certain Matters do arise, for the discussing whereof the presence of many is needful, let him with a competent number of our brethren and fellow Bishops gathered together, discuss the matter with equity and according to the Canons uprightly determine it. But if any Contention or question arise touching the faith (which God forbid) or a Matter springe up that is of some weighty controversy, so that for the greatness of it, the judgement of the See Apostolic seemeth necessary, the truth of the Matter being diligently examined, let him by his own relation bring it to our knowledge, to th'intent that from us it may with an agreeable and undoubted sentence be determined. Also because it is necessary that before our Legate, as oft as he shall think it behoveful, the Bishops at convenient times do appear, for conference to be had, we exhort you, that none presume to disobey his commandments therein, neither slack to be present at such Common assembles, except perhaps either bodily sickness, or some other just impediment do stay him from thence. In which case who so ever is so absent, let him yet direct in his place some Priest or Deacon, to th'intent that such things as by our Legate through God's help shall be determined or decreed, may by faithful relation come unto him that is absent, by the party so sent, to be of him firmly and surely observed. And let not the excuse of any occasion presume to violate such things as he shall decree. Thus far S. Gregory to the Bishops of France, lib. 4. Epist. 52. How say you now M. jewel? Wonder I pray you no more hereafter, that D. Harding will maintain the Pope's estate by the authority of this holy Father. 
jewel. Pag. 227  1. Here S. Gregory the Pope hath his Legate in France. 2. and that according to the old custom. 3. to preserve the faith. 4. to appease controversies arising, either by himself, 5. or if they be more weighty, by a number of other Bishops, 6. or last of all if they touch the faith, by referring up the Matter to the Pope himself, 7. Finally all Bishops are commanded to obey his Legat. Such was the supreme and Universal authority of S. Gregory being Bishop of Rome, over all the Bishops of France and their Churches though yet he would not be called, saluted, or entitled their Universal Bishop. Other examples of his practised Supreme authority in the Realm of France, 
Lib. 11. Epist. 8. &. 10. li. 7. Epist. 112. & 115.  as of granting Privileges to Monasteries and Hospitals, of preferring Bishops, etc. are in other of his Epistles to be seen, which for brevities sake I omit. That he had the like authority and jurisdiction in Spain, it appeareth also in his Epistles, 
Spain.  as well by the pall (a Bishoply preferrment granted only by the Pope) sent to Leander a Bishop of that Country, 
Lib. 7 Epist. 125  as also by his Commissioner john sent thither with Instructions touching cases and controversies to be determined among the clergy. 
Lib. 11. Epist. 54. & 50.  And namely of the restoring of one januarius unto his Bishopric, who had appealed to the Pope being wrongfully deposed by a number of other Bishops and had one Steven placed in his room. S. Gregory by john his Commissioner sent to Spain for that Purpose, restoreth januarius to his Bishopric, enjoineth a half years penance to those Bishops which had presumed to Consecrat Steven in his place, and the said Steven he commandeth to be degraded, and so either to remain a● presonner to januarius, or else to be sent to Rome. 
Lib. 11. Epist. 53.  john the Commissioner executeth the Sentence. And the very tenor of the execution is yet to be seen in the Epistles of S. Gregory. Such authority practised S. Gregory over the membres of God's Church, and yet feared not to be any forerunner of Antichrist therein.  
To pass from Spain to Africa, the authority that S. Gregory practised over all the Bishops there, 
Africa.  is evident also in the Registre of his Epistles. Where as in Numidia certain which had been Donatists being promoted to bishoprics would also be metropolitans, he rebuketh and expressly forbiddeth that disorder: writing to all the Bishops of Numidia in this sort. Peti●stis per Hilarium Cartularium nostrum, a Beatae memoriae decessore nostro, ut omnes vobis retro temporum consuetudines seruarentur, quas a beatae Petri Apostolorum principis ordinationum initijs hactenus vetustas longa seruavit. 
Lib. 1. Epist. 75  Et nos quidem juxta seriem relationis vestrae, consuetudinem, quae tamen contra fidem Catholicam nihil usurpare dignoscitur, inviolatam permanere concedimus, sive de primatibus constituendis, caeterissque capitulis, exceptis his qui ex Donatistis ad Epis opatum proveniunt, quos provehi ad primatus dignitatem, etiam cum Ordo eos ad locum eundem deferat, modis omnibus prohibemus. You had required by Hilarius our Notary, of our Predecessor of blessed memory, that all your ancient Customs might be reserved, which from the beginning of the Constitutions of blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, long antiquity had continued. And we verily according to the tenor of your relation made unto us, do grant that the Custom remain inviolated, except it be such as may seem to usurp any thing against the Catholic faith, whether it be of making of Primates and metropolitans, or other matters, except such as from Donatists come to be Bishops. For such we utterly forbid to be made metropolitans, yea though by order they were called to that degree. Let it suffice t●em to bear the charge of their own flock, and not to be preferred in obtaining the Metropolitanship, before those Bishops, which the Catholic faith hath brought up and instructed always in the Church. Thus far Saint Gregory. In whose words it is easy to be seen, both what authority he practised himself over Numidia, and also what Orders his Predecessors, the See Apostolic from the beginning, had appointed in that Country. By virtue of the like authority whereas Paulinus the Bishop of Rhegium in the coasts of Africa, had committed simony in giving of orders, and certain other outrages, as his clergy complained of him to the Pope, S. Gregory appointed Commissioners over that bishop, Victor and Columbus bishops of Numidia, with Hil●rius his notary, for justice to be done in that behalf. 
Grego. lib. 10. epist. 33. & 34.  Again whereas the primate of that Country admitted boys and Children to holy Orders, 
Lib. 2. epi· 47. Indic. 11.  he made this Columbus a bishop of Numidia his legate and Commissioner to see that disorder punished and corrected. The like also he did for the extirping of the Donatists heresy, springing up again then in Africa, willing this Columbus, 
Lib. 3. epi. 35. lib. 2. epist. 33. Indict. 10.  to send unto him to Rome, Paulus the bishop of Rhegium, who seemed to be a promoter of that matter, to be examined and corrected according to the Canons. Also to depose one Maximianus a bishop for committing simony. And whereas Bonifacius a noble man of Africa took part with heretics, S. Gregory willeth him to come to Rome, there to be instructed, or at the lest in any wise to beware that he die not out of the faith of that See. His words be these. 
Lib. eodem epist. 41. Matth. 16.  Horror ut dum vitae spatium superest, ab eiusdem beati petri Ecclesia, cui claves R●gni caelestis commissae sunt, & ligandi ac solu●ndi potestas attributa, vestra anima non inveniatur divisa, ne si hic beneficium eius despicitur, illic vitae aditum claudat. I warn you, that while your bodily life endureth, your soul be not found separated from the Church of S. Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, and the power of bi●ding and losing is given, lest that while here in this life, you despise his benefit, in the life to come he shut you out of life. So necessary is it (gentle Readers) by the judgement of learned and holy S. Gregory, to be joined and united to the Church of Rome. Therefore he commendeth in an other place Dominicus the Metropolitan off Carthage for his diligent duty that he declared to the See Apostolic, writing thus unto him. 
Lib. ●. epist. ●2. Indict. 1.  You knowing very well from whence the beginning of priestly Order hath sprung in Africa, do commendably, in that by tendering the See Apostolic, you have recourse to the springe of your Office, by discrete remembrance thereof, and with laudable constancy do persevere in the love of it. For certainly, it is the increase of your honour what soever Reverence and priestly devotion you show to that See. For so you provoke her to tender you again. Thus the Church of Africa in like manner as France and Spain was a child of the mother Church of Rome, was subject to that holy See and directed by the authority thereof, under S. Gregory the Pope at that time. Neither feared S. Gregory notwithstanding such Subjection and obedience on their part, or such authority and government on his part, to be a forrunner of Antichrist over them, as M. jewel would make S. Gregory himself to say and judge.  
Before we pass to the other side of italy, and the East part of the world, let us consider what authority S. Gregory practised in the Islands lying about these Continent lands of France, Spain, and Africa. And first of our own country of England which under this blessed Pope and by his holy means was converted from paganism and infidelity to the faith and Christianite.  
The Supreme authority that S. Gregory practised over all that part of Brittanny which is now called England, 
In Interrogationi●●s B. Augustini Cap. 9 & Be●a lib. 1. ca 27  appeareth by that he writeth to S. Augustin our blessed Apostle the first archbishop of Caunterbury, in these words. Britanniarum omnes episcopos tuae fraternitati committimus, ut indocti doceantur, infirmi persuasione roborentur, perversi authoritate corrigantur. All the Bishops of Britanny we commit to thy Brotherhood, to th'intent the unlearned may be instructed, 
England.  the weak may by thy persuasion be strengthened, and the froward by authority be corrected. In these words the Archebishopp of Caunterbury is constituted and appointed by Pope Gregory his Legate in the Church of England, and to occupy in all the provinces of the same the place of the See Apostolic. And what childishness were it for S. Gregory to appoint one that him liked, by whose authority other Bishops might be corrected, if he himself had no authority in the Country, but were a mere foreign Bishop, as his successors now (after the quiet possession of so many hundred years), are called and esteemed of such, as have forsaken not only that obedience, but also that Faith and religion, in the which we Englishmen were first made Christian men, and in the which we have continued almost these thousand years?  
In Corsica and Sardinia two other Islands lying in this west part of the world, between Italy and Africa, 
Corsica.  what Supreme authority S. Gregory practised, his epistles do witness. By virtue of this authority whereas the bishopric of Sagon in the Island of Corsica had been a long time vacant, he chargeth Leo a bishop of that Country to take charge of the same writing thus unto him. 
Lib. 1. Epist. 76.  Quoniam ecclesiam Sagonensem ante annos plurimos obeunte eius pontifice omnino destitutam agnovimus, fraternitati tuae visitationis eius operam duximus iniungendan. Because we understand the Church of Sagon by the decease of the bishop, hath these many years been utterly desti●uted, we thought good to enjoin to you the visitation thereof. And in the next epistle following he transferreth Martinus bishop of an other diocese in that Island to this bishopric of Sagon in these words. 
Lib. eodem Epist. 77.  In ecclesia Sagonensi quae iam diu pontificis auxilio destituta est, cardinalem te secundum petitionis tuae modum hac authoritate constituimus sine dubio sacerdotam. In the Church of Sagon which hath this long time lacked her bishop, we do appoint you by this authority according to your request the Chief priest, that is, bishop thereof. By the like authority in the same Island, whereas a certain bishop through infirmity was not able to do his Office, he writeth to the foresaid bishop Leo, willing a new election to be made, 
Lib. 7. Epist. 50.  and then (saith S. Gregory) ad nos veniat ordinandus. Let him come to us here to be consecrated. The like he writeth to the same bishop of Corsica Leo, touching an other bishop upon the like occasion in the Incumbents infirmity, to be newly elected, 
Lib. eodem Epist. 51.  of whom thus he writeth. Dum fuerit postulatus cum solemnitate decreti omnium subscriptionibus romborati, vestrarum quoque testimonio literarum, huc sacrandus occurrat. When such a one shall be nominated by the solemn decree confirmed with the subscriptions of each one, let him come hither to be consecrated, with the testimony also of your letters. Such authority practised S Gregory over the bishops of this Island of Corsica.  
In Sardinia to Felix a bishop thereof disobeying the Pope's legate in those parts the archbishop of justinianea, 
Lib. 4. Epist. 7.  S. Gregory writeth these words. It is come to our hearing that your brotherhood refuseth to obey according to the custom, john our brother, 
Sardinia.  bishop of justinianea the first, and that you will not subscribe neither to his decree, neither to the relation which he made unto us according to the Custom. If this be so, we are very sorry to see such manifest token of pride in you. We exhort you therefore that laying aside this proud stomach, 
Distri●tam canonicanque disciplinae correctionem contumaciae tuae nos s●●to vlcisce●ter i●aponere.  you cease not to obey and show yourself lowly to our foresaid brother and fellow bishop, of whom you have been made bishop: so that both God may rejoice in the agreement of your brotherhood, and other also may take good example of you. For if (which we mistrust not) you continue in this pride, know you that we will surely punish your stubbornness, according to the strait and Canonical order of discipline. It appeareth I trow by these words, that S. Gregory in this Country also of Sardinia exercised a Supreme authority, howsoever he misliked the name and Title of universal bishop. By the like authority whereas januarius a bishop of this Country had injured Nere●a a Noble woman, and she had complained thereof to the See Apostolic, S. Gregory writing to the bishop of those complaints and accusations made against him, hath these words unto him. Hortamur ut aut pacifica (si fieri potest) ordinatione definias, aut certé ad deputatum a nobis judicium personam instructam dirigere non omittas. We exhort you either to end the matter peaceably between yourselves, or else not to fail to direct some instucted party (in your behalf) to the judgement appointed by us. 
Lib. 7. Epist. 55.  And for this purpose I have directed Redemptu●, our Commissioner the bearer hereof, that he may both call the parties to judgement and by the virtue of his travail, put in execution the Sentence. Thus far S. Gregory, and thus without fear of any Antichristian presumption he used a Supreme authority over the bishops off Sardinia, as he did over other of all the west part of the world, as it hath particulary in sundry provinces appeared.  
To pass now to the other side of Italy, the next adjoining land on the East part, is Dalmatia and all the coasts of Illyricum. 
Dalmatia.  In those parts what Supreme authority this learned and holy Pope Saint Gregory (whom Master jewel imagineth to stand most against the Pope's primacy, and wondereth that D. Harding will maintain the same by this holy father's authority) used and practised himself, it shall now in like manner as before by his own epistles commonly extant in his works appear. To all the Bishops of Dalmatia S. Gregory writeth concerning the disobedience of one Natalis a Bishop there, in promoting one Honoratus an archdeacon to the Order of priesthood contrary to his mind and pleasure. For the which disobedience in his letters to the said Bishops S. Gregory pronounceth this sentence against Natalis the disobedient bishop, in these words. 
Lib. 2. Epist. 15. Indict. 10.  We therefore have thought good by the bearer of these presents to warn once again the said Natalis bishop, being with so many letters warned already and yet persisting obstinate, that he restore again Honoratus the archdeacon to his former room at the presence of the bringer hereof. Whom if he restore not, continuing in his contumacy, first we deprive him of the use of the pall (which by the grant of this See he obtained) for his former contumacy paste: But if after the loss of this dignity, he continue yet in the same contumacy, we command him to be removed from the Communion of our Lord's Body and blood. The which his sentence in effect he writeth to Natalis himself threatening him farther a deprivation from his Bishopric, 
Lib. eodem Epist. 14.  if he obeyed not. By this one example it may appear what authority S. Gregory being pope of Rome had and used over the Bishops of Dalmatia.  
To all the Bishops of the coast of Illyricum he writeth sundry letters in which his authority over them is most clear and evident. Whereas about those parts certain bishops by foreign invasions of the Enemy had benespoyled of their Churches and all other livelyhoods, 
Illyricum.  he writeth to the Bishops of Illyricum, being commanded by the Emperor, to receive and harbour those desolate bishops, providing them victuals and all things necessary, that yet they should have no authority in their dioceses, and saith. Nullam eis nos in vestris ecclesijs Authoritatem tribuimus, 
Lib. 1. Epist. 43  sed tamen eos vestris solatijs contineri summopere hortamur. We give them no authority in your Churches. But yet we greatly exhort you to relieve them. This had been a very fond favour of S. Gregory, if he had had no power over them. But what the authority of S. Gregory was over the bishops of Illyricum it may well appear by the cause of Maximus bishop of Salona, 
Lib. 4. Epist. 34 Lib. 5. Epist. 25.  whom for his disobedience S. Gregory suspended, and excommunicated. About whose excommunication when certain of his City had communicated with him, S. Gregory blaming them therefore, saith. Debuistis filii charissimi pensare ordines: 
Epist. 26.  quem sedes Apostolica repellebat, repulsum iri cognoscere. You ought dearly beloved children consider the orders (of the Church.) You ought to know that whom the See Apostolic repelleth, he shall be repelled. But for most evident proofs of his practised authority over the whole provinces of Illyricum, Slavony, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Mysia and all the rest, it is to be considered how far the archbishop of justinianea prima, the Metropolitan and primate of all those countries according to the appointment of Pope Vigilius in the days of justinian the Emperor, was subject to S. Gregory. First whereas all the bishops of Illyricum had elected john to be their archbishop and Metropolitan of justinianea prima, 
Authen. de Eccles. tit. Coll. 9 Ideoque Sancimus.  he confirmeth their election, writing unto them in these words. juxta postulationis vestrae desiderium, praedictum fratrem & coepiscopum nostrum in eo in quo est sacerdotij ordine constitutus, 
Lib. 4. Epist. 9  nostri assensus authoritate firmamus, ratamque nos eius consecrationem habere, dirigentes pallium, indicamus. According to your request we do Confirm by the authority of our Consent our foresaid brother and fellow bishop (john) in the order of priesthood in which he is placed, and sending unto him the pall, we declare that we do ratify and allow his Consecration. To the same john also he writeth, sending him the pall, and making him his legate in those countries as his predecessors had been before made of other Popes. 
Lib. eodem Epist. 15  Pallium ex more transmisimus, & vices vos Apostolicae sedis agere, iterata innovatione decernimus. We have sent you the pall after the Custom. And we decree again of new that you shall occupy the room of the See Apostolic. And whereas the same john had unjustly deposed Adrianus a bishop of those quarters, Pope Gregory restored him, as he witnesseth in his epistles, where thus he writeth. Quia ab antefato joanne primae justinianeae Episcopo contra ius canonesqúe depositus honoris sui gradu carere non potuit, 
Lib. 2. Epist. 7. Indict. 11.  in sua eum reformari ecclesia, atque in propriae dignitatis ordine decrevimus revocari. Because this Adrian being against right and order deposed of john the Bishop of justinianaea, could not so lose his degree, we have decreed that he be restored to his Church and to the degree of his former dignity. In the same letter he willeth that if any other matter can be laid against Adrian the Bishop accused, it be either tried by his Officers or sent over to him, saying. Vel per eos qui nostri sunt vel fuerint in urbe regia responsales, si mediocris est questio cognoscatur, vel huc ad Apostolicam sedem si ardua est, 
Ibidem.  deducatur, quatenus nostrae audienciae sententia decidatur. Either let it be tried by our Officers that are or that shall here after be in the city, if it be a mean question, or else if it be of some difficulty, let it be brought hither to the see Apostolic, by our Audience and Sentence to be decided. Thus all manner of ways, in Confirming of bishops newly elected, in restoring of bishops unjustly deprived, and in final decision of matters of controversy, the authority and Supreme jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome (which now is so much abhorred of the disobedient children of God's Church), is by S. Gregory in all Countries practised. And yet will M. jewel and his fellows by this holy Father go about to overthrow the Pope's Primacy.  

jurisdiction practised in the East. Church.  Hitherto of the West Church, and of the Provinces and Countries thereof, France, Spain, Africa, Illyricum, the Islands of Britanny, Corsica, and Sardinia, we have out of the Epistles of S. Gregory treated, and declared the Supreme authority by him practised over them in Matters Ecclesiastical. Now of the East Church and of some parts thereof for examples sake, 
Corinthe.  I purpose to do the like, as far as by the Registre of his Epistles I shall for this present be informed. S. Gregory writing to all the Bishops of Corinthe, touching Adrian a Bishop accused of certain Crimes, and suddenly dismissed by an agreement made with the party playntif, showing himself nothing pleased with that soddain Agreement commandeth the Matter to be farther examined, and sayeth in his letters unto them these words. 
Gregor. li. 2. Indict. 11. Epist. 38.  Quoniam ea quae dicta sunt, indiscussa remanere non patimur, Sedis nostrae Diaconum ad ea investiganda dirigimus, etc. Because we may not abide those things that are said, to remain undiscussed, we direct for the Examination thereof a Deacon of our See: And why? It followeth. Because the quality of the Crime signified unto us doth vehemently move us not to dissemble that which we have heard. And what needed S. Gregory to send to Corinthe in Grece a Deacon from his See, to examine Matters a fresh, which had been there agreed? Forsooth he sayeth. Cum accusatores & Accusatum inter se fecisse gratiam indicastis, hoc nobis necesse est subtilius perscrutari, ne fortasse eorum sit comparata concordia. Because you have signified unto us that the Accused Bishop and the Accusers have agreed between themselves, we must needs search this Matter more narrowly, lest perhaps this their Agreement be a wrought Matter. Why what if it be? What would you S. Gregory have to do there in those parts, being but a Bishop of Rome? We shall hear by his own words immediately following. Quae si (quod absi●) non ex charitate, sed ex praemio facta constiterit, maiori hoc emendatione plectendum est. If this Agreement shall be found to have proceeded not of charity (which God forbid) but of bribery, this is with more rigour to be punished. Yea. But who shall punish these Greek Bishops, or what pertaineth that to you? This learned Father nothing doubted of this authority, And therefore he saith farther. Nos qui Canonice revelante Deo, mala si quidem verasunt resecare praecedentia festinamus, commissam postmodum culpam sine vindicta nulla ratione dimittimus. We which labour to cut of the former mischiefs according to the Canons, God willing, if they be true, can in no wise suffer a trespass after and a fresh committed to escape with out punishment. Thus far S. Gregory writing universis Episcopis Corinthijs, to all the Bishops of Corinth. It appeareth hereby that the Pope at that time had a Supreme authority over those Bishops, more than M. jewel would gladly he now had over him and his fellows, which bear themselves to for Bishops forsooth. With the like authority writing to john the Bishop of Corinthe of a Redress to be had about the Simony that he and other used, he uttereth these words. Si quid tale aliquid deinceps fieri senserimus, iam non verbis, sed Canonica hoc ultione corrigemus. Et de vobis (quod non oportet) aliud incipiemus habere judicium. 
Gregorius lib. 4. Epist. 55.  If we shall perceive any such thing hereafter to be done, we shall correct it no more with words, but with such punishment as by the Canons is prescribed, and we shall begin to conceive of you an other judgement, which behoveth not. Such authority practised that holy and learned bishop S. Gregory over the bishops of Grece, and yet feared not to be accounted therefore an Antichrist over them. And therefore in his next epistle writing universis episcopis per Helledam provinciam constitutis, 
Lib. eodem Epist. 56.  to all the bishops placed in the province of Grece, properly so called, about the same matters as he wrote before particularly to john the Bishop of Corinthe, he saith unto them these words. Si aliter factum denuo senserimus, districta ac Canonica illud noveritis ultione compesci. If we shall perceive again that you do otherwise (than I have willed you to do) know ye, that it shall be punished straightly and according to the Canons.  
In like manner and about the very same matter of Simony and bribery committed about Spiritual preferments, 
Epirus.  writing to the bishops of Epirus an other part or Grece, S. Gregory after his exhortation, concludeth in this sort. Si (quod non credimus) fieri tale aliquid senserimus, 
Gregori. li. 5. epist. 7.  Canonica illud (ut dignum est) severitate corrigemus. If we shall perceive that you commit any such matter (as we trust you will not) we shall (as it is meet) see it punished by the rigour of the Canons. Thus in Grece itself as well generally as particularly S. Gregory bishop of Rome not only intermeddled by way of exhortation but also governed, Corrected, and Punished by way of authority.  
What authority and jurisdiction S. Gregory practised in Corcyra an Island adjoining to Grece and pertaining properly to the Metropolitan of Nicopolis in Thessalia the determination of a long Controversy between the bishop of Corcyra and the bishop of Isauria touching the jurisdiction of Cassiope a town of that part or Grece, may serve for a sufficient Example. For notwithstanding the determination of the Metropolitan, 
Corcyra.  yet the authority of the bishop of Rome was required to Confirm the same. Therefore S. Gregory writing to Alcysonus the bishop of Corcyra, to whom the Metropolitan of Nicopolis had adjudged the jurisdiction of Cassiope, confirmeth the Sentence of the Metropolitan in these words. 
Grego●ius lib. 12. Indict. 7. epist. 2.  Quoniam Andreas venerabilis memoriae frater noster Nicopolitanus Metropolita, innitente quoque sibi Principali iussione, in quaei causae huius fuerat iniuncta cognitio, prolata (sicut nobis patuit) noscitur statuisse sententia, antefatum Cassiope Castrum sub jurisdictione ecclesiae tuae (quemadmodum semper fuit) debere persistere, Formam eiusdem Sententiae comprobantes, Apostolicae Sedis Authoritate eam favente justitia Comprobamus, Confirmamus, atque per omnia robustam manner Decernimus. Whereas Andrew our brother of reverent memory the Mètropolitane of Nicopolis, by virtue of the Prince's letters, whereby he was set in Commission over this matter, hat●e determined by Solemn Sentence (according as we be informed) that the foresaid town of Cassiope ought to remain in the jurisdiction of your Church, (as it hath always been) we Allowing the Form of that Sentence, do in regard of justice by the authority of the See Apostolic Approve it, Confirm it, and do determine that it remain in his full force and vigour thorough out. And because Mauritius the Emperor had intermeddled in this matter, more than the Canons would well bear, and both at the beginning upon Miss information had pronounced against the bishop of Corcyra, 
Lib. e●dem epist. 3.  Nec iussio eius (quia contra leges & Canon's Data fuerat) habuisset effectum, though yet his Sentence took no place, because it was given against the laws and the Canons, and also afterward had put the bishop of Isauria in possession of the town, notwithstanding the Contrary Sentence of the Metropolitan of Nicopolis (whom yet the Emperor himself had put in Commission both to examine and to end the matter) because I say th● Emperor Mauritius had thus far intermeddled against right and Order of the Church, this learned and holy Father S. Gregory using a discrete and wise moderation, to th'intent he might neither exasperate his Prince, neither yet let fall the Right of the Cause, would neither precipitat his Sentence against the emperors commandment in the behalf of the bishop of Corcyra, lest (as he sayeth of himself) contra iussion●m clementissimi domini Imperatoris, vel (quod absit) in despectum eius al quid facere videamur, 
Epist 3. lib. 12.  He might seem to do any thing either contrary to the commandment of his most gracious Lord the Emperor, or (which God forefende) in contempt of him, neither yet would forsake either the Right of the party, or his own authority. Therefore writing to Bonifacius a deacon of Constantinople, thus he willeth him to do. Dil●ctio tua pietati eius cuncta diligenter insinuet, 
Lib. & Epist. praenot.  atque constanter astruat hoc omnino illicitum, omnino prawm, omnino iniustum & sacris esse valde Canonibus inimicum. Et ideo hoc peccatum temporibus suis introduci in eccl●siae praeiudicium non permittat. Sed quid de hoc judicio iudicatum an tefati quondam Metropolitae judicium contineat, vel a nohis qualiter ea quae ab illo decreta sunt, Confirmata fuerint, suggerat, atque id agere studeat, ut cum eius iussione nostra illic s●ntentia transmit tatur. Quatenus & serenitati ipsius (si●ut dignum est) reseruasse, & rationabiliter correxisse quae malae presumpta sunt videamur. Qua in re omninodanda opera est, ut si fieri potest, etiam iussionem suam ipse tribuat, in qua ea quae a nobis definita sunt, s●ruari praecipiat. Do you diligently signify to his highness all things, and declare unto him boldly that this his doing is utterly unlawful, utterly nought, utterly unjust, and directly repugnant to the holy Canons. And that he suffer not therefore this offence to take place in his days, to the prejudice of the Church. But put him in mind as well of the judgement passed by the foresaid Metropolitan of Nicopolis, as also of our Confirming of his said Sentence, and do what you can that our Sentence with his commandment may take place. To th'intent that it may appear, that both we have reserved the matter to his highness (●s meet is) and also that we have with good reason and right corrected that which hath been done amiss. Wherein you must also labour to get out (if it be possible) a commandment from him, by the which he command to be kept, that which we have determined. By this dealing of that learned Bishop of Rome, we see evidently what authority he had in the east Church, in Grece itself, both to Correct, and to Confirm, and also to Moderate the unadvised and wrongful attempts of Mauritius, an Emperor more wilful and busy against the Church than many of his Predecessors were. 
Abbas V●spergensis in Mauritio.  For the which also (as it may seem) God punished him sharply at the end, when his wife and all his children being murdered before his face, of one of his own subjects, he was last murdered himself also.  
With the like authority he absolved Athanasius a Priest of a certain Monastery in Lycaonia (a part of the lesser Asia) appealing to the See of Rome. 
Lycaonia.  This Athanasius was accused of heresy, and because a certain heretical book was found about him, john the Bishop of Constantinople his patriarch was moved against him. Athanasius speeding himself to Rome and cleared himself there before the Pope, the book also being sent from john of Constantinople to S. Gregory, and information made, how he had dealt therein against the said Athanasius, all things debated and pondered, 
Gregor. li. ●. Epist. 64.  the Pope absolved him in these words. Ab omni te Hereticae peruersitat●s macula juxta professionem tuam liberum esse decernimus, atque catholicum & sincerae fidei in omnibus professorem, atque sequacem (Christi jesu salvatoris gratia) claruisse pronunciamus. Liberam quoque tribuimus licentiam ad tuum Monasterium in tuo te loco vel ordine nihilominus remeare. We decree you (according to your profession) to be free from all spot of wicked heresy, and we pronounce you to be Catholic, and to profess in all points the right faith, and to show yourself to have followed the same by the grace of Christ jesus our Saviour. Also we give you free liberty (notwithstanding this Accusation) to return to your Monastery in your former place or Order. Thus S. Gregory the Pope Corrected in Corinthe and Epirus, Confirmed in Corcyra, and Absolved in Lycaonia (all East parts of the Church) as occasion served, with just right and authority, not fearing to be accounted an Antichrist therefore, or to do any injury to the proper jurisdiction of other metropolitans and patriarchs there. 
Thessalonica.  In Thessalonica an other great City of Grece what the authority of the Bishop of Rome was, and how S. Gregory practised the same, it appeareth in sundry of his Epistles. In a place charging Eusebuis the Bishop thereof with divers other Bishops of that Country, how they should demean themselves in a Synod which was called at Constantinople about the proud Attempt of Cyriacus the patriarch there, and declaring unto them particularly what they should do, and how they should deal therein, 
Gregor. li. 7. Indict. 2. Epist. 60.  he concludeth with them in these words. unde iterum coram Deo & sanctis ipsius admonemus, ut haec omnia summo study, & tota mentis intentione seruetis. Nam si quis (quod non credimus) scripta praesentia aliqua ín part neglexerit, a beati Petri Apostolorum Principis pace se noverit segregatum. Wherefore yet once again we do warn you before God and his Saints, that with all endeavour and whole Intention of mind you keep and observe all these things. For if any man (which we trust not) do neglect these present writings in any part, let him know, he is separated and cut of from the Peace of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles. As much to say, he is excommunicated. It had been a great folly, or rather an extreme impudency for S. Gregory thus to have threatened those Bishops of Grece, and so far to charge them to obey and observe his writings, if his authority over them had been no other, then M. jewel would have the world believe, it was then, or aught now to be. In an other place charging the same Eusebius Bishop of Thessalonica to see corrected certain offenders of his clergy, he writeth thus unto him. Hoec igitur frater charissime diligenter attend, & ita stude, 
Gregor. li. 9 Indict. 4. Epist. 69.  ut filios vestros unitos ac devotos (sicut decet) habere possitis, & hac de causa denuo ad nos querela non redeat. These things therefore dearly beloved Brother mark diligently, and take such heed, that you may keep your children in peace and love (as it becometh) and that of this Matter there come no more Complaint unto us. It had been a great vanity for them which feeled themselves grieved in Grece, having there their metropolitans and patriarch, to run and Complain to Rome and to seek succour there against their own Bishops of the Pope, if the Pope had no authority over their Bishops, or no power to see such Matters redressed.  
Here Perhaps it may be surmised of some that liketh no deal this practised authority of the Bishop of Rome, 
An Objection.  exemplified in S. Gregory himself (who of all other Fathers seemeth most to help M. jewels cause against the Pope's Supremacy) in so many particular Countries and Provinces, not only of the west Church, but also of the East, and of Grece itself, that all this was but of other particular Bishops and metropolitans, and that the Bishop of Rome as a patriarch had authority to Correct, to Absolve, to Confirm, to Excommunicate and so forth, but yet over the other patriarchs themselves, S. Gregory perhaps practised no such authority or Supreme government in Matters Ecclesiastical. And therefore his authority was not Universal, but they were equal to him, and he to them, and so he was not the Head of all. To this I answer, that all were it so, he practised no such authority over any patriarch, yet his authority extending to other Bishop's subject to those patriarchs, 
The Answer.  and at this day, no other patriarch of those four Ancient patriarchs remaining but only the Bishop of Rome and such as he appointeth, both it should yet stand that S. Gregory practised an authority Universal over all those Countries, and also the objection for this present time should nothing help M. jewel and his fellows, all the Supreme Power resting in the only patriarch of Rome at this day.  
But that it may Evidently and clearly appear that Saint Gregory practised an Universal and Supreme authority over all, 
Two things yet to be touched.  None excepted, two things yet farther I will touch, and then return to M. jewel and his Reply. First I will declare out of S. Gregory's own writings as before, that the patriarch of Constantinople, one above all other evermore disobedient to the See of Rome, was subject to the Bishop of Rome, and then by general testimonies, that over all Churches, the See of Rome hath the Primacy, pre-eminence, and principal authority.  
It is not unknown to the learned with what pride and Ambition john the patriarch of Constantinople because of the Imperial Court remaining there, 
Constantinople.  coveted to be called the Universal Bishop, and that in such a sense as being the Only Bishop over all and for all, as we have before out of S. Gregory declared: who is to be thought neither to have been ignorant what meaning that john had in that Name or Title, neither to have been so unwise or uncharitable as to charge him with a wrong meaning, not intended by the patriarch. For thereby both a great folly would have appeared in him before all other churches, which had that Matter in debate, and also he had but increased the Emperor Mauritius his displeasure and indignation who both assisted and upholded john of Constantinople herein, and was otherwise all ways to S. Gregory a heavy Lord. In this Matter therefore, in this proud unlawful attempt of the patriarch of Constantinople, what did the Bishop of Rome, or how demeaned he himself therein? We shall see. First Pelagius the Pope predecessor to S. Gregory under whom this john of Constantinople attempted this Title, and assembled a Synod for the establyshing thereof, Directis literis ex Authoritate Sancti Petri Apostoli, 
Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 36.  eiusdem Synodi Acta cassavit, Directing his letters thither made utterly voide the Acts of that Synod by the authority of S. Peter the Apostle, 
Responsalis.  and forbade his Deacon which remained as Legate or depute of the See Apostolic at Constantinople not to keep him company. This did Pelagius under whom that Ambitious Title of john the patriarch of Constantinople was first attempted. But what did Saint Gregory his next Successor, a man of such humility and lowliness, that he would not suffer (as Master jewel allegeth) the word of Commandment to be used to him? Did he think you (Master jewel) not practise the like authority, as his predecessors did? Or because he was a holy and learned Father, abhorred he (think you?) such kind of superiority and primacy over other? As the bishops of Rome, his predecessors used? Nay he saith expressly, speaking of the proud disobedience of Maximus a bishop of Salona in Illyricum, who had in the open city rend in pieces, the Pope's letters, Ante paratus sum mori, 
Gregori. li. 7. Indict. 1. epist. 1.  quàm beati Petri Ecclesiam meis diebus degenerare. I will rather suffer death itself, then that the Church of blessed Peter should degenerate in my days, meaning and writing expressly of the authority and obedience dew to the same. Therefore in this Cause of john of Constantinople, wherein the Emperor Mauritius also (a heavy Lord always of S. Gregory) took part, and commanded the Pope, Vt pro appellatione frivoli nominis inter eos scandalum generari non debeat, that upon the Title of a trifling Name there should arise no Offence between them, 
Grego●ius lib. 6. epist. 30.  john the patriarch and the Pope, as first he dealt with the patriarch by all gentle means, so at the length he followed the Sentence of his predecessor Pelagius. First he wrote to john himself the patriarch, a long, learned, and loving letter, labouring with him by all means possible, that he should leave that vain and odious title, which so fond and wickedly he attempted: Contra evangelicam sententiam, 
Lib. 4. epist. 38. Lib. eodem Epist. 34.  contra beatum quoque Petrum Apostolum & contra omnes Ecclesias, contraque Canonum statuta. Against the Sentence of the gospel (breaking humility) against the blessed Apostle S. Peter (affecting unlawful superiority) and against all Churches (coveting to be a bishop Alone) and last of all against the decrees of the Canons. And of this his dealing thus he saith. Ego per Responsales meos semel, & bis verbis humilibus hoc, 
Lib. eodem Epist. 38.  quod in tota ecclesia peccatur, corripere studui. Nunc per me scribo. Quicquid facere humiliter debui, non omisi. I have by my deputies once, and by humble words twice, laboured to redress this matter, wherein the whole Church is offended. Now I writ myself. Whatsoever I ought to have done by the way of humility, I have not omitted. And because the Emperor (as I said before) bolstered up this john the patriarch in his Attempt, and would not hear the Pope to the contrary, S. Gregory not making any account of his own person, but having an eye to the place and room that he occupied, writeth thus to Constantia the Empress. Haec in causa nequaquam me pietas vestra despiciat. 
Gregorius lib. eodem. Epist. 34.  Quia etsi peccata Gregorij tanta sunt, ut pati talia debeat, Petri Apostoli peccata nulla sunt, ut vestris temporibus pati ista mereatur. Let not your godliness despise me in this matter. For although the sins of Gregory be so great, that they ought to suffer these things, yet the sins of the Apostle Peter are none at all, that in your days he should so suffer. Thus that holy and meek Father dealt both with john the patriarch himself, and with the Empress, at the first. Whereof also he writeth to the Emperor himself Mauritius these words. 
Lib. 4 Epist. 32.  Ego dominorum iussionibus obedientiam praebens, praedicto consacerdoti meo & dulciter scripsi & humiliter. Vt ab hac inanis gloriae appetitione sese emendet, admonui. Si igitur me audire volverit, habet devotum fratrem: Si vero in superbia persistit, iam quid assequatur aspicio. I obeying the Commandments of my Lords have written to my foresaid fellow priest both softly and humbly. I have warned him to amend himself of this ambition and vain glory. Therefore if he will hear, he shall have me a loving brother. But if he continue in his pride, I see what will become of him. Thus far S. Gregory proceeding with that Patriarch by the way of gentleness and humility. But in fine what did he? Forsooth as his predecessor Pelagius had done before him, so he did. That is. Whereas after the death of this john, Cyriacus his successor in Constantinople, had called a Synod upon some other pretence, minding in colour thereof, to establish this vain Title of Universal bishop, as being the One Only Bishop for all, S. Gregory writing thereof to Eusebius the bishop of Thessalonica and many other bishops together, and signifying unto them how Pelagius his predecessor had condemned a former Synod called about the matter, forbidding his Legate to keep company with john the patriarch at that time, he saith. 
Gregor. lib. ●. Epist. 69 Indict. 2.  Cuius rectitudinis zelo per omnia inhaerentes, statuta ipsius sine refragatione Deo protegente seruamus. Whose upright zeal we cleaving unto in all points, do keep also his determinatyons without denial by God's help. In which words he protesteth to do as his predecessor had done. And therefore writing to Anianus a Deacon of Constantinople that he should in no wise keep company with john the patriarch there, according to the Sentence of his Predecessor, he saith. Sicut tibi iam transactis epistolis scripsi, nunquam cum eo procedere praesumas. As I have before in other letters passed between us written unto you, see that you never presume to come abroad in his company. 
Lib. 4. Epist. 39  And because the Emperor Mauritius at the same time by the procurement of john the patriarch had written to S. Gregory to be at peace with the Patriarch, whereby this Anianus the Deacon for fear of the emperors high displeasure doubted what he might do, 
Ibidem.  S. Gregory writeth thus unto him. Tua dilectio in nullo trepidet. Omnia quae in hoc seculo videt alta esse contra veritatem, pro veritate despiciat: In omnipotentis Dei gratia atque B. Petri Apostoli adiutorio confidat. Vocem veritatis recolat Dicentis. Maior est qui in caelis est, quam qui in mundo. Et in hac causa quicquid agendum est, 
joan. 14.  cum summa Authoritate agate. Fear not. All things that you see in this world to be lofty against the Truth, for the Truths sake despise it. Trust in the Grace of Almighty God and of his blessed Apostle Peter. Remember what Truth himself said. He is greater which is in heaven, than which is in the world. Last of all whatsoever is to be done in this Matter, Do it with Full authority. It had been more than a Vanity for S. Gregory thus to charge that Deacon of Constantinople not to keep company with his own patriarch, but to deal with him with full authority, notwithstanding the high displeasure of the Emperor likely thereof to ensue, if he had not a power and authority over the patriarch, and a good ground to stay himself on, against ●he Prince's Indignation. Verily his ground was the Supreme authority over the whole Church granted to S. Peter whose successor he was, and by virtue whereof this Holy and learned Father knew right well that the Church off Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome. And so expressly this holy Father writeth in an other place, saying. De Constantinopolitana Ecclesia (quod dicunt) quis eam dubitet Sedi Apostolicae esse subiectan? Quod & dominus pijssimus Imperator, & frater noster Eusebius eiusdem Civitatis Episcopus assiduè profitentur. As touching that they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubteth but she is subject to the See Apostolic? 
Gregor. li. 7. Epist. 63.  Which thing both our most Gracious Lord the Emperor, and our brother Eusebius Bishop of the same City do daily profess. So far this Matter was confessed and undoubted at that time. And to give thee, good Reader, a clear example hereof in few words, hearken what S. Gregory writeth in the very next Epistle following. Thus he writeth to john the Bishop of Syracuse, touching the Bishop of Constantinople, as the superscription and title of the Epistle lelleth us. 
Gregor. li. eodem. Epist. 64  In quodam Crimine Byzancenus primas fuerat accusatus, & pijssimus Imperator eum juxta statuta Canonica per nos voluit judicari. Sed acceptis decem auri libris tunc Theodorus Magister obstitit ut minime fieret. Tamen pijssimus Imperator admonuit ut transmitteremus, & quicquid esset Canonicum faceremus. The Primate of Byzance (otherwise called Constantinople) ●ad been accused of a certain Crime. And the most virtuous Emperor willed him to be judged by us according to the decrees of the Canons. But Theodorus the Master being bribed with ten pow●des of gold found the means to stay the matter hitherto. Yet notwithstanding the most Virtuous Emperor warned me to send over, and to do whatsoever was agreeable to the Canons. This is that which S. Gregory said, both the Emperor and the Bishop of that City acknowleadged the Church of Constantinople to be subject to the Bishop of Rome.  
By reason of this authority and jurisdiction the Bishop of Rome had customably a Legate remaining at Constantinople, to execute such justice, as thereunto appertained. So S. Gregory himself in the days of his Predecessors was Legate at Constantinople, at which time he wrote his exposition upon job, as both he himself writing to Leander a holy Bishop of Spain, and Venerable Bede in the History of our Country recordeth. So also when Phocas came to the Empire violently and by outrageous treason, and therefore not finding there a Legate from the See Apostolic, seemed to be offended therewith, 
In Epist. ad L●a idrum prefixa expos. in job.  S. Gregory writeth unto him thereof in this wise. Quod permanere in palatio juxta antiquam consu●tudinem Apostolicae Sedis Diaconum vestra serenitas non invenit, non hoc meae negligentiae, s●d gravissimae nec●ssitatis fuit. Whereas your highness found not in your Court a Deacon of the See Apostolic according to the Ancient Custom there to remain, 
Beda lib. 2. Cap. 1  it proceeded not of any my negligence, 
Gregor. li. 11. Epist. 43.  but of a most urgent necessity. Such was the Custom, and such was the authority of the Bishop of Rome in the time of S. Gregory and by himself Confessed, P●actysed, and of his Ancestors Received. authority I say not only over all chief Provinces of the West and Latin Church, but of the East and Greek Church also: yea and over Constantinople itself, such an other Check mate to Rome in Spiritual jurisdiction, as Carthage of Africa was in Temporal Empire.  
Thus far hitherto of particular Provinces (a few for example) of the West and East Church, 
Supreme Interdiction over the w●ole Church.  and of the Supreme jurisdiction in Matters Ecclesiastical, practised by the holy Father S. Gregory Bishop of Rome, over them. To come now to the last point, for a Clear and undoubted witness of a Supreme authority over the whole Church, let us consider a few sayings of this holy Father, as M. jewel himself calleth him, and that often. First for receiving Appeal from any other Metropolitan or patriarch, in case that any su●h wanted, 
Gregor. li. 11. Epist. 54.  he saith. ●i dictum fu●rit quia nec Metropolitam habuit, nec Patriarcham, dicand●m est, quia a Seed Apostolica, quae omniu● Eccl●siarum Caput est, causa audienda ac dirimenda fuerat. I● it be said that (the party accused) had not any Metropolitan or patriarch, it is to be said, that the Cause ought to be heard and determined of the See Apostolic, which is The Head of all Churches. Here lo by the way M. jewel you have the Clear Sentence of One holy Father (by yourself so confessed and called) and that with in your first 600. years which in plain terms calleth the See Apostolic, The Head of all Churches, as much truly, as Head of the Universal Church. 
Head of all Churches.  Wherefore you must, if you will stand to your promise twice repeated in Pulpit and more them twice set forth in print, enen here Yield and Subscribe. Or else say plainly, that you stand upon Terms, and seek not the Matter. So you shall proclaim yourself an earnest trifler, and an open Mocker of God's people. In an other Epistle written to S. Gregory by john a bishop, and registered among his Epistles, thus we read. 
Lib. 10 Epist. 56  Quibus ausibus ego sanctissimae illae Sedi, quoe universali Ecclesiae ●ura sua transmittit praesumpserim obuiare? With what attempt should I presume to withstand that most holy See (of Rome) which sendeth forth her laws to the universal Church? As much to say. Of whom the Universal Church of Christ is directed, instructed, and governed. But let us hear again S. Gregory himself speak. Thus he saith. Ea quae semel Apostolicae Sedis Authoritate sancita sunt, nihil egent firmitatis. 
Gregor. li. 7. Epist. 115.  Such things as are once decreed by the Authority of the See Apostolic, need no farther strength or Confirmation. In like manner in an other place, speaking of a Synod which the patriarch off Constantinople would have kept, with other Bishops, and writing thereof to certain Bishops that they should in no wise consent thereunto, he saith. 
Gregor. li. 7. Epist. 69.  Sine Apostolicae Sedis Authoritate atque Consensu nullas quaecunque acta fuerint, vires habent. Whatso ever things shall be done (or pass in that Synod) they are of no value or effect without the authority and Consent off the See Apostolic. And to show that all Bishops (none excepted) were subject to the bishop of Rome, when any thing was committed against the Canons, for otherwise they were brethren and equal, this One place of S. Gregory doth sufficiently and expressly declare it. Writing of the Bishop of Constantinople, how being accused of a certain crime, first by bribery he found the means the Matter came not to the Pope's hearing, but afterward he seemed to submit himself to judgement, and to speak fair, S. Gregory writeth thereof in this sort. Valde dubium est utrum puré, an certe quia à coepiscopis suis impetitur, 
Lib. eodem. Epist. 64  nobis modo talia loquatur. Nam quod se dicit Sedi Apostolicae subijci, si qua culpa in Episcopis invenitur, n●scio quis ●i Episcopus subiectus non sit. Cum vero Culpa non exigit, omnes secundum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt. I doubt very much, whether he speak now thus unto us simply and truly, or else because he is driven thereunto by his fellow Bishops. For as for that he saith, he is subject to the See Apostolic, verily if any Trespass be found in Bishops, I know no Bishop, but he is subject unto it. But as long as no Trespass committed requireth (such Subjection) all by the way of humility are equal. In these words S. Gregory teacheth us three points all worthy to be noted in this great time of schism and disobedience. 
Trhee things to be noted.  First, that the Bishop of Constantinople one of the chiefest patriarchs professed himself to be Subject to the See of Rome. secondarily that all Bishops none excepted if they be found faulty in any point, are also Subject to that Chief and Principal See of Rome. Thirdly and last that this is no servitude (as M. jewel otherwhere calleth it) or mere subjection as subjects are under their Prince, or the servant under his Master. For not offending, all are equal, and that by the way of humility. Which (offence being committed) must be changed into rigour, and authority.  
Of this authority and principality not only in Correcting that is amiss, 
Grego●ius lib. 2. epist. 30.  but also otherwise, S. Gregory in an other place thus writeth. Quanto Apostolica Sedes Deo Authore Cunctis praelata constat Ecclesijs, tanto inter multiplices curas & illa nos valdé sollicitat, ubi ad consecrandum Antistitem nostrum expectatur arbitrium. As far as the See Apostolic is well known to be set over all Churches by the Appointment of God himself, so far among other manifold cares, this also maketh us very ho●full, when to the Consecrating of a bishop, our Arbitrement is attended. In this point therefore also of Confirming bishops to be consecrated and ordained, we see the authority of the bishop of Rome was required, and that because Cunctis Deo Authore praelata constat ecclesiis, it is known to be set over all Churches (without exception) by the order and appointment of God himself. Of the which we heard before out of the words also of S. Gregory that in three several places of holy scripture, Christ had so appointed it: 
Before. fol. 1. b.  making Peter head of the rest. These places of holy Scripture are of S. Gregory in an other epistle applied so again, where thus he writeth. 
Gregorius. Lib. 6. Epist. 37.  Quis nescit sanctam ecclesiam in Apostolorum Principis soliditate firmatam? Qui firmitatem mentis traxit in nomine: ut Petrus a Petra vocaretur? Cui veritatis voce dicitur. Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum. Cui rursus dicitur. Et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos. I terumque, Simon joannis amas me? Pasce oves meas. Itaque cum multi sint Apostoli, pro ipso tam●n principatu sola Apostolorum principis Sedes in Authoritate convaluit. Quae in tribus locis unius est. Ipse enim sublimavit sedem in qua eti●m quiescere, & praesentem vitam (agere) dignatus est. Ipse deco●auit sedem in qua evangelistam discipulum misit. Ipse firmavit s●dem, in qua septem annis quàmuis discessurus sedit. Who knoweth not that the Holy Church is strengthened in the solidite and fastness of the Prince of the Apostles? Who the sure steadfastness that he had in mind, took also in his Name, that he was called Peter of Petra, the Rock. To whom by the Mouth of Truth itself it is said. To thee I will give the k●yes of th● kingdom of heaven. To whom again it is said. 
M●th. 16. Lu●. 22.  And thou b●ing sometime converted, Confirm thy brethren. And again. Sin on the Son of john, lovest thou me? F●de my sheep. Therefore whereas there are many Apostles, yet for the Principalite itself and Chiefty, Only the See of the Prince of the Apostles hath praevailed in authority. Which See in three places is one persons. For he exalted the See of Rome wherein he Rested. He honoured the See of Alexandria, sending his disciple the Evangelist thither. He established the See of Antioch, remaining there himself 7. years, though to depart.  
To Conclude, evident it is by S. Gregory, that the See Apostolic (whereof he saith, 
Li●. 5. Epist. 64. Li●. 6. Epist. 37. Lib. 7. Epist. 64 Lib 11 Epist. 54.  Cui praesidemus in the which we do govern) Pro ipso principatu sola in Authoritate convaluit. Only praevayled in authority, to have the Chiefty and Principalite. To that See he saith, All bishops are subject, si qua culpa in ep●scopis invenitur: if any fault be found in bishops. This See he calleth Caput omnium ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches, and Cunctis praelatam ecclesiis. 
Li. 2. epist. 30. lib. 7. Epist. 115.  Set over all Churches. What soever this See doth determine, nihil egent firmitatis they need no other strength, and without the authority of this See, Nullas quoecumque acta fuerint vires hab●nt, 
Li 7. epist. 69.  whatsoever doth pass in Synod, shall have no force. Of the which also (agreeing with S. Gregory) S. Augustin saith, 
A● Honora●u●d● v●●lu. Cred. Cap. 17.  Cui primas dare nolle, vel summae prof●cto impi●tatis est, v●l praecipitis arrogantiae to the which not to give and grant the primacy, soothly it is a point either of most high wickedness, or of headling arrogancy. And thus is in deed the estate of the See of Rome maintained by the authority of this holy Father. Briefly thus much is D. harding furthered by the authority of S. Gregory.  
And that every English heart that any thing regardeth the benefit of his Faith, that rejoiceth in the profession of Christianyte, and that thinketh himself bound to allmyghty God, that ever he and his forefathers were brought to the faith of jesus Christ, and to the knowledge of a better life hereafter after to come, that every such I say may have the better cause, the more to consider, the sooner to acknoweleadg, the gladlier to embrace the Primacy of the bishop of Rome so universally practised of this holy and learned Father S. Gregory, I beseech every English Reader diligently to mark and bear away the testimony and witness, that Venerable Bede the most of learned light that ever shined in our County, giveth to this holy Father, and how much by his judgement we are bound and beholding unto him above all other men. Thus Beda writeth of him in his ecclesiastical History, which for the comfort of my dear Country in this storm of schism I have of late set forth in the English tongue. 
B●l●●li. 2. Cap. 1.  Of this holy Pope Gregory it becometh me in this our history of the Church of England more largely to speak. Because by his diligence he converted our nation, that is, 
S. ●regor● our Apostle.  the Englishmen from the power of Satan to the faith of Christ. Whom we may well, and also must call our Apostle. For as soon as he was high Bishop over the whole world, and appointed gowerner of the Churches lately converted to the faith, he made our nation the Church of Christ, which had been ever vn●ill that time the bondslave of Idols, So that we may lawfully pronounce of him the saying of the Apostle. 
1. Cor. 9  That although he were not an Apostle to others, yet he was unto us. For the signet and token of his Apostleship we are in our Lo●de. Thus far Venerable Beda. This is that holy Pope, our Apostle, which Practised this Universal authority over all the parts of Christendom. Let us never think (Christian english Reader) that an Antichrist (as the Pope for his universal Supremacy is called) should bring us Englishmen to the Faith of Christ. Neither let us doubt, but whose godly Foundations God hath so many hundred years prospered, his doctrine, Religion, and practised authority, was good and godly.  
jewel. 
pag. 227.  If S. Gregory were now alive, he would cry out, as he did to the Emperor Mauritius. O tempora, o Mores. O what a time i● this? O what manners are these?  
Stapleton Verily if S. Gregory were now alive, he would cry out as he did to the Emperor Mauricius, nor against us which continue in the Catholic faith planted by holy Augustin, whom he sent to preach the faith unto us, whom he created the f●rst archbishop of Caunterbury, 
* Gregor. li. 5. e●ist. 54 59 l●b. 7. epist. 5. 30.1●3. li. 9 epist. 52.58. lib. 12. epist. 31.  whom he in his epistles commendeth and extolleth, not against us which continue in the obedience of the Apostolic See, whereof in his time he was the governor through out all Christendom, as hath been declared. Which celebrat the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Pray for the souls departed, Call upon the blessed Saints, Adore Christ in the blessed Sacrament, Acknowleadg the seven Sacraments of Christ's Church, all which things holy S. Gregory practised himself, but he would cry out against you M. jewel, which call the works of our Apostle whom he sent, 
jewel. pag. 187.  the kill of the godly, which deny the greatest benefit that ever God gave to our nation (the converting of us from infidelity to the faith) to make yourselves the Apostles of the same, which call that holy man S. Gregory himself an Antichrist, and all his successors downward for usurping (not that name which both he abhorred, and no other Pope ever used) but the authority of supreme gowernment over the whole Church of Christ, of S. Gregory so clearly Practised, which being in the room of a bishop, do condemn all the bishops that ever sat in that room before you, against you M. jewel, which corrupt the sayings of S. Gregory, which call his writings Fables, which call him an obscure and a late Doctor other where, against you he would cry out, and might most justly cry out, 
jewel. pag. 420.  O tempora O Mores. O what a time is this, O what manners are these?  
jewel. Thus much is Master Harding furthered by the authority of S. Gregory.  
Stapleton. And thus much is M. jewel furthered by his long staying upon S. Gregory. Verily D. Harding is so much furthered by the authority of. S. Gregory, that if M. jewel will stand to the same, evidence shall force him to confess and acknoweleadg the Charge and principality of the whole Church to have been committed to Peter by Christ, and to have been practised by S. Gregory his Successor thorough out all Christendom. Thus much are we furthered M. jewel by the authority of S. Gregory.  
Harding. 
Divis. 5  S. Cyprian declaring the contempt of the high Priest Christ's Vicar in earth, to be cause of schisms and Heresies, writeth thus to Cornelius Pope and Martyr. Neither have Heresies or schisms risen of any other occasion, then of that, the Priest of God is not obeyed, and that one Priest for the time not be Church, and one judge for the time, instead of Christ is not thought upon.  
jewel. 
Pag. 227 T●e .273 Untruth Slanderous.  The .94. Untruth. For S. Cyprian speaketh these words of every several Bishop, not only of the Bishop of Rome.  
Stapleton. If S. Cyprian speak not only of the Bishop of Rome as you confess he doth M. jewel, than he speaketh of the Bishop of Rome. D. Harding saith no more in the words alleged. Ergo it is no Untruth that he said. Again D. Harding meaned not, that this place of S. Cyprian should be spoken only of the Bishop of Rome, but that it is also well and truly understanded of every Several Bishop in his own diocese, not only of of the Bishop of Rome. Therefore in this point D. Harding and M. jewel do agree. And therefore it is no Untruth in the one, except it be in both.  
Harding. To whom if the whole brotherhood (that is, the whole number of Christian people which be brethren together and were so called in the primitive Church) would be obedient etc.  
jewel. 
The .204 Untruth mere Slanderous.  The .95. Untruth. Standing in the manifest corruption and falsifying of S. Cyprian.  
Stapleton. Where probabilite and reason leadeth us to the contrary there is no manifest corruption or falsifying of the writer. Manifest corruption importeth a wilful and purposed guile. No such to have been in this place, if I talked with a Bishop of Sarrisbery, and not with M. jewel, I durst to make him judge. For first if this place be meant not only of every several Bishop, but of the Bishop of Rome also, by M. jewels own grant, then being with us Catholics a sure and undoubted truth that the whole brotherhood subject to the Bishop of Rome, is the whole number of Christian people, to interpret that whole brotherhood, as D. Harding doth for the whole number of Christian people, it is so far from any manifest corruption or falsifying, that it is no corruption o● falsyfying at all. If M. jewel will say, that this presupposed opinion of the whole brotherhood, that is of the whole number of Christian people subject to the Bishop of Rome, is a wrong and false opinion, he shall understand our opinion herein is such as we have learned of the holy Fathers of Christ's Church. Chrysostom saith, 
Chrysost. lib. 2. de sacerdotio.  Christ did shed his blood, to redeem those sheep, the charge of whom he committed both to Peter, and to the successors of Peter. I trust M. jewel will exclude no part of Christian people from these sheep, which Christ with his blood redeemed. Then by Chrisostoms' judgement, are all Christian people the flock not only of Peter but of Peter's successors also, who are the Bishops of Rome. S. Ambrose speaking of the Church which S. Paul calleth the Pillar and ground of truth, addeth, Cuius hody Rector est Damasus. 
Ambro. In Commentar. in 1. Timo. 3  The ruler of which Church at this day is Damasus, who then was Pope of Rome. This Church which is the pillar and ground of truth, is no particular Church, or part of Christ's flock, but the Universal Church and the whole number of Christian people. Venerable Bede calleth the Pope S. Gregory, 
Beda lib. 2. cap. 1. Histor.  praelatum Ecclesijs iamdudum ad fidem conversis, gowerner of the Churches lately converted to the faith. From those Churches none are excluded. S. Hierom saith that Christ made Peter the Master of his house, 
Hieronymus in cap. Mar. 14  that under one shepherd there may be one faith. In the house of Christ and under one shepeard is one brotherhood, the whole number of Christian people. Thus then to interpret the whole brotherhood subject to the Bishop of Rome for the whole number of Christian people, as D. harding doth is no Untruth at all, nor no falsifying of S Cyprian at all, seeing that by M. jewels own grant S. Cyprian speaketh there as well of the Bishop of Rome, as of other Bishops.  
Harding. 
Divis. 6  Among the Canons made by the 318. Bishops at the Nicene Council, which were in number 70. (96.) and all burnt by Heretics in the East Church save xx. etc.  
jewel. The .96. Untruth joined with folly as shall appear.  
Stapleton. 
The .275 Untruth Slanderous.  If this be an Untruth, and that joined with a folly, then have you yourself M. jewel uttered an Untruth, and that with a folly. For these are your own words M. jewel, in your text following.  
jewel. 
Pag. 234 The .276 Untruth For that Athanasius in that place saith no such thing.  The true Athanasius, himself, of whom we make no doubt, saith, that the Arrians of Alexandria, burnt the Catholic men's books and (276) therewithal the Canons of the Council of Nice, in the time of the Emperor Constantius, julius being then Bishop of Rome.  
Stapleton. And for this purpose you quote unto us in the margin: Athanasius in Epist. ad Orthodoxos. Now M. jewel though this be a manifest Untruth that you report of that Epistle of Athanasius, (for in that whole Epistle there is no one word of the Canons of the Council of Nice, read and see the Epistle who list) yet it is a far oversight in you to note that for an Untruth in D. Harding which yourself avoucheth afterwards for certain and true. Thus we might shortly Return upon you this Untruth by your own assertion affirming the same. But because one Untruth is not well defended by an other Untruth, though the adversary may so be answered, we tell you therefore again that such Canons and in the number above mentioned were burnt in Alexandria, by the Arrians. We bring for witness thereof the Epistle of Athansius and other Bishops writing so to Marcus the Pope of Rome, and complaining thereof in their letter to him. We bring you also an Epistle of julius the Pope living at the very time of the Nicene Council, writing to the Bishops of the East, such as had themselves been at the Council, and reporting in that Epistle to the number of xxiiij Canons beside the twenty which commonly are to be read in that Council. Beside all this, many other Canons are alleged as of the Nicene Council by diverse of the Fathers, which are not at this present to be found in the Nicene Council. 
In the disprove M. nowels reproof. Pag. 95. b  diverse of which Canons are particularly mentioned, gathered together and set forth of late against M. Nowell. It shall not need here to repeat them. To that place I refer the Reader. Is not all this sufficient to prove that such Canons were lost? Is not Athanasius and julius sufficient to clear D. Harding of this Untruth? No. M. jewel will find a shift for them both. What is that? First as touching the Epistle of Athanasius to Marcus, he saith it is forged. But how doth he prove that? For sooth after that he had affirmed (as you heard in his words before) that the true Athanasius writeth of the burning of these Canons to julius the Pope, he addeth.  
jewel. 
The .277 Untruth in Slandering Athanasius. The .278 Untruth For Marcus was Pope only. 2. years. Platina.  But M. hardings Athanasius, is either so forgetful or his (277.) lies or so impudent and careless what he say, that he maketh piteous complaint of the same burning unto Marcus, that was Bishop in Rome before julius and was dead (278.) at the left ix years before the Canons were burnt. By such Doctors M. Harding upholdeth the state of Rome.  
Stapleton. Let us suppose it were true that Athanasius wrote to julius, after the death of Marcus, of the burning of those Canons of the Council of Nice. Is it not possible that those Canons were twice burnt in two sundry Copies at two sundry times? Might they not be burned first in the days of Marcus, and then (having of him an other Copy of the Canons, as by his letters to him Athanasius required) that other Copy be burned in the days of julius? What Contradiction, or what impossibility is there in this matter? Or how is M. jewel ever able to prove that such Canons were not burnt before the time of julius? 
Socrates' l●. 1 ca 35.30. et seq.  Certainly the heresy of the Arrians troubled the Church of Alexandria where those Canons were burnt before the days of Pope julius, and Athanasius was banished in the reign of Constantin the Great, by the means of the Arrians, Eusebius, Theognis, Maris and other, having grievous and sundry accusatyons laid against him. It is not impossible nor incredible that those which found the means to banish the Bishop, were also able to spoil his library, and to burn his books, especially those Canons, wherein their wicked heresy, was with most weighty authority condemned. Considered also, that in the Canons now extant of that General Council of Nice, there is no one word nor half word against the Arrian heresy, against the which yet that Council was principally and chief assembled. Thus though it were true that the Canons were burnt in the time of julius, and that Athanasius wrote thereof unto julius, (as M. jewel untruly saith, he did) yet were not Athanasius therefore a forgetful liar, impudent, or careless what he say (as it pleaseth the grave head of M. jewel to call him) but both sayings might right well be true, and stand together, the troublous estate of the Church of Alexandria considered as well in the days of Marcus, Constantin yet living, as of julius in the reign of Constantius his Son.  
But now seeing Athanasius writeth no such thing of these Canons to julius, at the lest in the place by M. jewel alleged, how forgetful of his lies, how impudent is M. jewel, and how careless what he say, or what he writ? And who will trust M. jewel in doubtful matters, which thus deceiveth us in plain things? What is Impudence, if this be not? For as I told you before M. jewel, Athanasius in his epistle, Ad Orthodoxos, written in the time of julius successor of Marcus, 
Athanasius most Impudently belied of ●aster jewel.  hath no one word of the Canons of that Council of Nice. You report him untruly. You deceive your Reader. Or else you were deceived by some other, whose eyes, not your own, it may seem you used in this matter. For Read the Epistle. M. jewel. And if Athanasius writ any one word of the Canons of the Council of Nice, in all that Epistle, let me never be taken for Christian man more. He saith in that Epistle. Ecclesiis & baptisteriis flammae iniectae. Fire was cast upon the Churches, 
Athanasius in epis. ad Orthodoxos.  and upon the fountes. And again. Sacros Scripturarum libros quos in Ecclesiis inveniebant comburere. That the heathen and infidels burned the books of holy Scripture, such as they found in the Churches. Of any other burning or of the Canons of the Nicene Council, there is not one word, nor half word. By such Impudent Untruths M. jewel will deface and bring out of credit the writings of the old Fathers.  
Now whereas you say farther that Marcus, which was bishop of Rome before julius, was dead at the least ix. years before the Canons were burnt, if it were true that in the time of julius those Canons were burnt, yet it will ill follow that it was jx. years after the death of Marcus. For by the best and most exact accounts of Chronographers, 
Damasus & Platina in Marco.  even of Henricus Pantaleon of basil, this Marcus was Pope but two years, and 8. months. Which account is found first in Damasus, and after in Platina, and divers other. The Arrians therefore committing those outrages and spoils above named in Alexandria, about the beginning of Pope julius in the days of Constantius, if they had at that time also burned the Canons of the Nicene Council (which yet Athanasius said not) it would well lack the better half of jx. years after the death of Marcus, that those Canons were burnt. Yet you add before to prove that in the days of julius the Canons were burnt.  
Which observation of time appeareth also by Socrates in his story.  
jewel. 
pag. 234. T●e 279. Untruth There appeareth no such thing in Socrates.  You quote in the margin of this place. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 14. Now verily what observation you can pick out of this place, touching the burning of those Canons, the Reader shall see and judge. Because the Chapter is but short, I will allege the whole as it lieth. Thus lie the words of Socrates. About this time the Arrians removed Gregory (their Arrian bishop) from Alexandria, as one odious to the people both for the burning of a Church, and also for that he was not earnest enough, in defence of their opinion. And in his room they placed George, who came then from Cappadocia, one that held the doctrine of their religion. This is the whole .14. Chapter of Socrates in that second book. Of the Canons of Nice he speaketh no one word. Of a Church burned he speaketh. But what? Thinketh M. jewel that the Canons of Nice were there burnt? In deed such lewd Gheasses are meet to maintain such a lying Religion as M. jewel defendeth. But neither Socrates in any other place, 
Ruff. lib. 1 cap. 19 Theodor. li. 2. cap. 4.  neither Ruffinus, nor Theodoret nor Sozomenus all writing of this Arrian bishop Gregory and of his deposing do make any mention of such Canons burnt in his time. Only Sozomenus openeth a little more this matter, and declareth more than any of all the other doth, what Church and what burning that was for the which this Gregory was of his own fellows deprived. For first of the Church which was burned thus he writeth. Gregorius sedem Alexandrinam invasit. 
Sozomenus lib. 4. ca 6  Quod populus molesté ferens, ecclesiam quam Dyonisij vocant, qui episcopus illic fuerat, incendunt. Gregory invaded the See of Alexandria. Which thing the people taking grievously they set a fire a Courche called by the name of Denys, who had sometime been bishop there. This was the Church which was burned by the intruding of that Arrian bishop, and for the which also he was afterward partly deprived. For of his deprivation thus the same Sozomenus writeth in the same book. 
Lib. eodem Cap. 7.  Interca Arriani dogma●is fautores etc. In the mean while the Arrians removed Gregory (their bishop) as being but negligent in establishing their doctrine, and one much hated of the citizens of Alexandria, by reason of the mischiefs that happened to the city at his entering in, and the burning of a Church. This is all that is written of these ecclesiastical writers touching any loss done by fire in the time of the Arrian bishop Gregory. What observation of time can M. jewel find here, to prove that in the days of Pope julius the Canons were burnt, and not in the days of Marcus, as Athanasius himself writing to Marcus reporteth? The words of Athanasius to Marcus are plain. M. jewel will prove the contrary by a guess.  
Harding. And yet the whole number (of the 70. Canon's) was kept diligently in the Church of Rome in the original itself scent to Sylvester the bishop there from the Council subscribed with the said 318. Father's hands.  
jewel. 
The 280 Untruth Slanderous.  The 97. Untruth: For there was no such original kept in the church of Rome.  
Stapleton. M. jewel, to justify this matter telleth the Reader a long lying tale to prove the Pope a Forger, and blazeth out that matter in mighty great letters, but with a number of main and most impudent Untruths. Touching the matter itself, that 70. Canons were made in the Council of Nice, 
Athanasius ad Ma●cum.  copied out, and sent to Sylvester Pope of Rome from the Council by the hands of his legates, it is evident by the epistle of Athanasius unto Marcus, where he and the other bishops of Lybia, of Thebais, and of Egypt do expressly confess the same. Also the Epistle of Pope julius to the Bishops of the East reakoneth up the xviij th'. the xix the xxi the xxiij the xxvi. the xxvij the xxviij the xxxiij the xl the xlv the xlvij the xlix the lj the lij the liij the liiij the lu the lvij the lviij the lix the lx the lxj the lxiij and the lxuj 
Tom. 1. Con. Epist. ad Orient.  Canons of the Council of Nice, all at that time kept and reserved in the Original Copy at Rome. This julius was alive at the time of the Nicene Council. He wrote this letter to the Bishops of the East Church, to many of them which were present at that very Council. He rebuketh them in this letter for thrusting out of Athanasius from his Bishopric. And by his authority he restored not only Athanasius, but also Paulus the patriarch of Constantinople, Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, 
Histor. tripart. li. 4. cap. 15 Socrates lib. 2. cap. 15.  Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, and Lucius Bishop of Adrianopolis all expelled by the Arrians, unto their bishoprics and Sees again. And can M. jewel persuade us that the same Pope, to whom such holy Bishops appealled, (Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus, Lucius and Asclepas) at that time and against those stubborn Arrians would allege false forged Canons of his own devising, or belie the Council of Nice, the Matter being yet so fresh in memory? And what saith M. jewel against these so express witnesses, Athanasius and julius? What he said to the Epistle of Athanasius you have heard already. By a mere manifest Untruth he would deface it. Other Matter he bringeth none but scoffs, as mocking at the Bishops for reducing the number of lxxx Canons to the number of lxx to represent the lxx disciples of Christ, or else the lxx tongues known to the world. To the which no other answer needeth (for any thing that it proveth) than that M. jewel doth not well to measure the doings of that ancient Council with the light estimation of man's fancy. But to this Epistle of julius what doth M. jewel answer? Forsooth whereas D. Harding said, that Harding. 
Divis. 6  these Canons being mentioned by julius, writing to them which were present at the making of the Canons, might take away all suspicion of Untruth, M. jewel answereth.  
jewel. 
Pag. 237  This removing of suspicion, I know not how, seemeth somewhat to increase suspicion. If there were not a soar, what should it thus need to be salved?  
Stapleton. This it but a flourish. What say you to the Matter? Be it a soar there was, how like you the salve? Be it that to put the Matter out of doubt touching these Canons not commonly extant (because of Calvin and such other, they have been before doubted of) the undoubted Epistle of julius was alleged? What then say you to that Epistle?  
jewel. 
The .281 Untruth Captain and Notorious.  In deed, julius allegeth a Canon: But M. hardings Canon he allegeth not.  
Stapleton. The Canon of the Nicene Council which D. Harding allegeth out of julius is this. Non debere praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis vllo modo Concilia celebrari, nec Episcopos damnari. That without the authority of the Bishop of Rome, neither councils ought to be kept, neither Bishops be condemned. How say you M. jewel? Doth not julius allege this Canon? Will you never leave your Untruths? 
An. 1551  In the first tome of the Councils, fol. 309. after the colen print, you may read that Canon if you list.  
jewel. 
Lib. 4. cap. 9 Hist. trip.  It is also touched in the Ecclesiastical History by Socrates. The other Canon of the Nicene Council the xliiij in number, 
Lib. 3. de Dogmat. Character.  D. Harding alleged not out of julius, but out of Franciscus Tirrianus, as he noted unto you in the margin, who as he writeth saw many things of the Nicene Council which are not commonly extant, 
The .282 Untruth for that Note touched not this Canon.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceni Concilij, in the Ecclesiastical Acts of the Nicene Council. But let us see how M. jewel prosecuteth the Matter of the Canon of julius. He addeth.  
And the compiler of the Councils gave this Note in the margin (2●2.) touching the same. This de●ree may only be reduced to the v. and si●t chapter of the Council of Nice. But expressly it is not found. Such credit is to be given to this julius in his allegations.  
Stapleton. another Untruth M. jewel. For this note in the margin that you speak of is found in the first Epistle of julius, to the Bishops of the East. But the Canon which D. Harding allegeth out of julius, is in the second Epistle of julius. Again the note in the margin alleged by you is of the Accusation and condemnation of Bishops not to be done without the knowledge of the Bishop of Rome. But the Canon alleged by D. Harding out of julius, and reported in the Ecclesiastical history of Socrates, is of Councils not to be called or holden without the consent of the Bishop of Rome. 
The Impudence of M. jewel.  Such credit is to be given to M. jewel in his allegations. What passing impudence is this M. jewel, first to go about to discredit the writings of the Ancient Fathers, and then to do the same by open and manifest Untruths? Especially you which charge not only D. Harding, but in manner all sorts of writers, with Fables, Forgeries, Dreams, Untruths, and so forth, when you can not answer to the Matter itself.  
To the whole Matter of the Pope's Forgery which M. jewel here so blazeth out, and so impudently avoucheth, it is already sufficiently answered: and proved against M. Nowell, and against the lying Centuries of the Magdeburgenses, whose steps M. jewel hath followed even at the hard heel's, that Zosimus the Pope was no forger, that the Africanes laid no such thing to his charge, that they renounced not their whole obedience unto that See of Rome, but only stood upon the Matter of appellations, (wherein it seemeth by the writings of S. Cyprian, they had been of old time Privileged) that many Canons are alleged out of the Nicene Council not only by the Popes, but by divers others holy Fathers, as S. Ambrose, S. Hieron S. Augustin, Epiphanius and others without suspicion of feigning or forgery, all this I say is already at large proved by M. Dorman in his answer to M. Nowell. I beseech the reader to have recourse to that place. notwithstanding because M. jewel, as he hath been more large, so hath dealt herein also much more impudently then M. Nowell, 
In the disprove of M. nowels reproof the .16. chap. fol. 92.  I have thought good somewhat to examine his Lying tale and to note his Untruths therein, for the better justifying of this his Untruth scored up here upon D. Harding. Thus M. jewel entereth his process.  
Touching the forgery of this Council of Nice, the very beginning of the quarrel and the whole story standeth thus.  
jewel. If it were forged, the beginning could not be here. For the better undetstanding whereof, 
Pag. 235 The .283 Untruth Captain and Notorious.  I will note to the Reader the names and times of the Popes that lived about this time, in which the forgery is said to be committed.  
Stapleton. The Council of Nice was holden in the year of our lord .328. or as some other think .326. under Silvester then Pope of Rome, whose place his two Legates Vincentius and Victor occupied there. To this Silvester succeeded Marcus and was Pope ij. years. 
Hist. tripart. lib. 1. cap. 8 Niceph. lib. 8. cap. 14.  Unto this Marcus Athanasius directed his letters above mentioned. To Marcus succeeded julius, whose Epistle was before alleged to the Bishops of the East, in defence of Athanasius, and other. Some writ that this julius was at the Council of Nice himself. Certain it is he was Pope in the later days of Constantin the great, 
Platina.  in whose reign the Council was holden. julius sat in the See of Rome xvi years. To him succeeded Liberius, 
Hieronimus in Catal.  who ruled partly in that Bishopric, partly in banishment the space of xvij years, Felix in the mean time occupying the See one year, under the banishment of Liberius. To Liberius succeeded Damasus unto whom S. Hierom wrote certain Epistles, and ruled the Church xviij years. To Damasus succeeded Siricius, and sat xuj years. To Siricius succeeded Anastasius, who sat three years. To Anastasius succeeded Innocontius, and sat in the Chair of Peter xu years. To this Pope Chrysostom Appealed being in banishment, who thereupon excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius. To this Pope S. Augustin and the Bishops of Africa in the condemnation of Celestius and Pelagius submitted their decrees. 
Palladius in vitae Chryso. Nicephor. lib. 13. cap. 34. Aug. epist. 90.  To this Innocentius succeeded Zosimus, and ruled the Church only one year, who is the man that is accused here of M. jewel for a Forger, of certain Canons of the Nicene Council. Now as I said, if such Canons were forged, the beginning hereof as M. jewel saith, could not be here. Seeing that both Athanasius writeth to Marcus for the copy of those 70. Canons, confessing that so many were made and sent to Rome to Silvester then Pope, and also that julius the Successor of Marcus allegeth a great number of such Canons to the number of xxiiij more than are commonly read in the Council of Nice, both which Popes lived at the least fourscore years before this Zosimus. 
See those Canons in the disprove of. M. nowels reproof. fol. 95. b.  Hereunto may be added that S. Hierom and S. Ambrose who wrote in the time of Pope Damasus, that S. Augustin and Epiphanius in the time of Innocentius, do allege certain Canons of the Nicene Council not extant in the xx. Canons commonly read. Therefore Zosimus who lived after all these Popes, if he were a Forger, yet was he not the first Forger. Now as it were to great impudency for M. jewel to charge S. Ambrose S. Hierom, S. Augustin and Epiphanius with Forgery, though he hath gone about to deface the testimonies of Athanasius, but that with manifest Untruths, as you have seen, so truly shall he never be able to prove Zosimus or any other Pope a Forger. This therefore touching the beginning of the Forgery (if there were any such) is the first Untruth. Let us go forth.  
jewel. One Apiarius a priest of the Church of Sicca in Aphrica as it appeareth a very ill man, being justly excommunicate both by his own bishop, and also by a great number of other bishops together in the Council there, appealed from them all unto Zosimus then bishop of Rome.  
All this is true. Let us hear farther.  
jewel. Zosimus without farther knowledge of the cause, never hearing the other part, pronounced Apiarius to be innocent and restored him to the Communion. 
The 284. Untruth Boldly avouched but no way proved.   
This M. jewel saith of his own head. There appeareth no such thing in the Acts of the Counsels. This only appeareth, touching this Apia●ius that after his Appeal to Rome, Zosimus sent his legate to the Council of afric, them assembled, that he was restored to the Communion by the Africanes themselves, Zosimus in the mean while departing this world, 
Concil. Car. 6. cap. 101  and Bonifacius succeeding him. This is evident in the epistle of the Aphrican Council sent to Bonifacius successor to Zosimus. That which M. jewel telleth, not appearing in the Council, may stand for an other Untruth, until it be justified.  
jewel. 
The 285. Untruth as appeareth. Stapleton  And understanding there was a Council gathered in Africa touching the same.  
Stapleton. another untruth. For there appeareth no such Council at all. The Councils at that time gathered, in Africa were partly against the 
a Cap. 76.  Pelagians, 
b Cap. 75.  the Donatists, and for the preservation of the 
c Cap. 1.  Nicene Council. But for the matter of Apiarius no Council was gathered.  
jewel. 
The 286. A burden of Untruths.  Sent thither Faustinus the bishop of Potentia, with two other priests of Rome, Philippus and Asellus, not only to see that the said Apiarius without any further trial might be restored unto his right, but also to make plea in the open Council that it should be lawful for any priest to appeal from his own ordinary or Metropolitan or Council unto the Apostolic See of Rome.  
Stapleton All this is but a farthel of untruths and slanders. M. jewel avoucheth this only, but he neither quoteth nor noteth any Author therefore. The truth is this. Zosimus sending his legates above mentioned to the Council of Aphrica, gave in commission among other things, that the Council of Nice should be inviolately kept and observed, in that part of the world as it was other where. The Council of Nice was read in the Synod of the africans, and established by their whole consent and agreement thereunto. 
Cocil. Car. 6. cap. 1. & 2.  Faustinus the Pope's Legate brought forth a writ from Zosimus, containing a decree touching Appellation, made in the Council of Nice. That decree not being found in the copies which the Africanes had, the Africanes desired a time of deliberation, 
Cap. 3.  before they subscribed thereunto. A deliberation was taken the Pope's Legate consenting thereunto. 
Cap. 4.  They wrote to the Bishops of the East Church, to see their copies. Thus far have we gone with M. jewel, following the tenor of the Council. Now that Apiarius should be restored without farther trial, or that such plea should be made as M. jewel speaketh of, it is not mentioned in the Council: it is a double and Pregnant Untruth of M. jewel. Let us go forth.  
jewel. The bishops of Aphrica answered there was no law it should be so. 
The 287. Vntr●the For they made no s●che Answer.   
Stapleton. They answered, the decree of appellation to Rome was not found in the Nicene Council. They said not it was not so by no law. So they should have said untruly. For in the Council of Sardica where 300. bishops were assembled from all parts or Christendom before that time, 
Concil. Sard. Cap. 7.  the very same decree which Faustinus the Pope's legate alleged, was and is to be found word for word. Though then they answered, it was not found in the Nicene Council, yet they answered not, there was no law it should be so. This therefore is a Facinge Untruth on M. jewels part.  
jewel. 
The 288. Untruth joined with a slander.  Faustinus laid forth this Canon of the Council of Nice, not made by the authority of the bishops there, but only devised by the bishop of Rome.  
This is a slanderous untruth, to say it was devised at Rome. It was made long before in the Council of Sardica. Therefore the modesty of john Calvin in this point is more, who confesseth that the Pope alleged this decree of Sardica, as a decree of the Council of Nice, and maketh it an error of the Pope, 
Instit. lib. 4. cap. 7. Sect. 9  not a devising of his own, as the modest spirit of M. jewel hath devised. Forth M. jewel. Perge Mentiri.  
jewel. 
The 289. Untruth savouring of Malice.  The bishops there, among whom was S. Augustine that famous learned Father, thought it was a forged Matter.  
Stapleton. This is a malicious Untruth. There appeareth no such thought or cogitation in the Acts of the Council. And of what spirit is M. jewel, that maketh such good men to suspect a forgery in the chiefest bishop of Christendom, giving forth no token of any such suspicion?  
jewel. 
The 290. Untruth For not Therefore they sent etc.  And therefore they said, they would send unto Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople for the very Original copies of the said Council, and desired the bishop of Rome to do the same.  
Stapleton. That all this they did, it is true. But that Therefore they did it, it is not true. And Therefore I can not excuse you here of an other Untruth.  
jewel. 
The 291. Untruth For they were not the true Authentic copies. The 292. Untruth joined with a slander.  And said, that in the mean while they would do, as they had done before. Upon this message and return of the answer with thee (291) Authentic copies from Cyrillus the bishop of Alexandria, and Atticus the bishop of Constantinople, it appeared plainly to the world that the Canons were corrupted, and that the Pope had falsified the holy Council.  
Here be two Untruths, and the one joined with a slander. The first is, that the true Authentic copies were sent from Alexandria and Constantinople. True it is, they sent the truest that they had. But that those were not the very Authentic copies, made and left by the Fathers of Nice, it is evident by many reasons.  
First, julius long before that time alleged against the bishops of the East, xxiv. Canons of the Council of Nice over and beside the xx. Canons of the copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople. Therefore the other that lacked so many could not be the Authentic and perfect number of the Canons.  
secondarily between the time of the Nicene Council and those bishops Cyrillus of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, certain Arrians occupied those Sees, 

That the Copies of the Nicene Council sent from Alexandria and Constantinople were not the true Authentic Copies.  
Socrates. lib. 2. Sozom. lib. 4. Theodoret. lib. 2. Nicephor●● lib. 9 & 10.   and therefore no marvel, if the Council were corrupted.  
In the Church of Alexandria, after Alexander, who was present at the Council of Nice, succeeded Athanasius. This Athanasius being often banished, first Gregorius, than Georgius both Arrians ruled that See certain years. After Athanasius being restored and dying in his bishopric, Petrus a good Catholic bishop succeeded, who being expelled and flying to Rome, Lucius an Arrian was intruded, who occupied the See many years under Valens the Arrian Emperor. But under Theodosius and Gratian he was expelled, and Timotheus brother to that Peter succeeded, after Timotheus, Theophilus, and after Theophilus, this Cyrillus was bishop of Alexandria. Thus under the three Arrian bishops Gregorius, Georgius, and Lucius, no marvel if the Councils were corrupted and destroyed. Especially whereas Athanasius, complaineth thereof himself, in his epistle to Marcus, the Pope, which M. jewel would disprove but he can not.  
In Constantinople after Alexander bishop thereof in the time of the Nicene Council, 
Socrat. Sozom enus, Theodoret. & Niceph. ubi supra.  Paulus a good Catholic bishop succeeding was twice banished, and in the end murdered. In the mean Eusebius the Arrian, and after him Macedonius, Eudoxius, and Demophilus all Arrians occupied for the space off forty years and more, during the Empire of Constantius, julian and Valens, the See of Constantinople. This Demophilus under Gratian was deprived, and Gregory Nazianzene by Theodosius made his successor, who not continuing in the See, Nectarius was chosen to whom succeeded Chrysostom, and to Chrysostom this Atticus here mentioned in the African Council. Now in so long a time of the Arrians Dominion, who doubteth but they corrupted the Council of Nice being specially called against them? Namely seeing that in the Council now extant, 
Note this Reason.  there is no one Canon against the Arrian heresy, For the which yet that Council was expressly called and assembled.  
Hereunto may be added that in Antiochia also, whither the bishops of Africa sent for the Copy of the Nicene Council, certain Arrians had ruled between the time of the Nicene Council and the bishops then living. As Eustathius the Catholic being banished, 
Histor. Ecclesiast. Nicephor. & tripart. per totum.  Eulalius, Euphronius, Phlacitus, Stephanus, Leontius, Eudoxius, Euzoius, Theodorus Perinthius all Arrian Bishops: Whereas in all that time not one Arrian seat at Rome, but all Catholic and all defending the Nicene Council.  

Athanasius Apolog. 2.  Thirdly the same julius in his undoubted epistle recorded in the works of Athanasius, alleged a decree of Appeal, from one Synod to a greater, by virtue whereof he cited those Arrian bishops to Rome, concluded in the Nicene Council, which in the Copies sent to the African bishops appeareth not. These are the words of julius. Episcopi in magna Synodo Niceae congregati non sine Dei Consilio permiserunt, prioris Synodi Acta in alia Synodo examinari. The bishops assembled in the great Council of Nice permitted not without the will of God, that the acts of a former Synod, might be examined in an other Synod. Which Appeal from one Synod to an other that it was to Rome, appeareth well both by that julius by virtue thereof called those Arrian bishops to appear before him at Rome, and also by that long after, Leo that holy and learned Pope alleged the very decree of the Nicene Council by occasion of an Appeal of Flavianus to Rom●. For whereas in that outrageous injury done to Flavianus in the pretenced Synod of Ephesus the Pope's legates (as Leo writeth) fideliter reclamarunt, & eisdem libellum Appellationis Flavianus Episcopus dedit. Did faithfully resist that injurious decree, and to the said legates Flavianus the Bishop made a libel of Appeal, 
Leo epist. 25. ad The odosium Augustum.  Leo writeth thereof to Theodosius the Emperor, and challengeth by virtue of the Nicene Council a greater Synod after the Appeal made, in these words. Quàm autem post appellationem interpositam hoc necessarió postuletur, Canonum Niceae habitorum decreta testantur, quae a totius mundi sunt sacerdotibus constituta, quaeque subter annexa sunt. How necessarily we require now to have a greater Synod, after the Appeal laid in, the decrees of the Nicene Canons do witness. Which have been made of all priests in the world. And which are here under annexed. julius against the Arrians, yea such of whom some had been present themselves at the Nicene Council, and Leo to the Emperor Theodosius allegeth a Canon of the Nicene Council, yea and a Canon of Appeal, which those African Copies have not, and yet shall we think (because M. jewel saith the word) that those only were the true and Authentic Copies and that Zozimus was a Forger, because he alleged a Canon, which they had not?  
fourthly (as I noted before) divers holy Fathers and Ancient writers have alleged in their learned writings yet extant and not doubted of, certain Canons of the Nicene Council, which a●e not extant at all in the Copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople to the bishops of Africa. S. Ambrose saith, it was decreed in the Nicene Council, Ne bigamus in clerum asciscatur, 
Ambrose Epist. 82.  that one twice married should not be admitted to be of the Clergy. S. Augustin writeth it for a decree of the Nicene Council, Ne episcopus sibi Successorem sufficiat, 
Augustin. Epist. 110.  that a Bishop yet living should not appoint his Successor. And therefore he repenteth him that he was of Aurelius his predecessor made bishop, he yet living, saying that at that time he knew not so much. S. Hierom writeth that the book of judith was by the Nicene Council decreed to be a part of the holy Scripture. Last of all, all the Fathers of the second General Council of Constantinople holden above thirty years before this Zosimus was Pope, 
In prefat. judith. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 9 Histor. Ecclesiasti.  do mention in their letters written to the bishops of Italy Damasus and other, Veterem sanctionem & definitionem Nicaenorum patrum, an old decree and determination of the Fathers at Nice, ut in unaquaque provincia, illius provinciae cultores, assumptis etiam si videatur, finitimis, conferant ecclesiasticos honores ijs quos utiliter gesturos esse confidunt, that in every province the inhabitants thereof, taking unto them (if they thought good) their neighbours also, might bestow Spiritual promotions upon such as they thought worthy thereof. Not any one of all these matters appeareth in any of the Canons, or any part of the Acts of the Nicene Council. What then? Shall we say therefore according to the wisdom and charity of M. jewel, that S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Jerome, yea and all those Fathers of that second General Council of Christendom, were all Forgers and Falsifyers of the Nicene Council? Or shall we not rather say that those Fathers, and that holy Council spoke truly, but those Copies sent to the africans, are not the full and perfect Copies? Though verily I think they were the best that those good bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople, Cyrillus and Atticus had at that time.  
fifthly your own Apology of England M. jewel allegeth a Canon of the Council of Nice, 
5. The Apology off England.  touching the Sacrament, that we ought not to be humiliter intenti ad panem & vinum, over basely bend to bread and wine. If this be a true Canon of the Nicene Council, show it in the Copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople to the bishops of Africa. If it be not, then either confess that you have belied that Council, or else that the Copies sent from the East were not the true Authentic and original Copies.  
Last of all certain it is both by Eusebius and by Epiphanius, that the chiefest and most principal cause of the assembling of that Council, was partly for repressing the Arrian heresy, partly for the uniform observation of Easter. 
Euseb. lib. 3. de vita Constantini Epiphanius lib. 3. ●om. 2. heres. 70  Yet in these copies which M. jewel calleth Authentic, there is not one Canon or half Canon either against the Arrians, or touching the observation of Easter. And thinketh M. jewel against all these most evident reasons, with the only warrant of his mouth to persuade the world that those Copies lacking so many Canons, and sent from such suspicious places, are the true and Authentic copies of the Nicene Council? I trust by these few every wise and indifferent Reader is able to descry this manifest Untruth of M. jewel, and to mark withal the whole ground of this pretenced Forgery of the Pope to be overthrown.  
jewel. Now to your second Untruth M. jewel couched in your last words alleged, where you say, that by those authentic copies it appeared, that the Pope had falsified the holy Council. This as I said, is a Manifest Untruth joined with a slander. Untruth, because the Authentic copies, whereby you would prove the Pope a falsifier, are now proved to be no Authentic copies, but to want many of the assured Canons of that Council. For if Zosimus be a Forger or falsifier of the Nicene Council, because the Canon which he alleged out of the Nicene Council, was not found in those copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople, then is S. Hieron, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, yea then is the Apology of England a Forger and a falsifier of the holy Council, which hath alleged a Canon out of the Nicene Council not found in the copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople.  
A slanderous Untruth it is, because M. jewel hath no Author thereof but his fellow protestants of Magdebourg and such like, and because it tendeth to the discredit not only of Pope Zosimus a man commended and reverenced by the Africanes themselves, but also of the whole See Apostolic from that time hitherto. 
Prosper, contra Collatorem cap. 10. & 41.   
jewel. 
The 293. Untruth mere slanderous  And to th'intent to advance his Apostolic See of Rome, had devised privileges and prerogatives of his own.  
Stapleton. 
Lib. 2. de Sacerdotio  M. jewel continueth his slanderous reproaches. But it appeareth already by S. Gregory and Chrysostom, and it shall hereafter in this Article yet more appear, that the prerogative of the See of Rome was given to Peter by Christ himself, and to his successors, as Chrisostom expressly confesseth. Truly touching this matter, neither did the Africanes here utterly refuse the authority of the bishop of Rome, but only in this case of appellations, neither had Zosimus any cause to feign a Council for the prerogative of his See, having for the same beside express Scripture the great Council of Sardica, 
Cap. 7.  and as justinian the Emperor confesseth the very Council of Nice itself (being one of the four first Councils) though not in that Canon, 
Constitut. 131.  yet in some other.  
jewel. 
The 294 Untruth In nipping away a great pa●te of the Sentence.  The bishops in the Council of Aphrica having thus thoroughly examined the truth hereof, wrote unto Caelestinus then bishop of Rome in this wise. Decreta Nicena etc.  
If a man should ask M. jewel, why he began this his allegation out of the African Council in the mids of a sentence, omitting all that went before, I think the best answer that he could make would be to say he followed therein the precepts of his Rhetoric, to bring as much as made for his purpose, and to omit the rest that made against him. Well though his Rhetoric taught him that Art, yet his Divinity taught him not that Deceit. I will therefore note certain sentences in the same epistle going before, and then proceed with the words of M. jewel alleged. The Fathers of the African Council declaring to Celestinus the Pope that though Apiarius by the means of his legate had been restored to his order of priesthood (from whence he had been deposed) yet now again for other notorious crimes by him confessed he was justly excommunicated, do write thus unto him. 
In epist. Co●cil. Aphricani ad Caelest. Papam.  Proefato itaque debitae salutationis officio etc. Our due commendations being remembered, we desire you earnestly that from hence for the you admit not to your hearing over lightly such as come from hence, neither that you receive any more to your Communion such as are by us excommunicated, 
Nicen. Con. cap. 5.  because your Reverentnes shall easily see that this is not defined by the Nicene Council. For if it be there provided for the inferior clergy or the lay, how much more would it provide for the bishops, that being suspended from the Communion in th●ir own province, they should not look to be restored of your holiness, either hastily or rashly or unjustly. Also let your holiness repel the wicked refuges of priests and the other clergy (as it becometh you.) Because this privilege is not denied to the Church of Africa, and (Lo here beginneth the allegation of M. jewel.) jewel. The decrees of the Nicene Council have committed both the inferior clergy, and also the bishops unto their metropolitans.  
Stapleton Before I proceed in the allegation of the Council (as it followeth in M. jewel) I beseech thee (gentle Reader) to consider the pith of all those words so far omitted by M. jewel, as I have before noted unto thee. First the whole manner of writing is not as to a Forger, a Foyster or a Cogger, as M. jewel termeth here the Pope, but in all humility and reverentnes, as to a holy bishop and Reverend Father. secondarily that they do not utterly repel his authority, but only in the case of Appellation, 
Ciprianus lib. 1. epist. ●.  wherein it seemeth both then and long before in S. Cyprian'S time the province of afric wa● privileged. Last of all the appellation itself they do not utterly deny, but desire the Pope that he will cut away, Improba refugia, wicked refuges, of naughty men abusing the benefit of appellation, and again they require him not in no case to with such as they do excommunicate, but they desire him, ut non facilius ad aures suas admittat, not to admit them to his hearing over lightly, ut non praeproperé, non indebité restituat, that he restore them not rashly or unjustly, before the cause be thoroughly examined. And so in S. Cyprian it appeareth, the excommunicated persons fled from Africa to Rome, 
Ciprianus lib. 1. epist. 3.  quasi (saith S. Cyprian) veritas post eos navigare non posset quae mendaces linguas rei certae probatione convinceret, as though the truth could not sail after them, which by certain trial might convince their lying tongues. Wherein it is evident, that appellation was made from Africa to Rome, though the bishops themselves of Africa, as S. Cyprian in that self epistle complaineth, were troubled and offended therewith. But all this M. jewel, as I said, following the precepts of his art, hath thought good to omit, making the Reader to believe, that the Council of Aphrica utterly abandonned at that time the Pope, and pronounced him guilty of manifest Forgery. Hitherto you see how little they charge him withal. Let us proceed with the words of the Council even as M. jewel hath alleged them.  
jewel. 
Epist. 3. li. 1. Cum statutum sit omnibus nobis etc.  For it was discreetly and rightly considered that all matters are to be determined in the places where they began.  
These very words and reason S. Cyprian long before the Nicene Council was assembled, useth, and that as a Canon, Statute, or ordonance. Whereby it seemeth this determination of matters at home was an ancient privilege of the African Church, beside other countries of the west.  
jewel. 
Out of the African Council  And that no province can lack the holy ghost, whereby the bishops off Christ may be able, both wisely to see, and also constantly to maintain the right. And specially for that it is lawful for every man that shall mislike the discretion of his judges, to appeal either to a particular Council within the same 
* Province. The 295. Captain and No.  realm or to a general Council. On less perchance some man will say, God is able to inspire the trial of justice into one man Alone (because he is bishop of Rome) and will not inspire the same in to a great number of bishops meeting together in Council.  
Stapleton. This latter sentence M. jewel hath printed with mighty main letters, as the which he would have especially to be noted. And no marvel. For they are his own words a great part thereof, not the words of the Council. And therefore also I have printed the same sentence, as the words of M. jewel with a distinct letter from the words of the Council. The true words off the Council are thus. first in Latin. Nisi forte quisquam est qui credat uni cuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare justitiam, 
M. jewel taken in manifest Forgery.  & innumerabilibus in Concilium sacerdotibus denegare. In English truly translated they are thus much. Unless there be any man that will think that one God is able to inspire the trial of justice to any one, and that he will deny it to a great number of bishops meeting together in Council. Let us now consider the manifest Forgerye of M. jewel. His Forgerye is great and standeth in these words. Into one man alone because he is Bishop off Rome.  
First for uni cuilibet, to any one, he hath put, into one man alone, and then to declare what one man, he addeth in a parenthesis, Because he is bishop of Rome. Which words are not at all in the Council. And therefore he changed the words before, that they might seem to lead to such a sense. As though the Council had expressly and namely spoken against the judgement of the bishop of Rome being One man alone. Which sense persuaded to the Reader under the glorious name of the African Council he thought would make gaily against the One supreme government of Christ's vicar on earth. By such manifest Forgerye M. jewel will prove the Pope a Forger. Let us now proceed with the words off the Council.  
jewel. 
out of the African Councils.  And how may such beyond sea judgements be thought good whereunto the persons off the witnesses, which in trial off truth are thought Necessary, either for that they be women, or for the infirmity off their age, or for many other incident lets can not be brought?  
For such like considerations the trial of certain suits out of the realm at the Court of Rome were embarred, under the reign of king Edward the third in our own country, and yet neither the Pope's authority thereby disannulled, 
Ed. 3 an. 27.  neither any breach of unite committed.  
jewel. 
out of the Aphric. Council.  Now that any should be sent abroad, as it were from your holiness side, we find it not decreed in any Council.  
Stapleton. This was expressly decreed in the Council of Sardica in the seventh Canon, about fourscore years before the time of this African Council, 
Hist. tripa. lib. 4. cap. 23. & Theodoret. li. 2. cap. 7.  as Socrates and Theodoretus both in their Ecclesiastical Histories record. Though here the Fathers of this Council seem to have no knowledge thereof. And truly as well they might miss the Canons of this Council off Sardica, as they miss the Canons of the Nicene Council, as it is already most evidently proved.  
jewel. 
out of the Aphr. Coun.  As for that you sent us lately by our Brother Faustinus, as part off the Nicene Council, we must do you to wit that in the 
* 
Veriorib. truer.  
The .296 untruth. False translation.   true Councils, which we received from our holy fellow bishop Cyrillus of Alexandria, and the reverent Father Atticus the bishop off Constantinople, taken out off the very originals it can not be found. And send you not any your Clerks hitherto execute justice 
* Quibusque potentibus.  at any man's request, lest we seem to bring the smoky puff off the world into the church off Christ. Thus far the words of the Council.  
Stapleton. Here M. jewel hath placed in the margin, as the ensign of Victory, this posy. The Pope taken in manifest Forgery. And by what words gathereth he that? Forsooth because the Canon which the Pope alleged, was not found in the Original Copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople. Then M. jewel. Add to your note. S. Augustine, Saint Jerome, S. Ambrose, Epiphanius, and justinian taken in manifest Forgery, because (as I have before showed) all they do allege certain Canons of the Nicene Council which are not to be found in those originals. Then also add to your note, and cause it to be printed in the next edition of your English Apology (if ever for shame you will print that lying libel any more). The Apology of England taken in manifest Forgery: Because you allege there a Canon of the Nicene Council, touching the blessed Sacrament, which is not to be found in the originals sent from Alexandria and Constantinople. But M. jewel, beside these absurdities, I have said I trust sufficiently before, to prove these originals could not be, nor were not the very true and perfect originals off the Nicene Council. Though verily I think they were the best that those good bishops than had. This being so, M. jewel hath stoutly said but nothing yet proved, that the Pope is a Forger. Let us see what followeth.  
jewel. 
The .297. Untruth Slanderous, fond, and Malicious.  The Bishop of Rome when he saw he was taken with the manner and found an open falsary, for that the Canons of his making disagreed from the very originals (297.) thought It good policy, to say the originals were burnt by the Arrians, and so no true copy remaining, but his only.  
Stapleton. Here is a sad Conclusion upon a number of false premises. From manifest Untruths M. jewel proceedeth to lewd and malicious conjectures. But to be short you know the rule. uno absurdo dato sequitur quodiibet. Upon a false ground it is easy to build Untruths apace. Howbeit yet we will see what they are. He saith.  
jewel. 
The .298 Untruth Slanderous, fond and Malicious.  And therefore he (298) imagined a letter to be written in the name of Athanasius, and other bishops of Egypt, unto Marcus the bishop of Rome, wherein they besought him a Copy of the Nicene Council for that all their books were utterly destroyed. But this shift was to simple.  
Stapleton. Yea truly a very simple shift, and much more simple was all the posterity of the learned of Christendom, which in so many hundred years space, could never perceive this wily drift off the Pope, but have ever lived under his Commandment, until now at length this jewel of England had espied it. But deceive not yourself M. jewel. Neither was all Christendom so simple these many hundred years, neither are we at this present (thanked be God therefore) but we can descry the clear light of God's truth from the misty clouds of heretical devices. This Epistle of Athanasius to Marcus, was no devised matter of the Pope M. jewel, but the true epistle of Athanasius, for aught you can bring to the contrary. And for such it hath been taken before you were borne, and shall be (doubt you not) after you are gone. Yet let us hear the reason that you give of this simple shift. You say.  
jewel. For it were hard for M. Harding, to show, what help Athanasius could have found in any of those Canons that are now presumed to be burnt, 
The .299 Untruth ●or M. jew▪ himself saith The Council of Nice were worth the showing.  wherewith (.299.) either to relieve himself in that case, or else to molest or grieve his adversaries.  
Then the trial hereof (M. jewel) standeth not in any thing that you can bring for yourself, but in the trial of your adversaries might and ability against you. You dispute against this Epistle of Athanasius, as if an infidel would dispute against S. Luke's Ghospel, not by any reason of his own against the gospel, but by examining the Christian what reason he can bring to prove it S. Luke's gospel. 
M. jewel reasoneth like an Infidel.  Will Summer if he lived, by such means might dispute with the best Scholar in England. But M. jewel for the authority of that Epistle of Athanasius (it being already received and allowed for his, by the consent of our elders) it is not to be tried by that which we can say for it, who do trust herein our forefather's judgement, but by that which you can prove against it, if you will infringe the authority thereof. Howbeit you might of yourself M. jewel (were you not blinded with some corrupted affection) see easily a right good reason why Athanasius should require of the Pope the Copy of the Nicene Council, seeing yourself confesseth in this same article, that the Council of Nice were well worth the showing.  
Though here M. jewel have ended all he can say in effect to prove the Pope a Forger, yet he interlaceth other things a great many to amplify the matter, and to seem to the Reader to say much. Therefore reproving by the way julius and the Canon by him alleged (to the which we have before answered) he returneth to Athanasius, and repeateth again his Untruths, as one that took great pleasure in lying. For having done with julius, thus he followeth.  
jewel. As for M hardings Athanasius his tale is so simple that it will soon bewray itself. For as I noted before, 
pag. 237. In epist ad Orthod. Socr. li. 2. cap. 14. The 300 Vntruth● as before.  he writeth unto Marcus the B. of Rome of the burning of the books, and yet Athanasius himself certainly knew that Marcus was dead at the least ix. years before that burning happened.  
This is but a repetition of the former Untruths. For (as it hath before been declared) neither in Athanasius Ad Orthodoxos neither in Socrates any such thing appeareth.  
jewel. 
The 301 Untruth joined with a slander and a folly.  Even so the vain Forger of the Emperor Constantine's Dotation, imagineth him to decree that the bishop of Constantinople should be subject unto the See of Rome. And yet neither was the City off Constantinople at that time built, nor any such name yet known in the world, nor any bishopric there erected. A man might say. Non satis commodeé divisa sunt temporibus tibi Daue haec.  
Stapleton. Well exemplified, and well concluded. Who built Const●ntinople but Constantin that gave that Dotation? And when is he reported to have given it but about the end of his Empire, that city being already built and called by his name? Or at the lest when was that Story written but after the city built, and so called? Have you no better argument against that Dotation than this is, and can you no better exemplify this matter? Certainly in the Tripartit History we read of an epistle written to Alexander where he is called the bishop of Constantinople, before the Nicene Council was holden, and therefore of all likelihood, before Constantin had yet so called the city of Byzance. As for the Matter, 
Lib. 1. Cap. 14.  S. Gregory saith expressly of the Church of Constantinople. Quis eam dubitet Sedi Apostolicae esse subiectam? Who doubteth but that Church is subject to the See Apostolic?  

Lib. 7. epist. 63. The 302 Untruth For both sayings do agree.  Again the same Athanasius writing unto Felix, saith. The Arrians had falsified the Nicene Council. But writing unto Marcus of the same matter, as a man that had utterly forgotten himself, he saith. The Arri●ns had burnt the Council of Nice. But if it were burnt, how was it falsified? If it were falsified, how was it burnt? These tales hang not well together.  
Stapleton Yes forsooth M. jewel, and you had been a little more mindful than Daws, you might soon have seen how both those sayings do well agree. Athanasius wrote to Marcus above twenty years before he wrote to Felix. Under Marcus the Arrians had burned the Canons. 
In epist. Marci. ad Athanasi●m.  Athanasius wrote for an other Copy to Marcus, and as it appeareth by the letters off Marcus, Athanasius received them. Now Sir after him, julius was Pope and Liberius also. In whose times Constantius the Arrian Emperor afflicted Christendom, and the Arrians many years prospered, Athanasius all that time yet living, and after, 
Vide Chronologiam Henr Pantaleonis.  under julian the Apostata restored to his bishopric, about what time Felix was the B. of Rome. Neither was it impossible that in all that mean while the Arrians so long prospering had falsified the better Copies sent from Rome to Alexandria, neither that Athanasius should certify the Pope thereof. Therefore a man might here most justly say to you Sir controller. Non satis commodé divisa sunt temporibus tibi Daue haec.  
jewel. But for as much as M. Harding would so feign have the Pope to hold by burnt evidence, if it may please thee (gentle Reader) discreetly to weigh the whole circumstance of the matter, thou shalt soon find that all this great ado, was nothing else but a great fable.  
Stapleton. For God's love and thy own (gentle Reader) use thyself here discreetly and but indifferently. Weigh the whole circumstances before mentioned, the Truth of M. jewels process hitherto, and the effect of that which followeth. Thou shalt see, that when M. jewel speaketh truly, they are but bare Gheasses and silly Surmises. When his reason forceth, he speaketh beside the Truth. Thus it hath hitherto appeared, and thus it shall hereafter appear.  
jewel. 
Theod. li. 1 ca 9 et lib 2. cap. 8. The 303 Untruth For in Theodoretus there appeareth no such thing. Lib· 2. The 304 Untruth For the Arasrine burned in deed the Canons, as is avouched.  For first it appeareth by Theodoretus that the whole Acts and Copies of the Council of Nice, were sent abroad unto all bishops that were away.  
Stapleton. In the first place quoted by M. jewel the decrees of the Nicene Council were sent only to such bishops as were subject to the patriarch of Alexandria, not to all bishops that were away. In the second place Theodoretus writeth of the Council of Sardica, and not of the Council of Nice.  
And Marius Victorinus writing against Arius saith that the same Acts were sent abroad into the whole world, and that many thousand bishops subscribed and agreed unto them. Which thing being undoubtedly true, it were very much for M. harding to say that all these copies, in all parts of the world, could be destroyed upon the sudden. And that altogether in one place, and with one fire and at one commandment. The Arrianes neither were so mighty to achieve it, nor so foolish to attempt it. Certainly the like never happened to any other Council.  
Where be your wits, and where is your remembrance M. jewel? Who saith that these Canons were burnt in all parts of the world, altogether in one place, and so forth? We talk only now of Canons burnt in Alexandria, in Antiochia and Constantinople, the three great Cities of the East Church, where the Arrians ruled all the roast first twenty years and more under Constantius, then under Valens almost twenty years more. In all this time they were both able and wise enough in malice to burn those Canons which directly and expressly condemned their heresy. This amplifying of the matter proveth you a Fabler. The matter avouched is proved yet no Fable.  
But what needeth words where the matter is plain? The bishops of Africa had the very Copies of these Canons.  
In deed this is to the matter. But this is stark false. They had not the full and perfect Copy of the Canons as it hath been before at large proved. Namely by many Canons of that Council alleged of most approved Fathers, not extant in these pretenced Copies of the africans.  
jewel. 
Concil. Car. 6. cap. 4. The 306 Untruth in false translating.  Alypius the bishop of T●gasta in this Conference with Faustinus said. A●●uet●men me movet, quoniam cum i●spi●eremus greca exemplaria huius Synodi Ni enae, ista i●i●escio qua ratione non invenimus. But this one thing much moveth me, that conferring and examining the greek examples of this Nicene Counceil, these matters (off the superiority off the See off Rome that is alleged) I know not how we found not there.  
Stapleton. M. jewel to do always his kind, hath infarced to his english translation these words, more than he found in his latin, and hath printed them with a several letter as the words of the bishop of Tagasta, these words I say: Of the superiority of the See of Rome, that is alleged. This is the untrue dealing of M. jewel. For neither are those words in the latin, neither are they meaned of the African bishop. The Controversy than was not utterly to refuse all obedience to the See of Rome, but to have no Appeals out of Africa to Rome. Which thing before they had decreed in the Millevitane Council: 
Can. 22. August. epist. 90. &. 91.  and Pope Innocentius had confirmed that Council.  
jewel. And Cyrillus the bishop of Alexandria being desired for trial of this matter to send the true Original of this Council, 
pag. 238. Council. Car●●ag. 6 can. 102. & 103.  made answer in this sort. I tho●ght it needful to send unto you the true examples off the ve●y Authentic Counsel. Likewise Atticus the bishop of Constantinopl● to the same request answereth thus. I have sent unto you the Canons in t●e whole, even as they were made and ratified by the fathers in the City of Ne'er. Now if these Canons were quite burnt, as M. Harding saith, how were they afterward found whole, as the godly Father Atticus and the learned bishop Cyrillus saith? And if they were afterward found whole, how then were they quite burnt before?  
Stapleton All this long Argument hath a short solution. Those bishops sent the best Copies that they had, and such as they took for whole and perfit. But that they were not in deed the full, perfit, and Authentic Copies, it hath been already sufficiently proved. And to add here one reason more thereunto, it is to be considered that the Canons alleged by Ruffinus, and in his Ecclesiastical History recorded, 
Ruffinus li. 1. ca 6. Histor. eccles.  do differ and vary from the Canons alleged by the bishops of the East both in number, and in order, and in the matter itself. As the learned Reader may easily see by conferring both together. Therefore again, either those Copies were not perfit, or the Ecclesiastical History of Ruffinus must be condemned for a Forger as the Pope here is.  
jewel. 
The 307. Untruth Slanderous.  Or how is it, that no man, neither Africa, nor in Europa, nor in Asia, neither in the East Church, neither in the west was ever able to see these Canons, but only the bishop of Rome, that so (307.) ambitiously claimeth by them?  
Stapleton This is an another figure of M. jewels Rhetoric, to Amplify and exaggerate the matter. But all this proveth not those Copies of the Africanes to be the full and Perfect Copies, neither yet that the Pope in alleging a Canon which they had not, was a Forger and falsefyer.  
jewel. 
The 308 Untruth. For that is not avouched.  And if he have them in deed and that of such Authentic record, under the hands of the three hundred and eighteen bishops, (as it is boldly avouched) why a●e they not showed? Why have they been for the space of these thirteen hundred years still kept unvisible? Verily the Council of Nice were well worth the s●ewing.  
Stapleton The force of M. jewels eloquence hath set his wit quite out of order: and made him utterly to forget where about he goeth. Before he talked against Pope Zosimus, and would prove him a Forger. Now he raveth about the Pope now living. But quiet yourself M. jewel. It is not avouched of any man that the Pope hath these Canons now, and hath kept them unvisible these thirteen hundred years. But that Zosimus truly alleged them to the Africanes, and that he was no Forg● himself therein, but had them in his Custody from his predecessors Silvester and other, to whom they were sent from Nice, this is avouched, and this you have forgotten.  
jewel. All these things rightly weighed, may seem sufficient to descry a Forger.  
Stapleton. All these things rightly weighed, may seem sufficient to destrie a Slanderer. All this may evidently show, that M. jewel is a hot Rhetorician, a cold divine, a great talker, a weak reasonner, full of words, void of proofs. Remember M. jewel the saying of the wise man. Quid Stulti proprium? Non posse & velle Nocere.  
jewel. Yet (gentle Reader) the better to satisfy thy mind, mark how earnestly and with what cunning M. hardings Athanasius forceth on his fable. He thought it not sufficient to say, The Canons all were quite burnt, Which thing he only saith and no man else but because he saw wise men would Reply, There were no such Canons ever made, therefore he took pains further to show the consideratyons and causes, and the whole order, and circumstance of the making, whereat, he saith, he himself was present.  
Stapleton. M. jewel forsooth is the wise man that Replieth, There were no such Canons ever made. For it is now more than a thousand years that any man replied so, before the holy brood of f●yer Luther among whom M. jewel hath learned this wit. And how wisely he hath Replied, it appeareth I trow, by the Grave and True process that he hath hitherto made. And shall yet better appear by the Deep Consideration which followeth.  
jewel. Four score canons (saith he) were devised in the whole: whereof 40. were laid in Latin by the Latins, and 40. other in Greek by the Grecians. Off this whole number of Canons (sayeth he) the Fathers there took of ten Canons and divided them as they might, most handsomely among the rest, and so made up only the number of 70. Canons. thereby mystically to represent the 70. Disciples, or else the number of the. 70. tongues that be known in the worlie. Thus of wholesome and godly Rules of Faith and Manners, M. hardings Athanasius hath leisure to fancy preaty Mysteries.  
Stapleton Now forso the reasoned like a pretty divine, and full Bishoplike. Athanasius telleth of threescore and ten Canons made to represent the three score and ten disciples, or else the three score and ten tongues that be known in the world, Ergo that was not the true Athanasius that wrote it, but some idle fansyer of preaty Mysteries. How truly said S. Paul? Animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus dei. 
1. Cor. 2.  Stultitia enim est illi. The Sensual man perceiveth not those things that are of the Spirit of God. For it soundeth to him as a folly. And again, Sapientia Carnisinimica est deo. 
Rom. ●.  The wisdom of the flesh is contrary to God. For were you in deed M. jewel affectioned as it becometh a Bishop and shepherd of God's flock to be, yea had you any portion of that holy Spirit directing your thoughts and writings, as but a sober Christian man ought to have, you would n●uer have uttered such a lewd toy to discredit the writing of an Ancient and most learned Father, such as Athanasius thorough out all Christendom is known to be. For by the like vain of your singular wit and wisdom M. jewel, you may discredit many a learned work of the best and most approved Fathers of Christ's Church. S. Ambrose in his learned work De fide ad Gratianum maketh a mystery of the number of the Fathers of the Nicene Council (as Athanasius reporteth the Fathers themselves to have made of the number of their Canons,) and compareth the .318. Fathers to the .318. fight men under Abraham when he conquered the four kings, saying. De con●ilijs id potissimum sequar, 
Gen. 14. Ambros. de fide ad Gratianum li. 1. in Pr●̄logo.  quod trecenti decem & octo sacerdotes tamquam Abrahae electi judicio, consona fidei virtute victores velut trophaeum toto orb subactis perfidis extulerunt. Vt mihi videatur hoc esse divinum, quòd eodem numero in Concilijs fidei habemus oraculum, quo in historia pietatis exemplum. Of all counsels I will follow that chief which the three hundred and eighteen Priests as if they had been chosen by the mind of Abraham (who with that number conquered the iiij. kings) by the Agreement of faith triumphed by conquest over all faithelesse folk. That it seemeth to me this matter was by God's providence, that we have an Oracle of our Faith in Counsels under the same Number, as we have an example of virtue in the Story. This observation and likelihood of Number seemed to S. Ambrose, Diu●num, a Matter done by God, a Mystery, a Secret work of the highest. And yet is he not therefore accounted a fancyer of pretty Mysteries (as full prettily M. jewel babbleth) neither is therefore that learned work of his rejected or doubted of. In like m●ner S. Hierom in his Apology ad Pammachium, make●●● Mystery of these three numbers, thirty, three score, and a hundred, which our Saviour in the gospel speaketh, of the increase that cometh of the seed falling upon good earth, and saith of these numbers. 
I● Apologia a● Pammachium pro libris adversus jovinia.  Triginta referuntur ad nuptias, Septuaginta vero ad viduas. Porro numerus centesimus exprimit vi●gin●tatis Coronam. Thirty are referred to Marriage. Three score to widows state. And the numbered of a hundred representeth the garland of virginity. What now? Will M. jewel here either therefore deny this work to be of S. Hieroms' making, or else say that of God's holy word he h●d leisure to fancy preaty Mysteries? In like manner when S. Augustine maketh Mysteries not only of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, and their so many wives, but also of Loathes lying with his own daughters, and of the fornication committed by judas with his daughter in Law Thamar, 
Lib. 22. contra Faus●um Man●chaeum. cap. 82. & ●●.  and such other matters against that heretic Faustus the Manichee, will M. jewels modesty serve him trow we, to say, that that learned piece of work is none of S. Augustine's, but of some Fabler that had leisure upon holy Scripture to fancy preaty Mysteries? Or shall we rather say that all this grave and deep consideration of M. jewel, which he bringeth, as he saith, to satisfy his Readers mind, is but a lewd scoff of his idle brain against that holy Council more meet truly for a Sir john hicke Scorner, then for a my L. bishop. And for such I let it pass.  
jewel. But for better view hereof, I remember Cardinal Cusanus touching the famous donation of Constantine writeth thus. Even in the writing of it, I have found manifest tokens of falsehood.  
Stapleton. This is well remembered surely. But were your faith as good, as your memory is shrewd, I trow you would have remembered some better thing, than thus to have trifled and toyed. Verily a little remembrance will serve to remember a number not tokens of falsehood, but facing falsehoods in deed, open Untruths and lewd Lies all along your Reply, M. jewel, and especially in this your wise discourse of the Pope's Forgery. Wherein, I trow, you will at length conclude yourself a Forger. Howbeit let us see now what your good remembrance hath helped you in this matter.  
jewel. 
The .309. Untruth Slaund. as shall appear.  The like may be said of these M. hardings new Canons. Even in the very utterance and writing of them we may find plain contrariety and therefore undoubted tokens of Untruth.  
This like is untruly said of M. jewel, except he prove it. And not only Untruly, but also Slanderously. Let then his proofs try.  
jewel. For the former twenty Canons, whereof there is no question, were made in the Council of Nice. But the rest, whereof S. Augustin and the bishops of Africa moved doubt, and whereby the Bishop of Rome would seem to claim, were devised at Rome and not at Nice.  
Stapleton This is a mere kind of Sophistry, called Petitio Principij. For that is brought to prove a Conclusion, which ought itself to be proved and Concluded. M. jewel will prove that the Canons were devised by the Pope, because they were devised by the Pope. As much to say. Why is it so? Marry because it is so.  
jewel. This new Canon here alleged sayeth. The bishop of Rome hath the rule and sovereignty over all Patriarches.  
Stapleton This was not alleged of Zosimus, 
Lib. 3 de cha●a●t dogmas.  whom M. jewel goeth about to prove a Forger. But it is alleged of Franciscus Turrianus and out of him by D. Harding. Thus M. jewel confoundeth and iumbleth things together, But let us see what he will infer hereof.  
jewel. 
Concil. Nicen. can. 6.  But the very true and undoubted Council of Nice saith far otherwise. Antiqua consaetudo servetur per Aegyptum, Lybiam & Pentapolim, ut Alexandrinus horum omnium habeat potestatem. Quia & urbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos est. Let the Ancient custom be kept through out Agypte, Lybia, and Pentapolis: that the bishop of Alexan●ria have the government of all these. For the bishop of the City of Rome hath the like order. By this Canon the B. of Rome hath (310) no sovereignty over other patriarchs, 
The 310. Untruth as shall appear.  As M. Harding fantasieth, but only a fellowship, and equality with the rest, to walk carefully with in his own division, as others were bound to do within theirs.  
Stapleton This Canon doth import a Sowerainte of the B. of Rome over other patriarchs. And therefore the contrary is untruly avouched. Ask you how that may appear? Forsooth by these very words of the Canon alleged. Quia & urbis Romae episcopo parilis mos est. Because the bishop of Ro●e hath the like order. The Canon Commandeth not as a new matter but as an Old Custom that the bishop of Alexandria shall govern all Egypt, and Pentapolis. And why shall that old Custom be kept? The Canon saith. Quia & urbis Romae Episcopo Parilis mos est. Because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Order. 
The Pope's Primacy in the Nicene Council.  As much to say, because the bishop of Rome hath so of long time appointed it and ordered it. Else the reason of the Decree were void, and fond. For a fond thing it were to allege for a reason of the law the Custom, Manner and Order of an other, if his Order and Manner did not import an authority, sufficient to Rule and direct the Law. That holy Council therefore, alleging expressly the Order before taken by the bishop of Rome, as a Reason why the other patriarchs should be thus and thus limited, giveth us to understand, that such their limitation proceeded of the Bishop of Rome's former Order and appointment, and that the Decree of the Canon of that Council was but a public Testimony and Ratification of the Ancient Order before by the Pope taken and used. And thus this Canon importeth a sovereignty of the B. of Rome over other patriarchs, as by whose Order the others jurisdiction was limited and restrained. Thus also the other Canon alleged by Franciscus Turrianus and mentioned by D. Harding is not contrary to the true Copies or Canons of the Nicene Council, but soundeth agreeable to the same.  
jewel. And in this canon these two words Parilis mos are specially to be noted: which cannot (311.) otherwise be expounded, 
pag. 239. The 311. Untruth For these words. aught otherwise to be expounded.  but only of like manner, order, and authority of jurisdiction.  
So saith M. jewel. But then let us consider the reason of the Canon. The Canon saith. The patriarch of Alexandria shall have Egypt, lybia, and Pentapolis allotted to his jurisdiction. And why? Forsooth by M. jewels reason, Because the bishop of Rome hath ●he like manner, order, and authority of jurisdiction. What? hath the bishop of Rome the like jurisdiction over Egypt, lybia, and Pentapolis, and shall therefore the Patriarch of Alexandria have the same? Do those two words Parilis mos necessarily infer so much, and can they not otherwise be expounded? Then two several patriarchs must have one and the like jurisdiction. Then which what can be more absurd? What then? Shall therefore the bishop of Alexandria have such and such Countries allotted unto him, because the B. of Rome hath such and such other Countries? And what reason is this to make a Decree, I appeal to all men of reason and understanding. This might perhaps serve for a like and similitude, as that the B. of Alexandria should be the patriarch over such Countries, Even as the Bishop of Rome is the patriarch over other Countries. But now the words of the Canon, are not Even as the B. of Rome, and so forth. But the words of the Canon are: Quia● & Episcopo parilis mos est. Because the Bishop of Rome hath the like Order. The like Order taken. by the bishop of Rome is given as a Cause and Reason of the Decree. It is not brought as a Like or Similitude to exemplify the decree. Therefore it can not be taken as M. jewel fantasyeth, to signify a like manner and authority of jurisdiction in the bishop of Rome. But it must of necessity signify a Superior authority of the B. of Rome. Verily such as the which was a sufficient warrant and Reason to that Holy Council, to establish the old Accustomed jurisdiction of the patriarch of Alexandria, over Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis. And thus far do the true Copies of the Nicene Council agree with the other not commonly extant among the twenty, and confirm in like manner the Supreme authority of the bishop of Rome over the patriarchs themselves.  
jewel. 
The .312. Untruth as it shall anon appear.  M. hardings Canon saith. S. Pete● was master and ruler over all Christian Princes. And yet is not M. harding able to prove that while S. Peter lived, there was any one prince Christened in the whole world.  
What a Manifest, Notorious, and Captain Untruth this is, it shall anon appear, in the Returning of the next Untruth fathered by M. jewel upon D. Harding. But now let us consider how M. jewel can guess to the Contrary.  


The 313. Untruth joined with a so lie.  
Homil. 1. de paeni●. Tom. 5. Primatum illi gubernationenque per universum mundum tradidit.  
Matth. 8.   And if Peter had had power over kings and Princes, it is not likely he would have taken up his lodging with Cornelius the poor Tanner.  
Well gheassed and wisely. As though S. Peter's power committed to him by Christ, and the Primacy which he had (by Chrysostom's judgement) over the whole world, was to command himself a lodging and such like temporal preferments. Some foolish jew might reason as wise M. jewel here doth, and say. If Christ was the Son of God and king of all, it is not likely he would have lived in such sort that he might say (as he said) of himself. Foxes have their holes, and birds have their nests. But the Son of man hath not where to rest his head. By such godly Reasons M. jewel f●●eth God's people. But S. Paul soluteth well this whole matter, 
1. Cor. 9  saying. What is my reward? For sooth that preaching the gospel, I may deliver the gospel without cost. That I may not abuse my Power in the Gospel. So dealt the Apostles at the beginning, and so they planted the gospel, not yet losing therefore their Spiritual jurisdiction.  
jewel. In the end he concludeth with a Terror. Iff any man repine against this Statute, accursed be he.  
In deed to all heretics, 
Sorom. li. 3. cap. 8. Conc. Chal. Act. 3. Optatus. li. 1.  a Terror it is to obey their Superiors: and specially to be subject to the See of Rome. So the Arrians defied Pope julius, the Eutychian Dioscorus presumed to excommunicate Pope Leo, the Donatists would not stand to the judgement of Pope Melciades. And so to M. jewel the Statute of the Nicene Council confirming the Pope's Supremacy is a Terror.  
jewel. Wherein he doth great wrong both to S. Augustine, 
The .314 Untruth For the Africanes never saw this Canon.  and also to all the Bishops of Aphrical, Numidia, Mauritania, Pentapolis and Byzancena. Who not only repined (.314.) openly against this Canon, but also said, It was falsified, and rebuked the Pope of Pride and Ambition for the same.  
Stapleton Of what Metle is M. jewel made that this outfaceth Matters? For S. Augustine and all those bishops never saw this Canon. This Canon I say alleged by D. Harding out of Turrianus against the which M. jewel hath so long talked, which confesseth the Pope to be over all patriarchs, which saith, that S. Peter was Master and ruler over all Princes, and the which (as M. jewel saith) concludeth with a terror, this Canon the African bishops never saw. But it is one of those Canons which Franciscus Turrianus a learned man of our days hath found out. Is there any regard of shame or honesty in M. jewel that multiplieth Untruths, and droppeth lies, so fast?  
To be short, what leadeth M. Harding thus to say? 
The 315. Untruth Slaund. For D. Harding said not so.  The bishop off Rome hath these three score and ten Canons in safe keeping. Why doth he thus dissemble and mock the world?  
And Alas. What leadeth M. jewel thus to belie D. Harding? why doth he thus dissemble and mock the world? What shall he hope to win or get hereby, but if it be to have the Whetstone? The words which D. Harding saith of those three score and ten Canons kept in Rome, are these.  
Harding. 
diuis. 6. pag. 232. in M. jewels Reply.  Among the Canons made by the .318. bishops at the Nicene Council, which were in number 70. and all burnt by heretics in the East Church save xx. and yet the whole number was kept diligently in the Church of Rome in the Original itself, Sent to Sylvester the Bishop there from the Council subscribed with the said .318. Father's hands etc? In these words D. Harding said, the whole number, Was kept. And how? Sent to Sylvester by the Council itself, but that the bishop of Rome now hath them, as M. jewel maketh him to say, he saith not at all. Who so believeth not me herein, let him peruse the whole words of D. Harding in this place in the very text inserted in M. jewels Reply, and if he find it otherwise, let me never more be credited. Now M. jewel with more impudence than can well be expressed, 
Dist. 16. viginti.  reasoneth very sadly out of the decrees, and proveth that many a year ago, the Pope had but twenty Canons of that Council: and thus he concludeth.  
jewel. 
The 316. Untruth As before  The Pope saith there are but twenty Canon extant, M. Harding saith (316.) ●here are three score and ten Canons. I trow, 〈◊〉 no reason, we should believe M. Harding, and leave the Pope.  
Stapleton No truly. But it were more reason that you would once speak more truly, and not so vilely abuse the Patience of your Reader with such gross, shameless, and Slanderous Untruths.  
After this wholesome and fruitful Process M. jewel hath a fling again at an other Epistle of Anathasius to Felix. All out of season, and all beside the purpose. Leaning therefore his Untrue allegations of certain doctors, about that matter of (the which his untrue dealing he shall yet hear by some other, God willing, ere it be long) let us consider M. jewels Conclusion and winding up of this great Process of the Pope's forgery.  
jewel. 
The .317. Untruth. peevish.  Now, gentle Reader, shortly and simply, to lay all the effect hereof before thine eyes: M. Harding'S Canons were burnt before they were ever made.  
Stapleton. This is one Manifest Untruth to beguile the Reader. Now followeth a Scoff to abuse the Reader.  
jewel. They were burnt, and yet were they falsified, They were falsified and yet were they burnt to.  
Stapleton 
The .318. Untruth peevish.  So the field was won, and the field was lost. The field was lost, and yet it was won. But twenty years came between.  
This Athanasius informeth Marcus the Bishop of Rome of the burning of them, nine years before the fire was made.  
Stapleton They were burnt in the days of Marcus, saith Athanasius. A second fire M. jewel would fain prove. But to prove that Untruth he is driven to make both Athanasius and Socrates to say that they never said.  
jewel. The Pope is found in most manifest Forgery, 
The .319. Untruths Slanderous.  and that by the witness of the patriarchs of Constantinople, and Antioch, and off all the bishops, and the whole Council of Africa, S. Augustin himself being present.  
Stapleton This is found all to be a manifest fable full of Untruths, Slanderous, lewd, and lying. Of the africans dealing we shall say more anon.  
jewel. M. Harding saith. 
The .320 Untruth Slaund. as before.  The Pope hath the custody of these Invisible Canons. The Pope himself saith, he hath none of them.  
D. Harding said not so. But even as that Pope Steven said, that they were all at Rome to the number of .70. and sent thither by the Council itself to Pope Sylvester..  
These Canons be plain Contrary not only to the old Catholic Fathers but also to other Canons of the same Council. 
The .321. Untruth as appeareth.   
Stapleton. The Canons of the same Council are not contrary to these alleged, as hath been proved. As for Father's contrary to these Canons M. jewel hath alleged none.  
The bishops in the Council of Africa openly mislike the Pope's attempt in this behalf, and call it worldly pride and vain Ambition.  
Stapleton How they misliked it, and how well they did in it, it hath before appeared, and shall yet anon more appear.  
jewel Such warrant hath M. Harding to advance the state of the see of Rome.  
Stapleton Such proofs hath M. jewel against the See of Rome. And thus by a number of manifest Untruths, by sleights and open Forgery M. jewel hath thought good to prove the Pope a Forger, and to blaze in the title of these five pages, The Pope a Forger: The Pope a Forger. For the which I see no cause, but we may most justly say and publish to the world. jewel a Forger. jewel a Forger. And not only that, but jewel a Slanderer. jewel a Slanderer. And again. Open Untruths of jewel: Open Untruths of jewel. For thus deserveth he with all men to be esteemed, which heapeth Untruths upon other men's backs most Untruly, and chargeth that blessed Pope Zosimus, with Forgery and Falsifying, Blazed out in great letters, but Proved with no Reason.  
Now for a surplusage, because M. jewel with all the help of the lying Centuries, patched up by his brethren of Magdeburge, with all his study and conference with his friends, hath not yet been able to fasten any Forgerye upon Pope Zosimus, but the more he hath talked therein, the more Untruths he hath multiplied, let us consider how the Africanes them selves after the death of this Zosimus (who was Pope but one year) spoke and reported of him, whether as of a Forger and Falsyfyer, as the impudent face of M. jewel had blazed it out, or otherwise. First the whole Council of the African bishops in their letter to Bonifacius the next Successor of this Zosimus, even talking of this matter of appealing to Rome, and of the Nicene Canon alleged by Zosimus therefore, do call him Beatae memoriae Zosimum. Zosimus of blessed memory. And again Venerabilis memoriae Zosimum, 
Con il. Aph●ic in epist. ad Bonifacium.  Zosimus of reverent memory. If these African bishops had (as M. jewel most lewdly lieth) descried such a Forgery of the holy Council of Nice in Zosimus, and if they had also been of the Spirit, that this gospeling Prelatis of, they would I trow, have blazed him out in their letter thus. Zosimus the Forger, Zosimus the Falsyfyer of the holy Council. Zosimus of infamous memory. But we see in these Fathers both an other opinion and an other Spirit, then appeareth in these wicked Cham's, whose whole glory and pleasure is to Accuse their Fathers, holy and learned bishops of Christ's Church before them.  
S. Augustin one of the African bishops that was present when Faustinus legate to this Pope Zosimus alleged the same Canon of the Nicene Council, let us consider how after the death of Zosimus, he reporteth of him in his learned writings against the Pelagians, condemned especially by this learned Pope Zosimus. He saith of Celestius the Pelagian heretic, In urbe Roma libellum dedit beatissimo Papae Zosimo. 
De Gratia Christili. 2. cap. 2. Cap. 6.  In the City of Rome he gave up a libel (of his faith and belief) to the Most holy Pope Zosimus. And because this learned Pope Zosimus did not D●strictam ferre sententiam pronounce a strait Sentence against this Pelagyan heretic, but suis interrogationibus & illius responsionibus furentem colligare, donec (si fieri posset) resipisceret, moderate the fury of the heretic by his questions and the others answers, until, if it were possible, he might amend, because I say the Pope Zosimus thus dealt with him, S. Augustin calleth him Multum misericordem Apostolicae Sedis Antistiten, A very merciful bishop of the See Apostolic. In the next Chapter following he calleth him Venerabilis Papa Zosimus The reverent Pope Zosimus. And in the next after Beatissimus Papa Zosimus. The most Blessed Pope Zosimus. 
Cap. 7. Cap. 8.  And again in the same Chapter. Venerabili Papae Zosimo Synodus Africana respondit. The African Council answered to the reverent Pope Zosimus. In few Chapters after, recording how Pelagius went about ad fallendum etiam Apostolicae Sedis Epis●opale judicium, to deceive the bishoply judgement even of the See Apostolic, he telleth of letters which Pelagius sent to Innocentius, but Quoniam eum in corpore non invenerunt, 
Cap. 17.  Sancto Papae Zosimo datae sunt Because they found not Innocentius then living, they were delivered to The Holy Pope Zosimus. These and such like Titles gave that holy and learned Father S. Augustin, one of the African bishops in whose presence that Canon of the Nicene Counce was alleged, to Pope Zosimus. He calleth him A Holy Pope, A most Blessed pope. A reverent Pope, a very mercifully Bishop, and so forth, but by the name of Forger, 

Contra duas episto●as Pelagianorum lib. 1.  
Cap. 4. & Contra julianum saepe.   Falsyfyer, or any such like terms he calleth him not. Had he been guilty of such a heinous Crime, as M. jewel and his fellows do lay against him, he would not so reverently have spoken of him, and that so oft. Almost as oft as he nameth him.  
Now because M. jewel fantasieth a Forgery descried in the Pope by the Africanes and by the East Churches, let us a little consider their dealing therein. First the africans sent to all the three Churches of the East, 
In epist. ad Bonifacium Cap. 101.  Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. From Alexandria and Constantinople they received Copies. From Antioch they received none. Or at the lest in the African Council there appeareth no Copy sent from thence. How chanced that trow we? Were there not to be sound any in that Church, but destroyed by heretics, or was there a Copy sent, but not published by the africans? If the first, as likely were the other to have the Copies corrupted and imperfect, as that Patriarkeship utterly to lose them. If the second, than dealt not the africans so uprightly as they might have done. Verily the africans themselves in their letters to Caelestinus the Pope, certifying him of the receit of those Copies from Alexandria and from Constantinople, do not avouch them for the absolute true and only Copies, but do call them Concilia veriora, the truer Copies of the Nicene Council, 
Concil. Aphricanum Cap. 104.  giving us to understand that other copies there were, which to them seemed not so true. Else if other Copies had not then been extant, they should not have called them Veriora the truer: but absolutely Vera, the True Copies, 
Before in the leaf. 37. B.  as M. jewel in deed before turned the same word, declaring his good will, how he would have had them written.  
Again the Copy sent from Cyrillus of Alexandria referreth itself to the Ecclesiastical history. For there it is said. Quae et in ecclesiastica historia requirentes invenietis. Which Canons ye shall find also in the Ecclesiastical history. 
Consil Aphr. Cap. 102.  Now no Ecclesiastical history hath any such Canons of the Nicene Council, but the history of Ruffinus. But those Canons by him mentioned, and the Copy of Cyrillus do vary not a little. Ruffinus, beside the order and placing of the Canons is not like, hath also xxij. Canons. The Copy sent by Cyrillus hath but xx. 

Ruffinus. lib. 1. Cap. 6.  
Tom. 1. Concil. fol. 498.   Therefore either Cyrillus was overseen in referring the Africanes to that history, or else the very letter of Cyrillus is but for●ed or at the lest his Copy not perfect.  
Again Marcus the bishop of Ephesus, one that of all other forceth most this dealing of the africans against the See of Rome, affirmeth that the africans sent not to Cyrillus and Atticus, but to Cyrillus and Proclus. And that the Controversy between the Africanes and the Pope was not about Appeals, but whether the Pope might be called universal bishop. Thus these Grecians agree not in their tales. And thus we might say according to the good remembrance of M. jewel, as Nicolaus Cusanus said, 
Vide Conc. Florent. Sess. 20.  Even in the very utterance of the matter we may find manifest tokens of falsehood.  
To end this matter of the African bishops demeanour toward the See of Rome, though it was at this present done (as it may seem) without breach of charity, or of their whole obedience to the See of Rome, standing only upon the case of Appeal, yet that all was not well on their part, the Success, which is God's judgement (as S. Augustin noteth) Declared. For even immediately after (S. Augustin yet living) the Wandals overpressed the Country, 
Victor. lib. 1. de persecute. Vandalorum.  the Arrians used extreme persecution (as the history of Victor particulary expresseth) and the whole estate of Christianite for the space of a hundred years was in that Country miserably afflicted, and persecuted. After which time a General Submission and Reconciliation was made off the African Bishops, 
Tom 1. Council in Bonifacio 2.  by Eulalius the archbishop of Carthage, unto the See of Rome Bonifacius the second then sitting in the Chair of Peter. Again whether the Pope was a Forger, and his so long after continued authority grounded thereupon (as M. jewel of his brethren of Magdeburg hath learned to say) or the Africanes to be blamed in that Contention, to leave other trial, we see God hath given the Sentence. The moors and Infidels possess Africa. Christians and Catholics live yet at Rone. And have so done without interruption ever sithence.  
Hard. As Peter Christ's vicar at the beginning being set in authority over religion, over the Churches, and over all things pertaining to Christ, was Master and Ruler of Christian Princes, Provinces, and all nations etc.  
The 98. Untruth. For there was no Prince or province Christened in S. Peter's time.  
Stapleton. 
The 322. Untruth Slanderous. The .323. Untruth For there was One prince and province Christened in S. Peter's time, at the least. Nicepoh. li. 2. Cap. 7. Homi. 55. in Matth. Hierem.  It is written in the Ecclesiastical history. Augarus Edessenorum princeps in initio, Thaddeo uno ex septuaginta veniente fidem cum tota illa regione recepit. Augarus the Prince of Edessa received the faith with all that province, even at the beginning by the preaching of Thaddeus one of the 70. disciples. Lo here is One province Christened in S. Peter's time. Thus by a manifest Untruth M. jewel hath noted Untruth upon others. And how say you M. jewel? Doth not the psalm say of the Apostles, Constitutes eos principes super omnem terram. Thou shall make them rulers over the whole earth? And yet you know the whole earth was not Christened in their time. Again Chrisostom saith of Peter by name that Christ made him governor of the whole world. These are his words. God the Father said unto Hieremie the prophet. I have set the as a pillar of iron, and as a brazen wall. But God the father did set this prophet over one nation only (of the jews) but Christ set Peter gowerner over the whole world. And this pre-eminence of Peter Chrisostom in that place doth prosecut, to prove, that the authority and Power of Christ is no less, then of God the Father. Now then as Peter is truly called gowerner over the whole world, though the whole world were not Christened (his government yet extending to Christians only, for off those which are without, we judge not, 
1. Cor. 5.  saith S. Paul) so is Peter truly called the Master and ruler of Princes, though in his time few princes were Christened.  
Again as Peter was truly and by right the Governor of the whole world by Christ's appointment, although not he in person, but his successors in time have so governed the whole world, and shall (before the end come) govern through out every corner thereof, donec impleatur plenitudo gentium, until the fullness of gentiles be accomplished, so Peter is truly called the Master of all Christian Princes, because though not he in person, yet his successors had and shall have the spiritual government of all Princes in the world.  
Last of all what letteth that the Council of Nice might not call the number of converted Christians and Countries in S. Peter's time (who were not I trow all beggars or of base degree) but some Potences some Nobiles, 
1. Cor. 1.  some men of power and nobility, by the name of Princes and provinces, as S. Peter called Herode and Pilate persecuting the Christians, by the names of Princes and Kings, when he said the prophecy was fulfilled in them spoken by David, where it is written: Kings of the Earth and Princes have risen together against the Lord and his anointed. 
Act. 4. Psal. 2.  Neither Herode was King, neither Pilate was Prince in respect of the jews, which professed and said, We have no king but Caesar, 
joan. 19  and yet they are called without Untruth in general terms Kings and princes.  
Harding. The Christian Princes that ratified and confirmed with their proclamations and edicts, the decrees of the Canons concerning the Pope's primacy and gave not him first that authority (as the adversaries do untruly report) were justinian and Phocas the Emperors.  


The .324 Untruth Slaund.  
The 325. Untruth Captain and impudent.  
Cod. de Summ● Tria. & fid. Cath. Tit. 1. No Red●en●es. Au●hē ut Eccles. R●c●nt 〈◊〉. ga●. pri●i.   The 99 Untruth. Phocas gave this Title to the bishop of Rome, but justinian gave it never.  
M. jewel is not contented to avouch an Untruth upon D. Harding, but he addeth also a manifest and Captain Untruth of his own making beside. For first justinian the Emperor writing to john the second Pope of that name calleth his holiness by these very words: Caput omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum: The head of all holy Churches. And in an other Constitution he saith expressly. Vt legum originem anterior Roma sontita est, ita & Summi Pontificatus Apicem apud eam esse ●emo est qui dubitet. unde & nos necessarium duximus Patriam legum, fontem Sacerdotij, speciali nostri Numinis lege illustrare. As from Old Rome the laws have sprung forth, so the very Top of the highest bishopric to be in that City there is none that doubteth. Therefore we also thought it necessary to honour the Mother of our Laws, and the Well spring of Priesthood with some special law of our highness. In those two places justinian first calleth the Pope of Rome Head of all Holy Churches: and then confesseth him to occupy the Top of the highest Bishopric, and that not as any Privilege by him or his predecessors granted, but as a matter that no Christian man doubted of. This therefore is one most Manifest, most Impudent and Captain Untruth of M. jewel to say so peremptorely and so facingly justinian gave this Title never. For here is both the Title, and the authority of the Title expressly confessed. Again the very words of justinian are plain alleged here by D. Harding. Which are these. Sancimus secundum Canonem d●finitiones, Sanctissimum Senioris Romae Papam, primum esse omnium Sacerdotum. We ordain according to the determination of the Canons, that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome, be formest and chief of all Priests. How say you M. jewel? Is not here the chiefty or Primacy of the Pope over all priests confirmed by the emperors edict? Is it not true that the Emperor giveth him that Title, and calleth him Primum omnium Sacerdotum, the chiefest of all Priests? And that not by his own authority or commandment, but Secundum Canonum definitiones. according to the determinations of the Canons. What say you to this place? This is within the compass of your six hundred years, six times farther than Phocas is out of tha● compass, whose testimony you reject therefore. No no, You will never yield, You must with often impudence defend, that which was once impudently spoken. Let us see what you say.  
jewel. This privilege granted to the bishop of Rome to be the first of a●l priests, was not to bear the whole sway and to over rule all the world.  
S. Gregory and Chrysostom have avouched no less of S-Peter and his Successors (as it hat been already declared) Ergo this is one Manifest Untruth to begin withal. 

The .326 Untruth For touching Sp●ritu●ll go●uerne●ent his privilege w●s s●●h.  
Lib. 4. ep. 3● lib. 2. d. s●cerd. 〈…〉 55 in M●●th.  
T●e .327. 〈…〉. Si quis servo, Col. de furtis.   Now to an other.  
But only in general meetings and Councils to sit in place above all other, and for avoiding of confusion to direct and order them in their doings.  
This is an other Untruth. justinian referreth his edict to the constitution of the Canons. Therefore as the Canons do expound this chiefty or Primacy, so must the edict of justinian be interpreted. For the learned lawyer Baldus saith, that the law must be understanded, secundum rationem expr●ssam etc. according to the reason expressed in the law. Now as touching the Canons, unto the which the law is expressly referred first by the Canons of the 
a Can. 21. & 3 in ep. julij.  Nicene Council not only by that which Zosimus alleged to the African bishops, but also by the Canons alleged by julius to the bishops of the East, it is evident that all causes might be referred out of all countries to the Pope of Rome for the time. 
b Can. 7.  The Council of Sardica decreeth the same touching appellations in criminal causes. The Canons of Councils (as the 
c Lib. 4. cap. 9 Hist. tripar.  Ecclesiastical history witnesseth) have ordained that without the authority of the bishop of Rome, no Council should be called. And for that cause the Council of Antioch (being assembled without the agreement of julius the Pope) was disannulled. In the Council of Chalcedon the Po●es legate was precedent, and subscribed in these terms. Paschasinus epis●opus, 
Concil. Chalced. Act. 3.  vice domini mei beatissimi atque Apostolici universae ●cclesiae P●pae urbis R●mae Leonis, synodo praesidens, statui, consensi & subscripsi. I Paschasinus bishop, being Precedent over the Council in the place of my most blessed Lord, and the Apostolic Pope of the universal Church, Leo of the City of Rome, have decreed, have agreed, and have subscribed. In like manner and terms, Lucentius bishop, and Bonifacius priest, both legates of the Pope subscribed before the patriarch of Constantinople and all the rest. This was in the great General Council of Chalcedon, holden in the year of our Lord four hundred and odd, in the assembly of six hundred bishops, meeting there from all parts of Christendom in the presence of Martianus the Emperor. This was all before justinian's time. The meaning therefore of justinian's Edict having relation to the Canons of the former Councils, do give a far other pre-eminence to the Pope, then M. jewel will yield.  
jewel. 
〈◊〉 Sacrosa●●lis Eclipse. d●c●rnimus The 328. Vn●●●t●e For those words of th'emperor are ●ot spoken ●f the Pop●.  Themperors words be plain. Praerogati●a in Epis●oporum Concilio vel extra Cō●●●um ante altos resiaen●i. A prerogative in the Council of bishops or without the Council to sit in order above others. This prerogative in greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the privilege of the fi●st p●●ce.  
Here M. jewel notably betrayeth himself, laying forth For a Countenance a few of th'emperors words, and that nothing to the purpose, beginning in the mids of a Sentence, leaving out the principal verb, briefly hewing and mangling them as him listeth best. soothly, good Reader, if it had liked M. jewel to have given the leave to read the next lines going immediately before, or to have laid out before thee but the whole and full sentence of the Constitution, thou mightest easily have seen, that all this pertaineth nothing in the world to the bishop of Rome, nor to the Decree of justinian touching the Pope's Primacy before mentioned. For first this Constitution is not of justinian's making, but was made threescore years before him, by Leo and Anthemius, as in the Code it is easy to be seen. Again the words of the decree speak not at all of the bishop of Rome. For thus they stan●e. Dece●nimus ut antiquatis ac infirmatis fund●●us que contra ipsam orth●doxae religionis d●um quodammodo facta sunt in integrum ●●s●●●uantur universa: & ad suum ordinem revocentur, 
Cod ●e Sacr● a● is 〈…〉  quaint proj●ct●one nostrae mansu●tudinis de orthodoxae religionis fid● & sanctiss m●●um ecclesiarum & martyriorum statu firmíter obtinebant. Hijs quae contra hoc tempore tyrannidis innovata sunt, tam contra venerabil●s ecclesias quarum sace●dotium gerit beatissimus & religiosissimus Patriarcha nostrae pietat●s pater Achattus, quàm contra caeteras, quae per diversas prouinci●s collocatae sunt, nec non & reverendissimos ●arum Antistites s●u de iure sacerdotalium creationum seu de expulsione cuiusque episcopi a quolibet illis temporibus facta seu de * Praerogativa in episcoporum con●i●o vel extra concilium ante alios residendi, vel privilegio metropolitano vel Patriarchico, sub ijsdem temporibus penitus antiquandis. We ordain and decree (say those Emperors Leo of the East and Anthemius of the west) that all such things being broken and disannulled, which have been committed as though it were against God himself, all things be a new restored, and brought to their former Order, which did take place before our coming as well touching the Catholic faith, as touching the most holy Churches and Chapels. All those things to be utterly repealed which against this, in the time of Tyranny were altered, as well against the reverent Curches' subject to the most holy patriarch our Father Achatius, as against other Churches placed in diverse provinces, and also against the most reverent Bishops of those Churches, whether it be of the right of making priests, or of the deprivation of any bishop in that time committed, Or of 
* Here begin the words that ●. jewel ●ath picked out.  a prerogative in the Council of bishops or without the Council, to sit in order abo●e others, or of the privilege of any Metropolitan, or patriarch, in those times. Thus far the Constitution, not of justinian (of whose law the matter is now in question) but of Leo and Anthemius, who reigned three score years and more before justinian. And in all this Constitution the bishop of Rome is not mentioned, nor any word spoken of his Privilege or Prerogative. But the Prerogative of sitting in order above others (as M. jewel turneth praesidendi, putting for it in his latin, residendi, and so ones again falsifying the very decree,) is here spoken of other bishops, and that by the way, not expounding what that Prerogative was, or to whom it belonged. Yet M. jewel with his accustomed modesty and shamefastness, telleth us: This privilege granted to the bishop of Rome, to be the first of all priests (which are the words off th'emperor justinian) was only in general meetings and Councils to sit in place above all others. And to prove that he inferreth stoutly. Themperors words be plain. As though he h●d alleged the words of justinian th'emperor, and as though those words had been expressly spoken of the Pope's Prerogative, and Primacy. Thus with out all shame and regard what he saith, he allegeth either he careth not what, or else, he can not tell what.  
Now whereas M. jewel to prove this Prerogative of place in councils, bringeth his greek phrases, herein truly his Graecian helpeth him no more, than did before his lawyer. For this edict must needs be referred to the Canons off former Councils which the edict expressly nameth saying, Secundum Canonum definitiones, according to the determinations of the Canons. And this M. jewel perceiving himself very well, would not stay upon these poor shifts of his patched piece of law, and his gr●ke phrases, But hath added an other trick of his own accustomed Divinity, cutting quite away, those words of the Edict, Secundum Canonum definitiones, according to the determinations of the Canons, and following his purpose this.  
jewel. And that the Emperor justinian meant only thus, 
The .329 Untruth For the contrary is manifest.  and none otherwise it is (329.) manifest even by the self same place that M. Harding hath here alleged.  
That were gay in deed. But do it cleanly M. jewel, and I will say you are your Crafts master. Let us behold your play.  
jewel. His words stand thus. Sancimus etc.  
Stapleton. Why & c? Cough out M. jewel. What? Had you here the Choynecough that you were feign to break of your tale in the the mids? To it ones again.  
jewel. 
The 330. Untruth in nipping twice the words of ●●stinian.  Sanctmus ●c. Senioris Romae Papam, primum esse omnium Sa●erdotum, beatiss●mū aute● 〈◊〉 Con●tantinopoleos now Romae secundum habere locum. we ord●●ie that the Pope.  
Where is now etc. M. jewel? You did put it in the latin, confessing that some what lacked, and as though it were somewhat staying your false play in the beginning, but now being once entered, you go away roundly in your english, as though all were smooth a board. Well forth then. Let us hear your english.  
jewel. 
* 〈◊〉 the first. The ●31. Untruth standing in fal●● translation.  We orde●●e that the Pope of the elder Rome, shall be the first of all priests, and that the most holy Archebis●op of Constantinople which is named new Rome, have the se●ond pla●e. Hereby it is plain that this privilege standeth only in placing the b●shop of Rome in the first seat above others.  
Hereby it is plain that Danus will always de Danus, and jewel will always be jewel. For where is 
* 〈◊〉 the first. The ●31. Untruth standing in fal●● translation.  Secundum Canonum definitiones, according to the determinations of the Canons. Where is 
* The words omitted by M. jewel in the place alleged.  Sanctissimum the most holy? Show all on God's name, and play above board. Why shuffle you those words out of the text, and yet as though your play had been fair and good, tell us sadly, His words stand thus? Here was a fair face, but your fingers be to quick. I avise thee, good Reader look better unto them. Who will trust you now M. jewel in your pulpit talk, in your private Doctrine, yea in worldly affairs and communication, if in your printed works, in your doctrine so published to all your Country, and that in the cause and state of soul health, in the question of our due obedience to such as God hath set over us, whom as oft as we despise, so oft we despise Christ himself in this I say so weighty a matter, do deal so doubly, do juggle so falsely and deceive your Reader so perniciously? You knew these words (According to the determinations of the Canons) did utterly overthrow this childish privilege off only places in Councils, which you imagine, as I have before proved unto you. You knew those words imported a far other preferment then of places, and therefore falsely, deceitefully, and wickedly you omitted them. Again you love the Pope so well, that though the Emperor called him Sanctissimum, Most Holy, not for the person then sitting, but for the room that he occupied, yet M. jewel will not call him so. Yet the Title of the archbishop of Constantinople, Beatissimum, where the Turk now reigneth, M. jewel could gladly keep. What? Were those four words either so cumbrous for you to write out, or so troublous to your printer, that needs for hast they must be left out? Or did they import more, than you were glad to express? Thus the Pope and the Emperor, S. Gregory and justinian be set to School, kept in awe, and not suffered to speak one word more, than M. jewel will give than leave. Last of all for esse primum omnium Sacerdotum, that the Pope is the chiefest of all Priests, you turn it, shall be the first, etc., as though before he were not so, but only by that Decree of justinian had been made so. Thus by leaving out of some words and altering other, by nipping and wrong translating, by false and Untrue dealing you think to bring all the world a sleep, to abuse and deceive your Reader. Let us yet see whether you will hereafter amend it. Thus you say.  
But I beseech thee gentle Reader, 

The 332. Untruth Slaund.  
The .333. Untruth For the contrary appeareth ●y that which followeth 〈…〉.   weigh well the words that follow in the same law, and thou shalt see, both that M. hardings dealing (.332.) herein is not upright, and also that the bishop of Rome was then (.333.) excluded by plain words from that universal power, which he now ●o deeply dreameth of.  
And I beseech thee also gentle Reader to do the same, assuring thee herein, thou shalt see both that D. Harding'S dealing herein hath not been faulty at all, (unless for a man to omit his own advantage it be a fault) and also that 〈◊〉 B●shop of Rome by this place which M. jewel with 〈…〉 Supreme jurisdiction evidently testified above a thou●and years past, not as a matter lately dreamt of.  
jewel. 
The .334 Untruth. For it followeth immediately. According as the Holy Pope Vigilius h●th appointed.  It followeth immediately. We ordain that the most holy Arche●ishop of Iusti●iana the f●●st, whi●h is our count●e shall have for ever under his jurisdiction, the bishops off the provinces of Da●i●, Dan●a, D●rdania, Mysia and Pannonia, and that they shall be invested by him, and ●e only by his own Council, and that he in the Provinces subject unto him shall have the place of the Apostolic See off Rome.  
These be the words of justinian. What will M. jewel gather hereof? He saith.  
Here we see, The bishop of justiniana set in (.335.) as high authority, and power within his own jurisdiction, as the Bishop of Rome within his.  

The .335. Untruth. For the B. of Iu●●iniana had his authority from the B. of Rome.  Yea M. jewel. But how came he by that authority? Whose place occupied he in that authority? Doth not the Decree say, He shall have the place of the Apostolic See of Rome? And yet farther? Secundum ea quae sanctus Papa Vigilius Constituit? According as the holy Pope Vigilius hath appointed? These words M. jewel your stomach could not bear. And therefore, you used a sleight of your faculty, to nip them from the whole decree, being yet the cause and reason of the whole decree. For those words M. jewel do teach us that not the Emperor, but the Pope gave that jurisdiction to the Bishop of justiniana, over the Provinces above mentioned. And again that this Decree of the Emperor was but to confirm the Pope's appointment, 
M. jewel hath twice nipped justinia.  even as his former Decree, Sancimus etc., was to confirm the Canons. But M. jewel both in that decree and in this (such is his dealing) hath nipped of the principal words of the decree to make all the matter to appear a Say constitution, not a law of the Church. And yet will this man seem to hold of the Church. Now touching the matter. Understand you not what all this meaneth M. jewel? Every archbishop of Caunterbury duly called to that room hath the same authority in England as the bishop of justinianea had in the provinces above named. Every archbishop of Caunterbury is and hath been almost these thousand years Legatus Natus (as they call it) the Pope's Legate by the right of his dignity. S. Gregory the bishop of Rome, by whose fatherly zeal the Christian faith was first brought to us Englishmen, gave the same authority to S. Augustin our Apostle, the first archbishop of Caunterbury. So Venerable Bede recordeth in the History of our Country. These are the words of the Pope unto him. Britanniarum omnes episcopos tuae frat●rnitati committimus, ut indocti doceantur, infirmi persuasione roborentur, perversi authoritate corrigantur. 
Lib. 1. Cap. 27.  All the bishops of Britanny we commit to your brotherhood, that the unlearned by wholesome doctrine may be instructed, the weak by good persuasions may be strengthened, the froward by just authority may be corrected. After this sort in the late reign of Queen Marie the Reverend father of blessed memory Cardinal Poole had in our country the place of the Apostolic See of Rome. And think you M. jewel that either that authority of the Bishop of justiniana, in the provinces above mentioned, or the authority of the Bishop of Caunterbury in our country, both occupying the place of the See Apostolic and both having that authority by the Pope's appointment, doth any thing impair the Supreme and universal authority of the Pope? And what doth more confirm or establish the same? Verily I fear me M. jewel, some of your brethren will take you here for a doubl●●aced Proctor, as a man pleading for the cause which you seem to impugn. For behold M. jewel hath brought us the witness or justinian the Emperor reigning above a thousand years passed for the authority of the Pope's legate in the provinces of Mysia, Dacia, Dardania, and Pannonia. Every legate in all provinces from the Popes, have the place of the Apostolic See of Rome. And what could that place avail them if the See Apostolic had no place there? The effect of M. jewels argument is this.  
Th● bishop of justiniana occupied the place of the See Apostolic in such and such provinces. 
M. jewels Argument.   
Ergo the S●e Apostolic had no authority in th●se places.  
The jewdenesse of this argument will easily appear by the like.  
The queens majesties Lieutenant in Ireland occupieth the place of h●r Highness in that country.  
Ergo the Queens Majesty hath no authority there. This is a rebels argument against his Liege Sowerain. And the other is the heretics argument against his lawful Pastor. By such Arguments M. jewel maintaineth his Schism and Disobedience.  
In like sort the Emperor justinian saith. The Church off the city of Constantinop●e enjoyeth Now the prerogative of Rome the elder.  
Stapleton. Hereof M. jewel formeth an argument as good as the other.  
Constantinople enjoyeth the privilege of Rome.  
Ergo Constantinople is as of good authority as Rome.  
By such Arguments every Peculiar would be as good as his Bishop, 
M. jewels Arguments.  every privileged College, as the Founder by whom the privilege came, every Liberty as good as the Prince which granted it. By such arguments also, the free Denyson in England, having the privilege of a Natural borne Englishman, will be in all points as free as he, yea though the law bind him to pay a double subsidy to the Prince, when the natural subject payeth but half as much. By such lewd reasons an evil cause must be maintained.  
jewel. 
The .336. Untruth For the law speaketh not of ●ll prerogatives.  Now if the bishop of justiniana and the bishop of Rome, in their several divisions have their like authority, and if the Church of Constantinople in (.336.) all prerogatives, and privileges be made equal with the City of Rome, then is not the bishop of Rome's pow●r universal, neither can he justly be called the head of the unuersall Church.  
Yea M. jewel, if the Sky fall, we may hap to catch Larks. But now M. jewel, if the bishop of justiniana and the bishop of Rome, in their Several divisions have not their like authority, but the one hath it of the other, the one occupieth the place of the other, and that by the appointment of the other, that is of the B. of Rome (as the decree expressly saith) and if again the Church of Constantinople, be not made equal with the City of Rome in All prerogatives ●nd privileges (as M jewel saith) but do enjoy only a privilege of Rome, as the decree saith, than neither is the bishop of Rome's Universal Power impaired, but so far the more defended, neither then any thing letteth why he may not be called the Head of the Universal Church. Last of all then M. jewel hath lost a couple of good arguments.  
Verily justinian himself writing unto Epiphanius the bishop of Constantinople, calleth him the Universal patriarch, 
The .337. Untruth. For t●at Title in a s●nce might belong to both.  which thing he would not have done, (337) if he had thought that Title of right had belonged to the bishop of Rome.  
Neither doth the bishop of Rome challenge that Title, neither was it commended in any bishop, though it was used not only to the Pope, but to diverse other, some time of custom, sometime for honour and reverence to the party. It seemeth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, universal, for Catholic: As you yourself expound that word afterward, 
pag. 299.  and as all true bishops are called.  
Stapleton. 
Th● .338. V●●r●t●e more Slaund. a●d ●eui●h.  The argument that M. Harding gathereth of justinian's words is this. The bishop of Rome had the first place in general Counsels, Ergo he was an universal bishop. Which argument what weight it beareth, I leave to M. Harding to consider.  
Untruth M. jewel. For D. Harding gathereth no such argument: But the argument of harding is this. justinian by that decree or edict ratified that chiefty or primacy in the bishop of Rome, which the Canons had determined. 
D. Harding●s argument.  Ergo th● Emperor confirmed the Pope's Primacy. To this purpose he alleged the Decree of justinian and the ordonance of Phocas. This argument beareth such weight, that all which M. jewel hath wrote and persuaded to the contrary, is not able to bear it down. For it containeth a double proof of the Pope's Primacy: The determinations of the Canons, and the Confirmation of the Emperor. Al within the compass of M. jewels .600. years.  
Harding. Hilarius speaking much to the extolling of Peter and his Successors in that See, saith: Supereminentem fidei suae confefsione locum promeruit: that for the Confession of his blessed faith, he deserved a place of pre-eminence above all other.  
jewel. 
The 339. Untruth Slaund.  The .100. Untruth. For Hilary speaketh not one word of Peter's successor.  
Though S. Hilary speak not of Peter's successor, nor of the See of Rome, yet that which is spoken to the extolling of Peter, may truly be said to be spoken also to the extolling of his Successor. So Chrysostom saith, that Christ committed his sheep Tum Petro, tum Petri successoribus. Both to Peter, and to the Successors of Peter, 
Lib. 2. de sacerdo. io. In epist. ad Dam.  when he said to Peter, only, Feed my sheep. So S. Hierom calleth Damasus the Pope, the chair of Peter, upon the which he confesseth the Church to be builded. And so Hilary extolling Peter and confessing a pre-eminence above other in him, is not Untruly said to confess the same in his Successors. Especially seeing that Christ builded a Church not to remain in Peter only, but for ever. Now whereas M. jewel saith Hilary only commendeth the faith of Peter, he committeth a great Untruth against S. Hilary. For in the same book he confesseth that upon Peter himself Christ builded his Church, 
De Trinita te lib. 6.  where he saith. Post sacramenti confessionem, Beatus Simon aedificationi ecclesiae subiacens. Blessed Simon after the confession of the mystery, lying under the building of the Church. For what meaneth Hilary, to make Peter lie under the building of the Church, but that he is the rock and foundation upon which it pleased God to build and erect his Church? And so of S Cyprian. S. Hierom, S. Augustin, and other fathers, Peter is called Fundamentum Ecclesiae, the foundation of the Church, not to exclude the only principal foundation which is Christ, but to confess and signify a strength and power never to fail, in him and his successors. It is not therefore only the Faith of Peter, but, also the Person of him which Hilary extolleth, which also is no less sure than his faith, because Christ hath prayed and no doubt obtained, 
Luc. 22.  Vt fides eius non deficiat, that his faith may not fail.  
Hard. Locum supereminentem. Hard. A place of pre-eminence above all other.  
jewel. 
The .340. Vntr●the Slanderous.  The .101. Untruth standing in false translation. For M. Harding addeth of his own: above all other.  
Stapl. Above whom then M. jewel is that place of pre-eminence which Peter had? Above some, or above none, or above all? If above some only, you must show which some those are, and the reason why above those only. If above none, it is no pre-eminence at all. Truly the word Supereminentia importeth a pre-eminence not mean nor common, butt above all other. And herein I dare to make any grammarian judge. How be it what so ever the grammarian say herein, the Divinity teacheth us plainly so. Chrisostom saith. God the Father set Hieremie over one nation. 
Homi 55. in Matth.  But Christ made Peter governor over the whole world. Which proposition he taketh to be so true, that here of he maketh an argument, to prove the Equalite of the Godhead of Christ, with God the Father. And Gregory saith. Cura ei totius Ecclesiae & principatus committitur. The charge and chiefty of the whole Church is committed unto him. And all writers both greeks and latin do call Peter, 
Lib. 4. epist. 32.  the Prince, Head, and chief of the Apostles. If he were over the Apostles, no doubt but he was over all the rest of the Church beside. And so the Divinity is true, and the translation not Untrue, which giveth a true sense to the latin word, no more than the word, itself beareth.  
Hard. The same S. Augustine speaking to Bonifacius bishop of Rome, This care (saith he) is common to us all that have the office of a bishop: albeit therein thou thyself hast the preminence over all being on the top of the pastoral watchetoure.  
jewel. 
The .341 Untruth Slanderous.  The 102. Untruth. standing in the false translation, and corruption, of S. Augustine's words.  
I perceive M. jewel, we must go to construing, we must leave our divinity, and go to our grammar a while. Go to then. Let us first put our latin, and then see what construction may be made of it. And let us take the words, as M. jewel allegeth them. He saith thus.  
jewel. S. Augustine's words be these. Communis est nobis omnibus, qui fungimur epis●opatus offi●io, quamuis ipse in eo praeemineas celsiore fastigio, specula pastoralis.  
Stapleton. Our books of Paris print read not so M. jewel. You should have told us what copy you followed herein. Truly your words which follow, do contain a slanderous untruth, where you say.  
jewel. 
T●● .342 Untruth more Slanderous.  Which words M. H●rding by wilful depravation hath altered thus, Ce●siore f●s●●●io speculae pasto●alis.  
This is a wilful and cankered untruth M. jewel. You know yourself right well that all the editions of Paris print, do read those Very words in that very sort, letter for letter, and syllable for syllable, as you have in this place put them, and as you say D. Harding hath altered them. And what shameless, Ruffianlike impudence is this in you, to say that M. Harding h●th altered them, and that by wilful depravation? O M. jewel why do you so deceive, abuse, and mock the unlearned Reader? Is it not possible to maintain your heinous heresies without such manifest and cankered Untruths? You proceed in your Untruths, and say.  
jewel. 
The .343. A Burden of Untruths all slanderous.  And so hath left the adjective Communis, without a substantive, and the principal verb without a nominative case. And to serve his turn hath caused S. Augustin to speak false latin.  
In these three sentences, you have made three Untruths. For all were it true touching the words of S. Augustin, that there lacked a noun substantive, and a nominative case, and that S. Austen is made to speak false latin, yet not D. Harding, but the prints of Paris have done all this. Thus you have trifled and multiplied untruths upon yourself, no untruth yet appearing in D. Harding, who hath done no more than followed his book. Let us now come to the matter, and see how you will english this place, and whether in your own translation, the matter which we seek for may not be found: that so it may appear what a wrangler you are to fall a scanning off your tenses, to rip up syllables, to hunt after letters, to trifle upon terms, the matter itself remaining sound.  
jewel. 
The 344 Untruth standing in false translation.  This place of S. Augustine may thus be englished, The pastoral watch tower is common to us all, that bear the office of bishops, albeit thy pre-eminence is greater, as sitting in the higher room.  
Nay M. jewel though I am contented to take your own construction, and to read Specula pastoralis. for speculae pastoralis, as our books of paris print do read, yet I may not suffer you by your false translation to leave out the pith of the sentence. For you leave out (in eo sc. epis●opatus officio) in the s●me bishoply office. And thus S. Augustin saith, to follow your own construction. The pastoral watch tower is common to us all, that bear the office of bishops, quamuis ipse in eo praeemineas Celsiore fastigio, albeit in that Office thy pre-eminence is greater, as sitting in the higher ●oome. In which words S. Augustin acknowledgeth the Pope to have a pre-eminence above other in the office of a bishop, and to sit in a higher room. What is this but to have a Primacy or superiority over other bishops? Thus the matter which was here sought for (the Pope's primacy) is by S. Augustin witnessed and confessed. Now if M. jewel will always wrangle and say.  
jewel. 
The 345. Untruth. Slaund.  These words (over all) are not found in S. Augustine, but only devised at pleasure by M. Harding.  
Stapleton. I must answer, that praeeminere Celsiore fastigio may truly signify to have a pre-eminence over all. If there be no more herein than his Nay, and my Yea, then let a quest of grammarians be called to decide the construction. Howbeit for the matter itself there needeth no quest of divines. S. Augustin being a Doctor within the first 600. years is a sufficient judge in this plea, by the yielding of M. jewel himself. And if this place be not clear enough, let us take the other, which here M. jewel hath utterly drowned in silence, and not answered one word or half word thereunto. The place is this. What shall we doubt (saith S. Augustin) to repose ourselves in the lap off that Church, 
Lib. de ut litate cre-i dendi. Cap. 17.  which (though heretics bark at it in vain round about, condemned partly by the judgement of the people themselves, partly by the gravity of Councils, and partly by the Majesty of miracles even to the confession of mankind) which (Church I say) from the See Apostolic by succession of bishops, hath obtained the Top or highest degree of authority? Unto the which Church (continuing by Succession of bishops in the Apostolic See) if we will not give and grant the Primacy, soothly it is a point either of most high wickedness (note M. jewel) or of headlong arrogancy. Here is a Primacy, here is Culmen authoritatis, the top of authority, here is expounded Celsiore fastigio, the higher Room (which in Pope Boniface he confessed) and that in. eo sc. episcopatus officio, in that Office of a bishop, the top of Bishoplicke authority is here confessed. Here is Primas dare. Your judge M. jewel, a learned Father of the first 600. years, hath pronounced Sentence against you. To this place you have not said one word or half word. And why, but conscientia imbecillitatis, because you knew nothing could be said? No shift of construction, no comparison of Phrases, no sleight of your Rhetoric, no gloze of schoolmen could here be had. Trifle now no more upon words and syllables. Answer to the matter if you can. Truly because you can not, therefore you do not. Thus the world may see the weakness of your side. It may see your most high wickedness and headlong arrogancy (as S. Augustin telleth you, not we M. jewel) which will not yield to the See Apostolic and to that succession off bishops, the Primacy, the pre-eminence in bishoply office, and the Very Top or highest degree of authority. Thus they may See and Beware hereafter of you, which tender more their soul health, than their new conceived opinions. I wish all my dear countrymen (none excepted) they may do so.  
Harding The safety of the Church hangeth of the worship of the high Priest (he meaneth the Pope Peter's successor) to whom if there be not given a power peerless, and surmounting all others, in the Churches we shall have so many schisms as there be Priests.  
jewel. The 103. Untruth. S. Hierom meaneth not the Pope but any other several bishop.  
Stapleton If D. Harding say here that. S. Hierom in this sentence meaneth directly and expressly the Pope, I leave it for an Untruth. And this is the first, (having passed now more than a hundred) which by some oversight may stand for an Untruth. But if D. Harding speak this by the way of consequence, considering the reason which followed, he spoke no Untruth. The reason why there ought to be one high priest in the Church, who should have peerless authority over others, is the avoiding of schisms. If this reason do force that every several diocese must have one head bishop, it forceth a great deal more that the whole Church, being the greater in numbered, and the more in danger of Division, have also one Head bishop. Which in no man else appearing but in the bishop of Rome, to whom the Scriptures, the Councils, the Emperors, and the Fathers have granted the Primacy, it maketh (as I said) by a right good consequence, for the supreme authority of the Pope. Thus S. Hierom, by the force of his reason may mean the Pope, though in his words he speak not of the Pope.  
Harding. To ordain and appoint the vicar of Christ, it pertaineth to none other then to Christ.  
jewel. 
The 346 Untruth Slaund. The 347. Untruth For Christ appointed such a vicar.  The 104. Untruth. For Christ never appointed any such vicar.  
First this, For, followeth not. The consequence I say is Untrue. Christ appointed no vicar. Ergo it pertaineth not unto him to do so. As by the like it shall appear. The king of England never appointed any high Constable, or general Lieutenant over the whole Realm of England. Ergo it pertaineth not unto him to do so. This hangeth very loosely: He never did it, ergo he can not or ought not to do it. Especially when we talk of God who can do all that him pleaseth.  
Again the proposition of M. jewel is an other most manifest and wicked Untruth. Which for Truths sake I will now by God's help, 
That Christ appointed a Vicaire General. Ephes. 1.  evidently prove. That Christ himself was the Head of all the Church appointed by God the Father, the Apostle saith plainly. God gave him (to be) the Head over all the Church, which is his Body. That Christ gave the same authority or Headship over all the Church unto Peter, I prove. Christ said to Peter. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and hell gates shall not prevail against it. Upon this place thus I reason.  
To be the Foundation of the whole Universal Church, under Christ is to have the pow●● and strength of Christ over it, is to be in Curistes' place, is to be his Universal vicar. But Peter is the Foundation of the whole Universal Church, Ergo Peter was made Christ's Universal Vicaire. The Mayor or first proposition thus I prove. Christ is Head of the whole Church because he is the foundation thereof, because he feedeth the whole flock, because he upholdeth the whole house: Ergo to whom Christ giveth all this, that is, whom he maketh the foundation of the whole Church, 
Mat. 16. joan. 21. Luc. 22.  whom he setteth to be the feather of all his Church, whom he strengtheneth to Confirm the Apostles and Bishops themselves, he hath Christ's place and power, he is his Vicaire. The minor or second proposition I prove by the words of the gospel alleged, which words to have been properly spoken to Peter I prove by the expositions of the Fathers upon that place.  
That the Person of Peter was made the foundation and Rock of the whole Church, by those words of Christ, Chrysostom expressly teacheth us. His words are these upon that place. Quae deus concedere solus potest etc. 
Homilia 55. in Mattheum.  Those things which God only can grant, as the power to forgive sins, and that the Church might remain immovable, notwithstanding so many and so great whaves beating against it, and that a poor fisher man might be made stronger than any Rock, though all the world strived against him, these things I say which only God can give, Christ promises in this place that he will give. 
Hierem. 1.  Even so God the Father said to Hieremy the prophet, I have set thee as an iron pillar, and as a brazen wall. But God the Father set him over one nation only, but Christ set Peter over the whole world. Thus far Chrysostom expounding that place of S. Matthew. In whose words we see Peter to be set over the whole world: and the poor fisher man to be made stronger and more durable against all storm of the world than any Rock against the waves. 
Homil. 1. de penitentia.  Again in an other place he saith of Peter, Ecclesiae primatum gubernationemque sibi per universum mundum tradidit. Christ gave unto him the primacy and government of the Church through out the whole world. What is to be Christ's universal vicar if this be not? Hilary expounding also this place of S. matthew, Thou art Peter: etc. where Christ first gave him that name (for before he was called only Simon Bar jona) useth this exclamation, to Peter. O in nuncupatione Novi Nominis faelix Ecclesiae fundamentum etc. 
Hilarius in Matth. Can. 16.  O happy foundation of the Church in the Title of that new name, O worthy Rock of that building, which dissolved the laws of hell, the gates of the Devil, and all the bonds of death. O Blessed porter of heaven gates, to whose arbitrement the keys of the everlasting entry are committed, whose judgement on earth is a prejudicated authority in heaven? Thus S. Hilary acknowledgeth the person of Peter to be that foundation and Rock upon the which Christ builded his Church. 
In Matth. can. 6.  And therefore this learned writer, as he calleth Christ, the Rock of the Church, and Validum excelsi aedificij fundamentum, 
De Trinitate lib. 6.  the strong foundation of that high building, so in an other place he calleth Peter also, Aedificationi ecclesiae subiacens, one that lay under the building of the Church, that is, as one upon whom the Church is builded. 
Lib. 2. de Spir. Sancto.  Which also S. basil confesseth of Peter even in the very same words in effect as S. Hylarie doth. All which is no more to say then that Peter was in the Church in Christ's place and room, to hold up the Church, to build it, and to stay it. In like manner S. Ambrose by this place of S. Matthew declareth Peter to be the Rock of the Church, though differently from Christ, when he writeth thus of Peter. 
Serm 67. Tom. 3.  Pro soliditate devotionis ecclesiarum Petra dicitur etc. He is called the Rock of Churches because of his strong devotion, as our Lord saith. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church. For a Rock he is called because he first laid the foundation off the faith among the gentiles, and because he holdeth together the whole frame and building off Christian religion, like unto a Rock that can not be shaken. So Peter for the fortitude off devotion is called a Rock: and our Lord for his Power and might is called a Rock. Thus far S. Ambrose. Thus both Christ and Peter are called the Rock of the Church by S. Ambrose his judgement, but Peter through Christ, and for Christ. For (as it followeth in S. Ambrose) Recte consortium meretur nomínis, qui consortium meretur & operis. He is well joined in fellowship of the name, which is also joined in the fellowship of the work. S. Hierom upon this place of S. Matthew expoundeth Peter to be the Rock upon the which Christ builded his Church, saying. Sicut ipse lumen Apostolis donavit etc. As Christ gave all the Apostles light, 
Commentar. in Matth. 16.  that they might be called the light of the world, and had their other names of Christ: so unto Simon, which believed in Christ the Rock, he gave the name of Peter. And by the metaphor of a Rock, it is well said of Christ unto him. I will build my Church upon thee. And how many Fathers may be here alleged, which all with one mouth do confess that upon Peter, not only upon the faith or Confession of him, the Church is builded? Tertulliam saith. Latuitne aliquid Petrum aedificandae ecclesiae petram dictum? Was there any thing kept hid from Peter which was called the rock of the Church to be builded? 
In prescript.  S. Cyprian almost as oft as he speaketh of Peter, so oft he calleth him the foundation of the Church. Petrus, saith he, super quem aedificata ab eodem domino fuerat Ecclesia etc. 
lib. 1. epist. 3. lib. 4. epist. 9  Peter upon whom our lord builded his Church. And again. Loquitur illic Petrus, super quem aedificanda fuerat Ecclesia. Peter speaketh there, upon whom the Church should be builded. expounding also the authority which Christ gave to Peter in this place of S. Matthew, he sayeth: that although the Apostles had equal power, yet, ut unitatem manifestaret, 
De simpliprela●.  unitatis eiusdem origin●m ab uno incipientem sua authoritate disposuit, to express an Unite in the Church, Christ by his authority disposed that the fountain and springe of that Unite should proceed of One, which was Peter. Therefore also in the disceptation of Peter with Paul touching circumcision, S. Cyprian Commending the humility of S. Peter toward S. Paul, saith. Nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit, 
In epist. ad Quintinun.  & super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam se vindicavit etc. Neither did Peter whom God chose to be the chiefest, 
Orig. li. 5. Cap. 6. In epist ad Rom.  and upon whom he builded his Church, revenge himself etc. Old Fater Origens' words in this matter seem very plain. Thus he saith. Petro cum summa rerum de pascendis ovibus traderetur, & super ipsum velut super terram Fundaretur Ecclesia, nullius confessio Virtutis alterius ab eo, nisi Charitatis exigitur. When the chief government of feeding Christ's flock was committed to Peter, and the Church was builded upon him, like as upon earth, the profession of no other Virtue is required of him, but charity. For after Christ had three times asked him, Peter lovest thou me, yea and ones, Diligis me plus his? 
joan. 21.  Dost thou love me more than these other do? and to every question Peter had answered Yea, Christ concluded with him and said, Pasce oves meas. Feed my sheep. In these demands only love was required of him. And at this time saith Origen, Summa rerum de pascendis ovibus traditur: The chief and principal government of feeding Christ's sheep, was delivered up unto him, and Super ipsum velut super terram fundata est Ecclesia. The Church was builded or founded upon him, upon Peter himself, even as upon earth. That earth truly which our Saviour called a Rock, and made it by his special prayer for him, that his Faith should not fail, stronger and stedfaster than any Rock or Quarre of what ever stone it be. Therefore Cyrillus an other greek Father said expressly. Nulli alij quàm Petro Christus quod suum est plenum, 
Lib. 12. in johan. Cap. 64.  sed ipsi soli dedit. Christ gave his whole full power to none other then to Peter. But to him only he gave it. And what is to be vicar of Christ if this be not? If he have Summam rerum traditam, the Chief government and authority left unto him, as Origen saith, if Christ gave to him full power, and to none other, as Cyrillus saith, if upon him the Church was builded, as so many Fathers do witness not only S. Hilary, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hieron, and Tertullian of the West Church, but also S. Chrysost, 
Epiphan. in anchora●o. et 2.1.56 & 2. ●8.  S. basil, Origen, and Epiphanius of the East Church, how can it be doubted but that Peter succeeded to Christ (by his own most blessed appointment) in full power and authority, and was therefore his true Vicaire?  
It will here be said. Many other Fathers, yea and some of these alleged do expound this place of Matthew in such sort, that not upon the person of Peter, 
An Objection.  but upon the faith of Peter, the Church is builded. To this I answer, that both is true. And that I declare by two causes. First by most evident reason, next by authority. The reason is this. The Church is builded upon the faith of Peter, 
The Answer.  and yet upon the person of Peter because the person of Peter, touching his faith is no frail mortal creature, but is a strong unshakeable Rock, as the faith itself is. And why so? Forsooth because to the person of Peter it is promised, that his faith shall not fail. Christ said. I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith may not fail. We believe this prayer is obtained. 
Luc. 22. How the Church is builded upon Peter's person, and yet upon the faith of Peter.  And therefore upon this warrant of Christ's prayer the person of Peter and his faith shall never be severed. Thus the father's calling sometimes the faith of Peter, sometimes Peter himself the Rock of the Church, do mean one self thing. By authority thus it is proved. No writer doth more often and more earnestly interpret that place of the faith of Peter or of Christ himself, and call that faith and confession of his and sometime Christ himself the Rock upon the which Christ builded his Church then doth S. Augustin. 
Lib. 1. retract at. ● 21.  yet the same learned Father in his Retractations, remembering that he had also expounded the same of Peter himself, quoth in eo tanquam in petra fundata sit Ecclesia that the Church was builded in Peter as upon the Rock, 
Contra epistolam Donati.  which sense also he saith was song by many in the hymns of S. Ambrose, where it is said of the cock, hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae canente culpam diluit, At the crowing of the cock, the Rock of the Church (Peter) lamented his fault, he concludeth the whole matter of those two expositions, either off Peter to be the Rock, either of Christ, with these words. Harum duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector. Of these ij. sentences which is the more probable. I leave it to the Readers choice. Wherein as he condemneth none, so he alloweth both. And thus much out of the learned Fathers for confirmation of the Minor or second proportion of my former Argument that the words of Christ in S. Matthew, were properly spoken to Peter, and that he was made by Christ the foundation and Rock of the whole universal Church. Which with the Mayor or proposition being thus proved, the Conclusion I trust will well follow, that Christ hath left and appointed in his Church a vicar universal, and that S. Peter. And so far is the rash assertion of M. jewel overthrown and proved utterly Untrue, where he said that Christ had never appointed any such Vicaire. Last of all thus far a Truth is proved sufficient to destroy the principal assertion of M. jewel in this Article, fight against the universal and Supreme authority of the bishop of Rome S. Peter's successor. For Christ leaving Peter his Vicaire, 
Lib. 2. de sacerdotio. Homil. 1. de paenitentia.  committed not only to him, but to his Successors also (as Chrysostom expressly saith) the sheep which he had redeemed with his blood, the Universal Church through out the world, as you have heard also Chrysostom to affirm.  
Harding. But because our adversaries do wreath and wrest the Scriptures, (be they never so plain) by their private and strange constructions, to an understanding quite contrary to the sense of the Catholic Church, etc.  

The .348 Untruth Slaund. and Facinge.  The 105. Untruth joined with a slander.  
Stapleton. By such slanders, robbers are called thieves, and protestants are called heretics. For how large a scope M. jewel might I here take to prove you wresters and wrethers of Gods holy word, as it is here most truly noted of you? I will note a few in stead of many sufficient to justify this Untruth and to clear the slander. What is more plain in holy Scripture, 
Scriptures wrested by Protestants. Luc. 22.  than the words of Christ in his last Supper, Take and eat. This is my Body: And again: Drink ye all of this. This is my my blood of the new testament? And yet how is it wrested and wreathed off you? The Lutheran saith, This Bread is my Body and maketh Hoc, (this) the neuter gender to agree with Panis (bread) the Masculine gender, confessing yet a real presence. The Sacramentary, of Zurich will have est is to stand for significat, Doth signifiee. Because he will have a sign only off the Body in Sacrament, The Sacramentatary off Geneva will have the verb est is, to stand for, is in value, not, is in substance, and so (est) must not be a verb substantive, but a verb valuative, inventing a new grammar to maintain their new divinity. Likewise in the words of Christ. This is my blood, they make false greek, joining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: false latin joining hic, with vinum, to make at the length false english, and to drive Christ to say. This wine is my Blood, 
pag. ●26.  which were a repugnance in nature as M. jewel himself confesseth. Again to speak of M. jewels dealing herein, first he saith we construe datu● for dabitur, is given for shall be given, 
Ibidem M. jewel Contrary to himself pag. 561.  and yet afterward, quite contrary to himself, crieth out at D. Harding for pressing the word datur, is given, (calling it scanning of tenses, ripping up of syllables, and hunting after letters) and goeth about to prove that it should be dabitur, not datur, the future, tense, not the present tense. Thus he choppeth and changeth his mind to wrest and wreath Scriptures at his pleasure. But to proceed to other examples, what is more plain for the Sacrament of extreme Unction, than the words of S. james. Is any sick among You? Let him cause the priests of the Church to come in to him, 
jacob. 5.  anointing him with oil, in the name of our Lord? What is more plain for absolution of the priest in the Sacrament of penaonce, than the words of Christ in the gospel, whose sins ye forgive, 
Ioa●. 20.  they are forgiven to them, whose ye retain, th●y are retained? What can be written more plainly against the justification which you teach by faith only, than the saying of S. james, Man is justified by works, not by faith only? What can more plainly overthrow the certainty of grace and salvation which you teach every Christian man to have, 
jac. 2.  then that which S. Paul saith, 
Philipp. 2.  With fear and trembling work your salvation? What doth more manifestly prove that by the Sacrament of baptim sins are taken away (which Calvin and his scholars expressly deny) then the words of S. Peter in holy Scripture, 
Act. 2.  Let every one of you be baptized in the name of jesus Christ, to remission of sins? What can be more expressly spoken for the authority of unwritten traditions, 
2. Thess. 2.  than the commandment of S. Paul, keep ye the traditions which ye have received either by mouth or by letter? What can more plainly prove the Sacrament of holy Order, that is, that in giving holy Orders, to the sign of imposition of hands grace is annexed, which things (the sign and the grace) make a Sacrament, 
2. Tim. 4.  than the words of S. Paul, Neglect not the grace which is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy, with the laying on of hands of priesthood? 
1. Petr. 4.  What other thing meaneth the Apostle, when he saith, charity covereth the multitude of sins, them to teach us that good works done by charity do redeem sin, and are meritorious? And yet M. jewel have not you and your fellows abolished Extreme Unction? Do you not utterly deny the Absolution by the priest? Teach you not Only faith to justify? Preach you not that a man may be assured without all doubt of his salvation? Commend you not the blasphemous doctrine of Calvin touching Baptim, setting forth his Institutions in the english tongue by public authority, 
Cap. 17. in fine.  wherein this pestilent doctrine against the necessity of baptim is maintained and set forth? Refuse you not unwritten traditions, cleaving only as you protest, to the written text of God's word? Do you not utterly deny the Sacrament of holy Orders, publishing in your last Convocation only two Sacraments, Baptism, and the Supper of our Lord? Last of all do you not impudently declaim against the doctrine of Merit calling it a Pelagian heresy? And how do you all these things so expressly and directly against holy Scripture, but by manifest wrething and wresting of holy Scripture to your own private Interpretation, from the Catholic sense and meaning? If I would proceed after this manner in the rest of your manifold absurd and wicked heresies, what a large scope might I here take to discourse upon the whole rabble of your ragged and wretched wrestinges of Gods holy word?  
But good Sir, you that so facingly uphold the matter, noting it so solemnly for an Untruth that you should be called the wresters of holy Scripture, you that startle and wince so at it, was your kibed hele touched, or are yourself clean and not guilty of any such matter? I assure thee good Reader it would make a just treatise itself alone, the only discovering of such infamous wrestinges of holy Scripture, as this honest man, innocent forsooth, and true in all points, hath used. And that I may not seem to say this only of affection or otherwise then truth, behold gentle Reader for a taste of his whole lewd Reply, 
Scriptures wrested by M. jewel in this 4. Article.  what a number of texts of holy Scripture in this one Article which we now have in hand, M. jewel hath wrested and wreathed by his private and strange Construction, to an understanding quite contrary to the Catholic Church. There is no great occasion in this question of the Supremacy (the discussing whereof standeth most upon the history and practice of the Church) either to use or to abuse any Scripture. Yet by occasion how many M. jewel hath abused, it shall now in part appear.  

2. Cor. 11.  First, these words of S. Paul, Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, the hopefulness of all Churches, how violently you have wrested it, to prove a Chiefty and power over all Churches in the like sense, 
jewel pag. 227.  as the same is in S. Peter confessed by S. Gregory, you have heard before toward the end of the first Untruth of this Article. 
sol. 5. A.  In the same place you allege to the like sense these words of the Apostle. I reckon myself to be no thing inferior in travail to the highest Apostles. 
The 349 Untruth in wresting of Holy Scripture ●. Corinth. 11.  Now what is wresting of holy Scripture if this be not? S. Paul travailed as much as any off the Apostles, ergo he had Chiefty, Power, jurisdiction over the whole Church, no less then S. Peter had. By the like reason M. jewel may prove that S. Paul was Head and Chief over S. Peter himself, contrary to all holy Fathers and learned writers which have ever called S. Peter the Head, the Chief, and the Prince of the Apostles, which also is by M. jewel himself in this Article otherwhere confessed. For S. Paul saith speaking of himself and of the Apostles, 
jewel. pag. 302. 1. Corint. 15.  abundantius illis omnibus laboravi. I have travailed more than all they. But as S. Paul though he travailed more than all the Apostles, yet he was not therefore the Head or chief over them all, so much less it will follow, that he had the Chiefty or the Charge off the whole Church because he travailed as much as the other Apostles. 
jewel. pag. 233. The .350 Untruth in w●sting. of Holy Scripture Esa. 2.  If travail and pains may prove a jurisdiction, perhaps some busy Minister in England might claim to the bishopric that M. jewel occupieth.  
With the like vain of wit M. jewel to disprove the epistle of Athanasius unto Felix, because he said, that from Rome the Churches received the first preaching of the gospel, allegeth the saying of the prophet isaiah. From Zion the law shall proceed, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. How unfitly this place is wrested of M. jewel to prove it false, that many Countries received the faith of Christ from Rome, 
Esa. 2.  it hath been before declared in the third Article, upon the 73. 
fol. 67. B.  Untruth. Immediately and properly many Churches (as almost all the west part of the world) received their faith from Rome, though Rome itself received it of S. Peter who preached first off all in Jerusalem.  
In the same page M. jewel wresteth two other places off holy Scripture at one time, thus S. Paul saith, 
The .351. Untruth and .352. in wresting at one's two places of holy Scripture jewel. pag. 233. 1. Corinth. 3.  Other foundation none can be laid but only that which is laid already which is Christ jesus. And findeth great fault with the Corinthians that said, I hold of Apollo, I hold of Paul, I hold of Peter. but M. hardings Athanasius saith, Thou art Peter, and upon thy foundation the pillars of the Church, which are the bishops, are surely set, and thus he devise than other foundation besides Christ, and Contrary to S. Paul's doctrine would have all the bishops of the world to hold of Peter. Thus far M. jewel. Wilt thou see good Reader, how ignorantly and grossly these places of holy Sripture are wrested and abused of M. jewel? S. Paul in the first place speaketh of the principal foundation, which only is Christ. Peter is called of Athanasius not the principal and absolute foundation of himself, but such a foundation as is laid by Christ. Else the worthy wisdom of M. jewel may control S. Paul and prove him contrary to himself, which in an other place saith, that the Ephesians were superaedificati super fundamentum Apostolorum & prophetarum, builded upon the foundation of the Apostles and the prophets. Of the which also S. john in his Revelation saith, the holy City of God had fundamenta duodecim, 
Ephes. 2. Apoc. 2●.  & in ipsis nomina duodecim Apostolorum, twelve foundatyons, and in those foundations the names of the twelve Apostles. Thus unless M. jewel will admit the distinction of a principal foundation, and of a secondary foundation, not only Athanasius but S. Paul himself, and S. john also may be accused of M. jewel to have devised an other foundation besides Christ. In like manner also may be accused of M. jewel, S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, S. Augustine, S. Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Origen and Tertullian, who all (as you heard in the next Vnthe before) do call Peter the Rock upon the which Christ builded his Church. Neither is S. Peter laid as any other foundation beside Christ, because he was laid and made so off Christ himself, as all the said holy Fathers have witnessed.  
In the second place alleged by M. jewel out of S. Paul he not only wresteth S. Paul to a contrary meaning, 
M. jewel. falsifieth S. Paul.  but he falsifieth him also. For those words I hold of Peter, are not in S. Paul. And if they were, it made no more against the saying off Athanasius calling Peter the foundation off the Church, than it maketh against all the other Fathers which did so call him, or then it maketh against the authority and jurisdiction either off lay princes and lords, either of spiritual pastors and Curates. For as the subject holdeth of his Prince, and the Tenent of his lord, as the diocese is subject to his bishop, and the parish to the vicar by S. Paul's Doctrine, 
Hebr. 13.  commanding us to obey our overseers, and to be subject to those which have charge of our souls, and yet neither the subject, nor the diocese so holdeth either of Prince or of bishop, as S. Paul rebuked the Corinthians to hold of Apollo, and of Paul, so neither Athanasius nor the old Fathers calling Peter the foundation of the Church, and confessing thereby the authority of Peter over the Church, do make (as M. jewel saith) contrary S. Paul's Doctrine all the bishops of the world to hold of Peter, as the Corinthians held of Apollo and of Paul. For the Corinthians made a schism in the Church, and such as were baptized of Apollo, they held of Apollo, such as were baptized of Paul, they would hold and craof Paul. This schism and division S. Paul rebuked, as both in the text it shall evidently appear, to him that will but read it over diligently, and also as S. Augustin expoundeth that text. This text therefore M. jewel you might better have applied to yourself and your brethren, 
In expositione in Math. ser. 13. & in Psa. 54.  which do hold some of you of Luther, some of Zuinglius, some of other, even as S. Augustin applied it to the Donatists, who held some of Donatus, some of Rogatus, some of Primianus, some of Maximianus, all Donatists, but yet divided among themselves as protestants are at this day, into Lutherans, Sacramentaries, anabaptists, Suenckfeldians, Osiandrins and so forth. Peter is the foundation and Rock that Christ builded his Church upon, as set to govern and direct the same under Christ, by Christ, and through Christ. Al Christendom holdeth by him, not as a sect by his patron, but as the flock by their Pastor, ut sit unus Pastor & unum ovile, that there may be one Pastor, and one flock, and as S. Hierom saith, 
joan. 10. Li. 1. Cō●. Ionini●.  ut schismatis tollatur occasio, that schism might be avoided.  
In like manner, where it was alleged out of Irenaeus, that to the Church of Rome all the Church, that is to say, 
Lib. 3.1.3.  all that be faithful any where, ought to repair Propter potentiorem Principalitatem; For the mightier principality of the same, M. jewel here saith.  
jewel. 
pag. 244 The .353. Untruth in wresting. holy Scripture. Math. 20.  Of these words groweth their error. They dream of a kingdom and Principalite. But Christ saith to his disciples. The kings of Nations rule over them. Vos autem non sic. But you may not s●.  
Behold how shamefully Christ's holy word is abused. In that place of the gospel the Apostles not yet replenished with the holy Ghost, thought that Christ should have a temporal reign, and therefore when they heard that john and james the sons of Zebedee sued to sit the one of 〈◊〉 right hand the other on the left, Indignati sunt it de duobus 〈◊〉. They took an Indignation against those two brethren. 
●●th. 20  The Christ calling them unto him said the words alleged, signifying unto them that they should not look for any temporal honour, rule or preferment, such as Kings of the Nations exercised, but who so would be greatest among them should be their servant. Now Ireneus speaketh of a Principalite in the Church off Rome (not temporal or Civil as full grossly M. jewel imagineth, following therein that rude ghospeller Andreas Smidelinus) but a Spiritual jurisdiction, 
Contra Hosium in defence. prologum Bre●tij.  such as all the Church (not all the world) and all faithful (not all pagans and infidels then subject to the Roman Empire) ought to repair unto. The humility that Christ commanded his Apostles in that place, taketh not away the Spiritual authority and jurisdiction of Prelates in Christ's Church. The Bishop off Rome ruleth the Church of God, 
Act. 20.  as S. Paul said of such as he had appointed Regere ecclesiam Dei, to rule the Church of God as 
a In 1. Timoth. 3.  S. Ambrose said that Damasus was the Ruler of God's house, as 
b Hom. 1. de paenit.  Chrisostom saith that to Peter Christ gave Primatum guber nationeque per universum mundum. The primacy and government thorough out the whole world: as, 
c Li. 4. epist. 34.  S. Gregory saith that to Peter, The charge and Principalite of the whole Church was committed. All this is not to rule as Kings of Nations rule over them, 
Hebr. 13.  but as such to whom we must obedire & subiacere tanquam rationem reddituris pro animabus nostris obey and be subject, 
Math. 20.  as unto such which shall give account for our souls, but they themselves must be Sicut ministri as servants, not in subjection, but in humility. And thus both Scriptures must stand together. M. jewel must not overthrow one Truth by an other, neither wrist that to Spiritual jurisdiction, which was expressly spoken of the temporal and civil.  

De vocat· Gent. lib. 2 Ca 6.  With the like uprightness and sincerity, whereas D. Harding alleged the saying of S. Ambrose, that Rome was more advanced Per Apostolici Sacerdotij Principatum: By the Chiefty of the Apostolic Priesthood in the Tower of Religion then in the Throne of temporal power, M. jewel for answer hereunto wresteth a place off holy Scripture, and saith.  
jewel. 
●ap. 248  Peter's whole power in Rome was Spiritual, and stood only in the preaching of the Gospel, with which armour God is able to pull down kings and Princes to the obedience of his Christ. Thus saith God unto Hieremie. I have set thee over Nations and kingdoms. 
The .354 Untruth in false translating S Peter, and false application also.  And S. Peter speaking generally to all Christian people saith. Vos estis regal Sacerdotum. You are the kingly priesthood. This principalite and Tower of Religion was not only in Rome, but also in every place where the Name of Christ was received.  
Stapleton. 
1. Pet. 2.  In this later place, out of S. Peter M. jewel hath falsely translated the text. For where the Latin hath, Vos estis regal sacerdotium. and the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kingly priesthood without the Article, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that or illud, M. jewel to make it serve his turn, hath translated the words thus. You are that kingly Priesthood. And so hath put in the word That more than he found in the Text. And upon the vehemency of the word That he inferreth, This principalite and Tower of Religion was not only in Rome, but also in every place, where the Name of Christ was received. But false translation maketh no proof. S. Peter in that place after the mind of S. 
a Serm. 2. de bapt. ca 8.  basil and 
b lib. 20. the civit. dei. Ca 10.  S. Augustine (who are to be thought to have understanded the text as well as M. jewel) calleth all Christian men Regale Sacerdotium, A kingly Priesthood, because as of the mystical unction we be all called Christians, so as the membres of Christ, the true and everlasting priest, we be all Priests. S. 
c Contra. Luciferianos.  Hierom calleth this general and Common priesthood of all Christian men, Baptim: expounding shortly that which the other Fathers spoke by circumstances. Again as S. Peter calleth here Christian men Regale S●cerdotium, a kingly priesthood, so S. john in his Revelation saith. Fecisti nos deo nostro Regnum & Sacerdotes, 
Apocal. ●.  & regnabimus super terram. Thou hast made us a kingdom, and Priests to our God, and we shall reign over the earth. 
Exod. 19  And in the old law the like was said to the jews. You shall be to me priestly kingdom, and a holy Nation. But as it will not follow therefore that every Christian man is a king, and all Christian men rule and reign alike, nor that every jew was as rightly a priest, as was the Tribe of Levi, no more it will follow that every Christian man is a priest in one kind and manner of priesthood, or that the Principalite of Priesthood is in every man alike. Thirdly albeit all Christian men in respect of the internal Sacrifice of a Contrite heart, be priests, yet in respect of the Apostolic priesthood, and of the external Sacrifice of Christ's Church, none are priests but such as are Ordered thereunto. And of such Apostolic Priests, the B. of Rome by S. Ambroses' judgement had the Principalite. And by that Principalite Rome was more glorious than ever it was by the Imperial Throne. Last of all because at Rome by S. Ambrose his judgement was the principality of Apostolic priesthood, and Rome for that was more glorious then for the Imperial Throne, it followeth that as the Empire of the Romans was through out the world, but the Chief Rule and authority thereof came from Rome, so the faith of the Romans was preached through out the world (as S. Paul saith) but the Principalite of Apostolic priesthood, 
Rom. 1.  the rule and authority came from thence. This is the comparison of S. Ambrose in that place, and this he noteth as a Special and principal prerogative of that Church. Wherefore M. jewel doth both great wrong to that holy Father so to debace his saying, and much more villainy to this holy Scripture so to rack it and wrest it.  
jewel. 
pag. 25●. 2. Thess. ●. The 355. Untruth both fond and wicked.  For an other example of your lewd wresting of holy Scriptures (M. jewel) let us consider what Scripture you bring to prove that Christ left no Universal Vicaire over his Church. Thus you say.  
Other Universal Vicaire of Christ, there is none in the Scriptures, unless it be he, of whom S. Paul forewarneth v●. Homo ille s●eleratus, filius perditus, etc. That wicked man, that Child of perdition that setteth himself up against God, and that so far forth, that he will sit in the Temple of God, and show himself as if he were God. But this Vicaire Christ shall destroy with the spirit of his mouth.  
Stapleton It had been enough, M. jewel, for the young jannizzers of your Sect thus to talk. You that bear yourself for a Bassa among them, should now leave such gross shifts, to other that have yet learned no farther. This place of S. Paul hath in deed seemed a gay place to a number of your faction to prove the Pope an Antichrist. Yea and a learned man forsooth of the brotherhod of Zurich hath made a book only of that Argument, whereof this place is both the beginning and chief foundation. Which book also hath been set forth in english, 
The Antichrist.  and is, I trow, not a little esteemed of a great many. But God's name be blessed. Though your gay glistering Inuentyons dafeled the eyes of a great many at the first (you stealing upon us in our dead sleep, and overmuch rest) yet now we being waked with your heresies, and stirred up to a nearer consideration of matters by you called in doubt, we have (thanked be God) easily discovered, the vanity of them.  
For, as touching this place of S. Paul, the very text laid forth and considered, openeth your lewd and wrested interpretation thereof, and showeth to the eye, that it proceedeth utterly either of gross ignorance or else of wilful Malice. S. Paul saith thus. 
2. Thes. 2.  We beseech you brethren by the coming of our Lord jesus Christ, and of our meeting with him, that you be not lightly carried away from your understanding, nor conceive any fear, either by revelation of Spirit, or by word of mouth, or by any letter as sent from us, that the day of the Lord should be at hand. Let noman deceive you in any wise. For unless the defection come first, and that wicked man be revealed, that Child of perdition, that setteth him self up against God, and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that be s●●●eth in the temple of God, showing himself as God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you of these matters? And now what doth stay it, you know, that it may be revealed in dew time. For the mystery of iniquity worketh even now, only that he which holdeth now may hold, until it be out of the way. And then that wicked man shall be revealed, whom our Lord jesus shall kill with the Spirit of his mouth, and destroy him in the brightness of his coming. Him I say whose coming is in all power, in Signs and false miracles by the working of the devil. Thus far the Apostle. All this to be spoken of Antichrist most men do agree. S. Ambrose is expressly of that mind. And so would you also and your fellows M. jewel have it to be meant. 
Ambros. in Commentar. ibidem.  Herein therefore we vary not. But who is now this Antichrist that shall come, that shall work such false miracles, that shall proclaim himself God, and that shall at length be destroyed at the glorious coming of our Saviour? It is the Pope say you. It is he that beareth himself for the Universal Vicaire of Christ. Answer then M. jewel to these few reasons, which I bring to the Contrary.  
First this Antichrist is but one Person, he hath no Succession, 
That the Pope is not Antichrist.  on Continuance. Therefore the Apostle speaketh of One wicked man, and of One Child of perdition. The Pope in this Universal Supremacy hath had a Continuance and Succession of many hundred years, even from the time of S. Gregory at the jest, who practised such authority of Universal vicar through out all Christendom, as hath been before particulary declared. Therefore the Pope can not be the Antichrist that S. Paul speaketh of.  
Again before this Antichrist come, there must (as S. Paul saith) a defection come first. This defection S. Ambrose expoundeth to be of the Roman Empire. That is when the Roman Empire is utterly lost and gone, then or shortly after (at the lest not before) the Antichrist shall be revealed. The Roman Empire standeth yet, and without an Emperor descending from the first Romain Emperor the Church hath not yet been at any time. Therefore this Antichrist is not yet come. And so it can not be the Pope that came so many a day a go.  
Thirdly that wicked man must be revealed, saith the Apostle. Show then M. jewel when that was. That is. When this Anchrist the Pope began to play the Antichrist. What Pope it was. When he lived, and how he was revealed. This can not be shown, therefore the Pope can not be he.  
Fourthly he shall show himself as God, and shall be exalted above all that is called God, or worshipped for God. Such honour was never practised by any Pope, given to any Pope, or so much as attempted or coveted of any Pope. Therefore he can not be that Antichrist, that the Apostle speaketh of.  
fifthly this Antichrist shall work signs and miracles by the devil. The first Pope that practised this universal vicaireship, whom so ever you name M. jewel, whither it be Zosimus, S. Gregory, Leo, or Bonifacius the 8. you can show no such false miracles wrought. Therefore the Pope is not this Antichrist.  
sixthly this Antichrist shall be destroyed at Christ's coming. The first Antichrist of the Popes (if any such were) have not been so destroyed. Therefore no Pope hath been that Antichrist. Or thus. Therefore that Antichrist is not yet come, whom Christ shall so destroy.  
Last of all this Antichrist, if the Pope be he, hath Governed and Ruled the universal Church of Christ these thousand years and upward. The whole Church hath followed his Doctrine, hath observed his Decrees, hath obeyed his authority. But that the universal Church of Christ should be guided by an Antichrist, in such a Continuance of time, yea at any time at all, it is express contrary to God's promises in the Prophets, in the Psalms, and in the gospel: as I have otherwhere at large proved. Therefore it is by no means possible, that the Pope should be Antichrist. Yea it is a most heinous and horrible blasphemy so to think, teach, or write. So well and truly, so godly and clerckly hath M. jewel applied this place of holy Scripture. Now to an other.  
jewel. M. harding saith. The See of Rome can never fail in Faith. For Christ said unto Peter. 
pag. 275. Luc. 22. The 356 Untruth in wresting the Prophet's words. Mich 3.  I have prayed for thee that thy faith not may sail. The like confidence and trust in themselves the Priests had in the old times, as it may appear by these words of the prophet Micheas: The priests taught for heir. and the Prophets prophesied for money, and yet they rested themselves upon the Lord, and said. Is not the Lord in the midst amongst us?  
It followeth immediately in the Prophet. Non venient super nos mala etc. There shall no harm befall unto us. Therefore for your sake Zion shall be ploughed like the filled and jerusalem shall be turned into a heap of stones: and the hill of the temple, into a high wood. These words if M. jewel had added, and not broken of so upon the sudden, it would have appeared in what sense the Priests craked of the Lord among them, and what their confidence and trust was. Their confidence and trust was, that, did they never so ill, yet God would not punish them. The trust which we have upon the See off Rome is, that it shall not fail in the faith, grounded upon the words off our Saviour, spoken particularly to Peter in the presence of all the rest. It is of the Faith to continue. It is not of any temporal confidence of escape harmless in iniquity. Therefore you said untruly, The like confidence and trust etc. and therefore also you have to a wrong, and contrary sense wrested the saying of the Prophet.  
jewel. 
The .357. Untruth as before.  With like confidence the priests said, as it is written in the prophet Hieremie. The Law shall not decay in the Priest, nor Counsel in the Elder.  
With like confidence or rather impudence M. jewel hath both wrested to a contrary meaning, and also pared the very words of the Prophet Hieremy, as he nipped before the words of Micheas. For thus stand the words of Hieremy. Et dixerunt, Venite & cogitemus contra Hieremiam cogitationes (non enim peribit lex a Sacerdote, neque Consilium a Sapiente, nec sermo a propheta) venite & percutiamus eum lingua & non attendamus ad universos sermones eius. And the jews said. Come. Let us devise devices against Hieremy (for the law shall not decay in the Priest, nor the Counsel in the wise, no the word in the Prophet) Come and let us strike him with our tongue, and let us give no ear to all his sayings. These are the whole words of Hieremy in that place, whereof M. jewel hath picked out a piece only, and that which stood in a parenthesis, to persuade a sense which the whole place being opened, confuteth itself. For those words are not spoken as of the Priests only, but as of all the jews. As the whole drift of the Chapter declareth. Again the Prophet in this place rebuketh not their belief or doctrine, but expresseth their wicked conspiracy to destroy him, which had rebuked their evil life and had foretold them of God's vengeance to come upon them. He speaketh not of any Council touching the observation of Moses' law. Last of all because the Priests upon a confidence of Gods promise made unto them, that all ambiguities and questions between blood and blood, Cause and Cause, 
duty. 17.  Lepre and not Lepre should be determined by them, thought therefore that in all other things their judgement and Council should stand in like manner, because I say they abused this authority of deciding questions of the Law, to live and do in manners what them listed, therefore the prophet jeremy used those words against them. If in like manner any Pope for the defence of his Lewd life would allege the promise made to S. Peter that his Faith should not fail, than were the Confidence and trust of such a Pope in such a case like to the Confidence and trust, that those jewish Priests had. But now seeing the life and behaviour of Popes is not descended to be innocent, but their faith is defended to be Sure and not able to fail in determining matters touching Faith, therefore we trust truly to the promise of Christ, that Peter's faith shall not fail, therefore the confidence of us is not like to that vain confidence of the Priests that Hieremy speaketh of, and therefore you M. jewel have lewdly and wickedly wrested this place of holy Scripture, as you have done the others.  
But God answereth them far otherwise. Ye shall ●aue dark night in stead of Vision, 
The .358 Untruth as before.  and ye shall have darkness in steed off prophecy.  
In this prophecy the Prophet foretold the jews of the fall of their synagogue, and of the blindness that they should be in at the coming of the Messiah. The Church of Christ is contrary wise promised to have the holy Ghost for ●uer to remain with it, 
joan· 14. Math. vlt.  and Christ hath said. I will be with you all days even to the end of the world. Therefore this i● wrongfully applied to the Rulers of Christ●s Church, whose faith shall no more fail, than the Church itself. And therefore ones again you have wrested the holy Scripture.  
In like manner M. jewel having alleged a number of gloss out of the Canon law that the Pope can not err, for a brief solution to them all he abuseth a place or two of holy Scripture, and so concludeth that matter thus.  
jewel. 
pag. 276. The .359 Untruth as b●fore.  Thus ●hey feast and cheer themselves, and smooth the world with vain talk. But S. John saith. No●ite a● e●e, Pat●em habemus Abraham. Never say (Peter or) Abraham was our Father.  
See we not here what a smooth Solution M. jewel hath made, 
Math. 3.  and how featly he hath glossed S. john's Text? S. john said to the jews. Crack not of your Father Abraham. Therefore we must think that the Pope's faith may fail. For that is the matter which M. jewel laboureth to prove in that place, and which the gloss immediately before recited, do witness. Again M. jewel to furnish the matter shufleth between S. john's words (Peter or) as though S. john had spoken or meaned there of Peter also. By such glozing as M. jewel teacheth us, we may say, S. john saith. Never say (this man, or that man, or) Abraham was our Father. And so by this gloze of M. jewel, the Child shall be taught to deny his Father. Certainly S. Paul who is to be thought to have understanded S. john's meaning no less than M. jewel, not withstanding those words, saith to the Corinthians. Though ye have ten thousand of Masters in Christ, yet ye have not many Fathers. 
1. Cor. 4.  For in Ch●ist jesus I begot you by the gospel. In which words he feareth not to be taken for their Father, though the jews by S. John were forbidden to crack of their Father Abraham. So properly and sincerely M. jewel allegeth the Scriptures. It followeth in the same place of his text immediately.  
jewel. 
Acto. 20. The .360 Untruth as shall appear.  S. Paul speaking of his successors, saith thus. I knew that after my departure from you, there shall ravening wolves come amongst you that shall not spare the flo●ke.  
This was spoken to the clergy of Ephesus. This maketh nothing to the Succession of Peter in the See of Rome. Again they were not properly his successors. For at Ephesus though S. Paul taught and preached, yet he remained not there, he had not his proper See and abode there. 
Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 31.  S. john the Evangelist is reakoned of the Ancient writers to be the First Bishop there. Therefore this place is both Untruly wrested against the Succession of S. Peter and Untruly reported touching S. Paul's successors. If S. Paul had any Succession, it was at Rome where he preached the gospel also: and beside, suffered there the Crown of Martyrdom.  
These few may suffice to justify the Untruth noted by you (M. jewel) upon D. Harding, to prove you in deed a wrested of God's holy word, as your fellows are, and to satisfy also your expectation, where you say.  
jewel. 
pag. 292.  Where as it liketh M. Harding to say, that we wreath and wrest he Scriptures, if it would have pleased him also particularly to show how and wherein, he might have had the more credit, But it is commonly said. Dolosus versatur in generalibus. He that walketh in generalites, meaneth not plainly.  
You have some now particularly showed, not only by your doctrine generally committed, but also by you in this your Fourth Article, unadvisedly avouched. If you think these to few, take one more. You grant that Peter was head of the Apostles. Then you ask what is in the Pope that was in Peter, whereby he should be the head of others. And seeing well what might be answered, you say of D. Harding.  
jewel. 
pag. 304 Matth. 23. Stapleton Matth. 23.  He will say Succession, and sitting in Peter's chair, which is in Rome. A man may answer. The Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses' Cha●re.  
A man may Reply. Quae dicunt facite, que autem faciunt nolite facere. Do what they say unto you, but do not as you see them do. And than what doth this Answer help you? Nay, doth not this Answer make quite against you? Doth it not clean overthrow you? For if the Scribes and Pharisees, so naughty men sat yet in Moses' Chair, and their sayings and precepts were to be observed, kept, and obeyed, though their doings and life was not to be followed, is not trow you the Successor of S. Peter, sitting in his Chair, that is, occupying his Office, place, and dignity, to be obeyed, though he lack the Qualites of S. Peter? So properly you allege the Scripture even against your own self. For you bring a piece of a Sentence, for the Answer, whereof the other piece, maketh a perfit Reply or Solution. What is to wrest Scriptures, if this be not?  
Now that you labour by certain gloss, and by the sayings of two certain men in their declayming Orations to show some Scriptures otherwise applied then their literal meaning giveth, to that I answer. First they conclude nothing against the faith, or against Truth: and so they are not wrested. secondarily they are not so used in the way of doctrine, but by allusion so applied as not properly, so neither wickedly. Last of all you know M. jewel the law saith. Retorsione Criminum non probatur Innocentia. To prove an other guilty, proveth not yourself Innocent.  
Harding. 
diuis. 20.  The bishops of every Nation have made their Appeals in their weighty affairs to the Pope, and always have sued to the See Apostolic, as well for secure and help against violence, injuries, and oppressions, as for redress of all other disordres.  
jewel. 
pag. 261. The .361. Untruth Slaund.  The .106. Untruth, As it shall afterward appear.  
Here you give me occasion M. jewel, to open a Number of your most manifest and impudent Untruths, touching the matter of Appeals, which in the next Division you handle at large, and to the which you refer the proof of this .106. Untruth. Go to then. Let us see the proofs that you bring. You say.  
jewel. First I must show, 
pag. 265.  that there lay no such ordinary Appeal from all countries of the world, to the bishop of Rome, and that therefore the same is by M. Harding untruly avouched. That done, I trust, it shall not be hard to answer these places of Chrysostom, Athanasius and Theodoretus here alleged.  
Stapleton Truly it shall be very easy, if you can perform that you promise. But if when you have all said, you have proved nothing, than the Reader may understand, that neither you have, neither you are able to answer to those places alleged of Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Theodoretus, and of each their Appeals to Rome.  
jewel. And that there lay not any such Appeal to Rome, 
The 362. Untruth threefold, as shall appear.  it is plain by the consent of General Councils, by the authority of holy Fathers and by the laws and ordonances of Emperors and Princes. By which grounds it is easy, to to understand the Practice, and order of the Church in those days.  
Three proofs against Appeals to Rome, M. jewel in these words hath avouched. Stapleton First, The Consent of General Councils. second. The authority of Holy Father's. third. The laws and ordonances of Emperors and Princes. But M. jewel hath not brought any one of all these three proofs truly and sincerely, as it shall afterward appear. Therefore he hath avouched here three manifest Untruths.  
jewel. 
Cap. 5. The 363. Untruth For they stand both well together.  In the Council of Nice it is decreed thus. Ab alijs excommunicati ab alijs ad Comniunionem ne reciptantur. Let not them that stand excommunicate by one bishop, be received again to communion by an other. M. hardings Appeals and these words (363.) can not stand well together.  
Yes forsooth M. jewel, if you understand them well. For first he that Appealeth, the Appellation yet hanging, doth not stand excommunicate. Therefore this decree being made of such as stand excommunicate, doth not speak of such as do Appeal. And thus D. hardings Appeals (as you call them) and the words of this decree may stand well together. Therefore you add more force to the argument and say.  
jewel. But he will say: The bishop either of ignorance, either of malice may excommunicate the party wrongfully.  
Stapleton Yea Marry. Here is now the case of Appellation. What say you to that?  
jewel. 
Concil. Nic. c●n. 5. The .364 Untruth False Translation.  In this case the same Council hath provided remedy of Appeal, not unto the bishop of Rome, but unto a provincial Synod within the Country. These be the words. Therefore that these things may be well examined, it is well provided, that every year in every province at too several times there be holden a Council of bishops, that they meeting together out of all parts of the province, may 
* huiusmo di que●tiones examinent.  Hear and determine such complaints.  
You add in the end one word more than the Decree hath. That is the word, Determine. The Decree speaketh not of Determination but of Examination and inquiry upon such complaints. Howbeit let us grant that the provincial Synod might determine the complaints of their clergy? Is it not so at this day in all Catholic countries, where no Appellation is made? Your part is to show M. jewel that by the Council of Nice no Appellation should be made from the bishop or from the provincial Synod to Rome. Think you the argument good? They speak of Appeals only to a Synod. Ergo they forbid Appeals to Rome? This is a guess. This is no proof.  
Again this Decree referring the Appeal to the Synod, doth refer it also to the bishop of Rome. And why? Because no Synod can be held without the authority of the Bishop of Rome. julius the B. of Rome, 
Appeals to Rome decreed in the Nicene Council.  who lived at the time of the Nicene Concel, writing to the Bishops of the East, who also were present at the Nicene Council, reproving them for condemning of Athanasius and other Catholic bishops, in a Synod holden at Antioch in Syria, without the sentence and agreement of julius the Pope, chargeth them with the breach of this very Canon and decree, with these words. Praevidentes Sancti patres insidias et altercationes unanimiter in Nicena Synodo statuerunt, 
Epist. 1. ad Orientales.  ut nullus Episcopus n●si in legitima Synodo, & suo tempore Apostolica authoritate convocata, super qu●busdam criminationibus pulsatus audiatur, id est, iudicetur vel damnetur. The holy Fathers foreseeing the deceits and altercations, did decree with one assent in the Nicene Council, that no bishop being accused of certain crimes should be heard, that is should be judged or condemned, but in a lawful Synod called together in due time by the Apostolic authority. It is noted in the margin of this epistle, that this decree though it be not expressly in the Nicene Council, yet it may be reduced to the fift Canon thereof, which is the Canon by M. jewel alleged.  
Again in the second epistle of the same julius it is written thus, 
In rescripto ad Orientales.  Canonibus in Nicena Synodo iubentibus non debere praeter s●ntentiam Romani Pontificis, Concilia celebrari, nec episcopos damnari. Whereas the Canons of the Nicene Council do command that without the authority of the Bishop of Rome neither councils ought to be holden, neither bishops be condemned. Where again it is noted that this decree may be reduced to that 5. Canon above alleged. Now if M. jewel will except and say, this Canon, and the whole epistle of julius is a forged matter, let him remember that the ecclesiastical history of Socrates, describing this schysmaticall Synod off the Arrians in Antioch of Syria where Athanasius was excommunicated, maketh mention of this Canon or decree, that no Synod may be kept without the authority of the bishop of Rome. These are the words. Sed neque julius affuit maximae Romae praeful, 
Histor. trip. lib. 4. cap. 9  neque in locum suum aliquem destinavit, cum utique ecclesiastica regula iubeat non oportere praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis concilia celebrari. Neither was julius the bishop off Rome present at that Synod, neither was any sent thither in his place, whereas yet the ecclesiastical decree doth command, that no Synods ought to be holden, without the consent of the Bishop of Rome. The Appeals then in the Nicene Council being referred to the Synods of the Province, and no Synod in any province being good and lawful without the authority of the bishop of Rome, are they hereby removed from the judgement of the bishop of Rome? Nay are they not expressly submitted and put under the same? And thus M. jewel hath brought a decree of the Nicene Council by a good consequence against himself, and by no colour or reason making for himself. He hath brought that against Appeals to Rome, which doth necessarily infer Appeals to Rome.  
For farther proof out of the Nicene Council that Appeals lay to Rome, I might here allege certain Canons of the same Council, avouched by julius the Pope in his epistle to the Arrian bishops of the East, who were themselves present at the Council of Nice, and who (if the Pope had beelyed the Council) would not have let to have told him of it, expressly decreing Appeals from all other bishops to the bishop of Rome. But M. jewel denieth this to be the Epistle of julius. This is the extreme and last refuge, when all others shifts do fail. But by what reason doth he deny it Forsooth because it is not the same which Athanasius in his works talketh of. jewel. 
pag. 264.  For (saith he) They ought to be all one without difference. And why so M. jewel? May not julius write two or three sundry epistles, and that to the bishops of East, and those of different matters, except your good mastership allow it? As well might you quarrel, and say: The epistle to the Hebrews is not S. Paul's, because it containeth no like matter, nor beareth not the like style to his epistle to the Romans. Such reasons uphold your religion.  
In that Epistle then of julius, among other Canons of the Nicene Council there reackoned up, this is one. Vt omnes Episco●i qui in quibusdam gravioribus pulsantur vel criminantur causis, quoties necesse fuerit, 

In rescripto ad Orientales  
Ton. 1· Conc.   liberè Apostolicam appell●nt sedem atque ad eam quasi ad matrem confugiant, ut ab ea (sicut semper fuit) piè fulciantur, d●f●ndantur & liberentur. That all bishops, which are convented and accused, of certain grievous crimes, may freely Appeal to the Apostolic See, and fly to hi●, as to their Mother, that they may by it be succoured, defended, and delivered, as it hath always been: Lo an express decree of Appeal to Rome in the Nicene Council, which though it be not among the twenty Canons commonly extant in that Council, yet it ought not therefore to be thought a feigned or forged decree, no more than a number of other Canons and decrees of this Nicene Council alleged by S. Hierom, S. Ambro●e, S. Augustin, Epiphanius and other, are to be esteemed for forged and feigned decrees, because those also are not to be found among the twenty now commonly extant.  
Beside that, both this julius in his undoubted Epistle recorded in the wo●kes of Athanasius, 

See before.  
Fol. 33. B. and 34. A.   mentioneth a decree of Appeal from one Synod to a greater, made in the Nicene Council, by virtue whereof he cited the Bishops of the East to Rome, and also Leo by virtue of a decree made in the Nicene Council, requireth expressly upon the Appeal of Flavianus, a new Synod to be assembled, as hath before been declared.  
But touching this matter of Appeal from all bishops to Rome, we have a most express Decree in the great Council of Sardica holden within few years after the Nicene Council, holden for the renewing and confirming of the Nicene Council, which at that time was by the Arrians impugned, holden by the assembly of three hundred bishops from all parts of Christendom except the Arrians of the East, who also came at first to that Council to the number of 76. bishops, but seeing themselves so few in number, they departed, pretending the presence of Athanasius and Paulus two Catholic bishops, 
Historia tripart. lib. 4. cap. 23.  whom they had excommunicated, and would therefore have had them and all theirs thrust out of the Council. Other of the East which came not pretended, some infirmity, some lack of leisure to come to the Council, and blaming therefore the Pope julius for not summoning them in time, though yet (as the ecclesiastical History witnesseth) they had a year and a half warning thereof. Thus beside those Arrians, and the other which drew back, there were at that Council assembled .300. bishop's out of these parts of the world, (as the epistle of that Council yet extant in the ecclesiastical History of Theodoretus doth witness) out of Rome, 
Theodoret. li. 2. ca 8. Hist.  of Spain, off France, of Italy, of Campania, Calabria, Aphrica, Sardinia, Pannonia, Mysia, Dacia, the other Dacia, Macedonia, Thessalia, Achaia, Epiros, Thracia, Asia, Caria, Bythynia, Hellespontus, Phrygia, Pisidia, Cappadocia, Ponto, Cilicia, the other Phygia, Pamphylia, Lydia, off the Islands Cyclades, off Egypt, Thebais, Lybia, Galatia, Palestina, and Arabia. In this great Council so assembled from all parts, except of the Arrians, we read this Decree. Placuit ut si episcopus accusatus fu●rit, 
Concil. Sard. Cap. 7.  & iudicaverint congregati episcopi regionis ipsius & de gradu suo eum deiecerint, si appellaverit qui deiectus est & confugerit ad episcopum Romanae Ecclesiae & volverit se audiri, & justum putaverit, ut renovetur iudi●ium vel discussionis examen, scribere his Ep●scop●s dignetur, qui in finitima provincia sunt, ut ipsi diligenter omnia inquirant & juxta fidem veritatis definiant. Quod fi is qui rogat causam suam iterum audiri, deprecatione sua moverit epis●opum Romanum ut e latere suo praesbyteros m●ttat, erit in potestate ipsius episcopi quid velit & quid estimet. Et si decreverit mittendos esse, qui praes●ntes cum episcopis iudicent, habentes eius authoritatem a quo destinati sunt, erit in suo arbitrio: Si vero crediderit episcopos comprouinciales sufficere, ut negotio terminum imponant, faciet quod sapientissi●o consil o suo iudicaverit. It hath seemed us good to Decree that if a Bishop be accused, if the bishops of the province being gathered together have judged the matter, and have deprived him, if the party deprived or deposed do Appeal, and fly to the Bishop of Rome, if the Bishop will have his cause to be heard, and think it good to renew the judgement, or the trial of the matter again, let him vouchsafe to write to the bishops of the next province, that they may inquire more diligently off the matter and determine it. But iff the party accused desiring his cause to be heard once again, do entreat the Bishop off Rome to send legates from his side, it shall be in the power off the Bishop to do as he shall think good. And if the Pope determine to send such as may judge the matter with other bishops, having his authority from whom they are sent, that also shall be at his arbitrement. Last of all if he shall judge that the bishops of the same province with the party accused, may suffice to end the matter, he shall do, whatsoever by his most wise Council he shall think good. Thus far the decree of the great Council of Sardica made anon after the Nicene Council, for the establishing and confirming of the same, by the consent of 300. Catholic bishops of well here all parts of Christendom. In this decree, we see the other Canon mentioned by you M. jewel out of those imperfect copies which are extant, to be expounded and extended to that sense of Appeal, which we gathered before by the decree mentioned by julius, and the ecclesiastical history, where it is said that no Synod may be held without the authority of the bishop of Rome. In this Decree we see a plain and large Appeal to the See of Rome, to determine the matter either by his own Legates, either by such other judgement as he shall appoint. This decree of so great a Council, holden so shortly after the Nicene Council ought to be of more weight and authority to expound unto us the meaning of the Nicene Council, than the bare negative argument of M. jewel, when he gathereth thus.  

M. jewels barren Argument  That decree mentioneth of an Appeal to the Synod.  
Ergo it excludeth all Appeals to Rome.  
For now we see both that the Synod itself can not be good without the authority of the bishop of Rome, and therefore the Appeal to the Synod emplieth an Appeal to the bishop of Rome, and also that from the Synod the party plaintiff may appeal to the bishop of Rome expressly and particularly, that also by the judgement of the said Bishop the matter shall be determined. And thus much of that Decree. Let us now see the rest of the General councils, which M. jewel promised he would allege.  
jewel. 
The 365. Untruth For in that Council appeareth no such decree. The 366. Untruth False translation.  The bishops in the Council holden at Tela in Spain ordained thus, Presbyteri & clericine appellent nisi ad Africana Concilia. Let it not be lawful for priests and clerks to Appeal (to Rome) but only to the Councils holden in Africa.  
The first of M. jewels three Untruths which I noted before doth now appear. For whereas he promised to allege against Appeals to Rome, the decrees of General Counsels, he made an Untruth in the number to amaze the Reader withal, and allegeth only One, and that also to no purpose as you have seen. Now for lack of General Councils he telleth us of particular Synods in particular provinces. And yet all that he bringeth is only out of the Country of Africa. This that he allegeth of Tela in Spain, is a great and manifest Untruth. In that Council there is no such decree, but only a Rescript to an epistle of Siricus, speaking not one word of appeals of or on. Again he hath added in his english more then is in the latin, 
Vide tomom. 1. Concil. pag. 420.  and so committed an other Untruth in false translation. For the words (to Rome) are not mentioned or signified in the words alleged. As touching the Decree itself, when you tell us M. jewel where it is to be found, and lie not, than we shall shape you an answer accordingly.  
jewel. So in the Milevitane Council, Si ab Episcopis etc. So likewise in the Council, of Aphrica, S● fuerit provocatum, etc. And again in the same Council, Non p●ouocent, etc. But what can be so plain as the Epistle of the 217. bishops in the Council of Africa etc.  
Stapleton All these four dishes make but one Service. It is but a dish of tongues brought for lack of other store to furnish the table. It is of only Africa, and but one decree often repeated about one very time, and of the self fame men. To the whole matter as it hath been before alleged of M. jewel, so have we answered it before at large in the 97. Untruth. 
Fol. 36. & s●q.  Though M. jewel to enlarge his Reply hath thought good to repeat it, yet I think it not good to abuse the Reader with the often and idle repeating of one thing. Yet this one thing more than hitherto hath been said I will note to the Reader by the way. This Council of Millevitum, 
Aug. epist. 90.91.92.93.95.96. Celest. ep. 1 ad gall. episc. Cap. 3.  and the Council of Carthage in Africa were both allowed and Confirmed by Pope Innocentius, as it appeareth in S. Augustin. And all the African councils were confirmed of the See Apostolic, as Celestinus the B. of Rome at that very time witnesseth. Which matter shall at large appear hereafter, when I come to the .112. Untruth, touching the Confirmation of Councils by the Pope. These councils therefore being Confirmed by the Pope, though they Restrain Appeals from that One Province to Rome, yet neither it is against Appeals out of other Countries to Rome, neither doth it maintain their own restraint with out the authority of the See of Rome, but rather confirmeth the Pope's authority about Appeals to Rome. And here lo endeth all that M. jewel allegeth out of Councils against Appeals to Rome. This is all the stuff that with so much conference of his brethren, of so many Councils holden in all places of the world, and of so solemn a protestation made before, hath issued. Mountains have cracked, and a Mouse hath crept forth.  
jewel. The bishops of the East part of the world being Arrians, writing unto julius the bishop off Rome, took it grievously that he would presume to over rule them, and showed him, It was not lawful for him by any sleight or colour of appeal, to undo that thing that they had done.  
Stapleton Yea Marry M. jewel thus it behoveth you to reason. It behoveth an heretic to allege heretics, to bring the examples of heretics, to defend their doings by heretics. These be your ancient Fathers (M. jewel) which next after Councils, 
The passing Impudence of M. jewel.  you promised to allege. Out upon this impudent Forehead off the Harlot Heresy your dame and mistress M. jewel. Have you no shame, no respect, no conscience? You confess these are Arrians (for you say of them, being Arrians,) and yet you shame not, you blush not, you fear not to bring their schismatical disobedience for a precedent of your schismatical disobedience. Have you no better proofs than Arrians, then cursed and detestable heretics? Be these your Fathers, your Doctors, your Masters? Be it then proclaimed and known to all the world, that M. jewel is a child of the Arrians, a follower of the Arrians, a scholar of the Arrians. The Fathers and Bishops of the Council of Sardica assembled out of all the west Church and of a great part of Grece, do condemn these very Arrian bishops for disobeying julius the bishop of Rome. M. jewel a protestant prelate commendeth them therefore, and allegeth their doing as a Sad testimony against Appeals to the bishop of Rome. The words of those Fathers and bishops of the Council of Sardica, written in their General epistle to all other bishops and priests not present at that Council, and declaring the Acts off that Council against those Arrian bishops of the East are these, 
Theodor.  as Theodoret in his ecclesiastical history recordeth them. Quum utique evocati a charissimo & consacerdote julio & non occurrentes (sicut scriptis eiusdem episcopi julij comprobatur) apart videantur calumniatores existere. 
lib. 2. cap. 5.  Whereas being cited off our most dear and fellow priest julius, and not appearing (as by the letters of the said bishop julius it is evident) they show themselves manifestly to be Slanderers.  
The Council proveth them Slanderers off Athanasius, Paulus, and other good Catholic bishops whom they had excommunicated because being cited by the Pope they would not appear. M. jewel allegeth for a Sad and Substantial proof their disobedience, not only refusing to appear, but checking also the Pope for receiving again to Communion those good Fathers Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus, and other, which being by the Arrians excommunicated and expelled, had Appealed to Rome. Thus M. jewel taketh part with the Arrians, that he may have a weapon against the Pope, and letteth go all the Catholic bishops for taking part with the Pope. Thus did heretics then, and thus do heretics now. The Arrians then, M. jewel now. Such Mates M. jewel hath picked out to disprove his Appeals to Rome. 
The 367. Untruth In Nipping away the first words of S. Cyprian.  These be his Fathers and Doctors that he promised to bring forth.  
S. Cipirian finding fault with such running to Rome, and defeating of justice, writeth unto Cornelius the bishop there in this sort. Seeing it is meet and right that every man's cause be heard there, where the fault was committed, and seeing that every bishop hath a portion of the flo●ke allotted unto him, which he must rule and govern, and yield account unto the Lord for the same, therefore it is not meet that they whom we are appointed to oversee do thus run●e about (with their appeals) and so with their subtle and deceitful rashewe● breaks that concord and consent off bishops, 
Ciprianus lib. 1. epist. 5.  but there they ought to plead their cause, where they may have both accusers and witnesses of the faul●e. Or less perhaps a few desperate and lewd fellows think the authority off the bishops ●f affrica, w●i●h have all ready judged and condemned them to be less, then is the Authori●e of other bishops. Hereby it is clear, that the godly Fathers and Bishops in old time misliked much this shifting of matters to Rome, for that they saw it was the hindrance of right, 
The 358. and 359. Untruth with the vantage as shall. appear.  the increase of ambition, and the open breach of the holy Canons.  
Before I open the Untruths off M. jewel in these few words alleged, Let us first consider (gentle Reader) the matter a part by it self. M. jewel must prove, there lay no Appeal to Rome. For this purpose he allegeth S. Cyprian complaining of the rash and oft running to Rome about Appeals. And what other thing doth all this prove, than that at the same time appeals lay to Rome, but S. Cyprian was offended therewith? Thus M. jewel telleth us that Appeals lay to Rome, and yet saith he will prove that none lay to Rome. Again S. Cyprian was offended, not with the Appeals itself simply and absolutely, But (as his words do expressly say) with their subtle and deceitful rashness about Appeals. And ●o was S. bernard in his time (as we shall anon hear) offended with Appeals, and yet no man more expressly witnesseth the authority of Appeals to Rome than he. So at this day the late General council of Trident hath cut of a number off Appeals from Rome, 
Sess. 22. Cap 8. &. 10.  and committed to the bishops the determination of most matters, not yet for all that abolishing all Appeals to that See. Thus also S. Cyprian who lived long before the Nicene council in a time of persecution, when less cause of contention was offered, was worthily offended with the rash and unruly behaviour off ceratine which ran to Rome, and abused the good Pope Cornelius with false and deceitful tales, as in this epistle S. Cyprian mentioneth. Again this seemed to be a decree among the Africanes even in S. Cyprian'S time, that no such Appeal should be made out off their country. For so doth S. Cyprian begin this sentence, Cum statutum sit omnibut nobis, aequumque ac justum sit etc. Seing it is decreed among us all, 
M. jewels true dealing.  and is also meet and right that the cause should there be heard where the fault is committed. etc. Now M. jewel hath omitted those first words of the sentence, and committed a wilful Untruth, to make the Reader believe that S. Cyprian spoke and reasoned generally against all Appeals, not of any Statute or decree touching the country of Aphrica. Again whereas he concludeth of godly Fathers and Bishops in old time, he hath made an Vntrutbe. For he hath brought but one godly Father and Bishop, S. Cyprian by name. The other were Arrian heretics, no godly Fathers. Thirdly where he saith that therefore the Appeals to Rome were misliked, because it was the increase of ambition, and the open breach of the holy Canons, it is the third and that a double Untruth. For S. Cyprian which is the only Father here alleged, speaketh neither off ambition, neither off the breach of any holy Canon.  
jewel. 
The .370. Untruth Slaund.  And therefore the Emperor justinian foreseeing the disorders, that hereof might grow, to bridle this ambitious outrages, thought it necessary for his subjects to provide a strait law in this wise to the contrary·s If any of the most holy bishop, being of one Synod have any matter off doubt or question among themselves, whether it be for ecclesiastical right, 
Authen. de Sanctiss. episc. Coll. 9 Si quis vero.  or any other matters, first let their Metropolitan wi●h other bishops of the same Synod examine and judge the cause. But if both the parties stand not to this and their judgements, then let the most holy patriarch of the same province hear and determine their matter according to the Ecclesiastical laws and Canons. And neither of the parties may withstand his determination. 
The .371. Untruth. For the Contrary shall now appear.  And immediately after. Let the patriarch according to the laws and Canons, make an end. By these words (.371.) all Aappeales be quite cut of from the See off Rome.  
Stapleton By these words M. jewel hath made an Untrue Conclusion. For first the Pope is one of the four patriarchs, and that the chiefest, as yourself M. jewel hath already confessed out of justinian. The Pope also is patriarch to all the west, and at this day is the only patriarch in respect of the other three patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch and Aleandria, which now are under the Dominon of the Turks, Therefore by these words (M. jewel) all Appeals are brought to the See of Rome. And thus your Conclusion is quite cut of.  
Again the decree of the Emperor, referreth the final judgement of the patriarch to the Ecclesiastical laws and Canons, as the express words of the Decree do say. Now the ecclesiastical laws and Canons not only of the Nicene Council but also of the great Council of Sardica, both holden long before the time off justinian the Emperor, do allow an Appellation from all bishops and patriarchs to the See of Rome, as it hath been before declared. And therefore by the words of this Decree, (referring itself to the ecclesiastical laws and Canons) Appeals are not quite cut from the See of Rome, but are expressly emplied to the See of Rome.  
But for evident proof, that this Novel Constitution off justinian maketh nothing at all against Appeals to Rome, let S. Gregory one of the four Doctors ●f Christ's Church, and a Father by you M. jewel against the Title of Universal Bishop, plentifully alleged, be an Vmper between us. It is to be thought that he understood this Constitution as well as M. jewel. And it is not to be feared that he will usurp a more Universal authority than was dew to the See of Rome, who did so much inveigh and was so earnestly bent against the Name or Title of Universal bishop. S. Gregory therefore alleging this very Novel Constitution of justinian, that Patriarcha secundum Canon's & leges Causae proebeat finem, the patriarch according to the laws and Canons make an end of the matter, 
Lib. 11. Epist. 54.  he addeth and saith. Contra haec si dictum fuerit, quia nec Metropolitam habuit nec Patriarcham, dicendum est quia a Seed Apostolica, quae Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum, causa audienda ac dirimenda fuerat, sicut & praedictus episcopus peri●sse dignoscitur, qui episcopos alieni Concilij habuit omnino suspectos. If it be here objected, that the bishop had neither Metropolitan nor patriarch it is to be said that the Cause ought to have been heard and determined of the See Apostolic, which is the Head of all Churches, even as also the foresaid Bishop is known to have required, suspecting the judgement of other Bishops which had no jurisdiction over him. Thus far S. Gregory. By whose judgement it is evident that though the law of justinian do say, that the patriarch shall end the matter, yet in the case that the Church lacketh a patriarch, as either the patriarch being dead, or the Church itself exempted and being some peculiar, in that case I say, the Appeal is to be made to the bishop of Rome, yea from the territory or country off any other patriarch. It is to be thought that S. Gregory understood this Novel Constitution of justinian as well as M. jewel doth. And verily though S. Gregory had not expressed that case, wherein the decision of the matter ought to be ended before the bishop of Rome, notwithstanding the law of justinian commanded that the patriarch should end it, yet other laws teach us that such a case being omitted, the common law loseth not therefore her force. Therefore the law saith. 
L. si extraneus ff. d. condict. cause. dat. & l. come. modissin●è ff. d. lib. & posth●mis.  Casus omissus relinquitur in dispositione juris communis. The Case that is omitted is left to be disposed by the Common law. Now the Common law of the Church being such (as by the Canons of the Council of Nice, and of Sardica it hath before been proved) that Appeals from all countries might be made to Rome, though justinian after made a law that the Patriache should end the matter, yet in case that there is at that time no patriarch (which case S. Gregory putteth) or that the party will yet farther Appeal to the See of Rome (as also in the case of S. Gregory, praedictus episcopus petijsse dignoscitur the foresaid bishop is known to have required) in these cases I say, that particular law of justinian taketh not away the Common law of the whole Church enacted in General Councils. As for example. From all Courts of the Realm in civil matters, Appeals may be made to the Common Place. And in that Court such matters shall be ended. Yet see we not that from thence such matters are removed to the kings Bench? Yea and from the kings Bench to a Parliament? But now. Shall the particular law of the one, take away the Common law of the other? Or shall it not therefore be lawful to Appeal from the Common Place to the kings Bench? Or because you may Appeal to the kings Bench, be therefore all Appeals quite cut of from the Parliament?  
To conclude therefore, though the law of justinian said, Let the patriarch according to the laws and Canons make an end, yet S. Gregory alleging that very law and words of justinian, affirmeth that in a Case, a Seed Apostolica causa audienda ac dirimenda fuerat: the cause ought to have been heard and determined of the See Apostolic. And thus much is M. jewel furthered by this law. M. jewel saith that justinian by this decree provided a strait law against Appeals to Rome. S. Gregory saith, notwithstanding this law, the matter ought to be heard and determined of the See Apostolic. M. jewel saith by these words all Appeals be quite cut of from the see of Rome. 
The .372. Untruth For this law speaketh not of Ecclesiastical matters. C●d. de Satr●sanctis Ecclesijs omni.  S. Gregory saith of that See, notwithstanding these words: Which is Head of all Churches. So properly M. jewel allegeth his laws, and so well he understandeth them.  
Likewise the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius have taken Appeals away from the bishops of Rome, and have commanded the same to be entered before the bishop and Synod of Constantinople. The law is written thus. All innovation set a part, we command that the old order and ancient ecclesiastical Canons which hitherto have holden be kept still through all the provinces of Illiricum, ●hat if any matter of doubt happen to arise, it be put over to be determined by the holy judgement, and assembly of bishops, not without the discretion of ●he most Reverend the bishop of the City of Constantinople, which City * Now enjoyeth the prerogative of Old Rome. 
The .373. Untruth In falsyfying the text of the law.   
If you will be tried by the law M. jewel, understand the law, as the lawyers do, and then this law shall make nothing against Appeals to Rome but rather confirm the same. The law saith, All this is spoken of civil matters and not of Church matters. For whereas in the next title before, 
Glosa in verbo: Prae rogat. Cod. d● summa T●init. e● fid Cath. N●s reddentes.  Rome is called by the Emperor Caput omnium ecclesiarum, the Head of all Churches, the gloze maketh argument here, how then Constantinople hath the prerogative of Rome. His answer is. Ibi in eccl●sia quòd subsit: Hic in civitate quòd non subsit. There the law saith in matters of the Church it is subject to Rome, here the law saith, in matters of the City it is n●t subject. And to this purpose he allegeth divers laws, which I leave to the lawyers to examine. Truly Chrysostom who was bishop of Constantinople in the time of this Honorius, appealed to the bishop of Rome, as it shall anon appear.  
Here M. Harding may not forgeate, 
The 374. Untruth For the Church of Constantinople is not in All Respects of pre-eminence etc.  that the Church of Constantinople had as great prerogative in all respects of pre-eminence, superiority, and universality of charge, as ever had the Church of Rome. Wherefore if the bishop of Rome were Head of the universal Church, it must needs follow, that the bishop of Constantinople was likewise Head of the Universal Church.  
Here M. jewel may not forgeate, that as before (pag. 242) so now again he deceiveth his reader with a general conclusion upon a particular proof. The law speaketh of A prerogative, and that as the gloss expoundeth in civil matters only. M. jewel concludeth All respects off pre-eminence, superiority and universalite off Charge. The law speaketh in the singular numbered, M. jewel concludeth a plurality. The law speaketh of 
* Vid, glosam in verbo, vetu●tatem, v●bi supra.  special privilege. M. jewel concludeth an absolute and equal authority. By such false weights falsehood would bear down Truth.  
Again M. jewel may not here forgeate that in this sentence of the prerogative of Constantinople, he hath shifted in the word Now, more than is in the law to make the Reader believe, that such prerogative was then given presently by that decree of the Emperors, whereas contrarily the whole Law tendeth only, ad vetustatem & canon's pristinos ecclesiasticos seruandos, that the old privileges (for so the gloze expoundeth Vetustatem,) and ancient Canons of the Church might be kept. Thus M. jewel by multiplying Untruths deceiveth his Reader, and maintaineth his heresies.  
jewel. 
Cod. de episcopis & cler. Omnes.  And again the Emperor Leo in plain words. All that be or hereafter shall be Priests or clerks of the Catholic faith of what degree so ever they be, Monks also, let them not in any 
* Civil Actions.  Civil Actions be drawn forth to foreign judgement by the summon or commandment of any judge more or less: neither let them be driven to come forth of either the province, or the Country w●ere they dwell.  
Stapleton. What thought M. jewel when he wrote this? Thought he that none but fools or his friends would read it, none but either such as could not perceive the matter, or such as seeing it well enough would yet wink at it? Thought he that his sayings and allegations, should never be examined? For what doth this law make against Appeals to Rome? Read over the law gentle Reader. Thou shalt see, it speaketh only of immunites and liberties of the clergy in civil matters. And will M. jewel reason thus?  
The Emperor enacted liberties for the clergy in civil matters: Ergo he forebadde utterly all appeals to Rome in ecclesiastical matters? If he would reason thus, he needed not to have sought so far as to the Empire of this Leo for a law, he might have found laws enough at home in our own country for such immunites and liberties of the clergy, and yet no embarring of Appeals to Rome. Wherefore when he concludeth upon this law so sadly and stoutly, saying:  
Thus, whether the Action were ecclesiastical or Civil, the party was to be heard within his own province, 
The .375. Untruth For the law speaks only of Civil actions.  and could not be forced to a ●eare abroad,  
He telleth us the way to London by his pot full of plumbs that hang at his saddle bow. For the law telleth him of Civil matters: and he telleth us of Ecclesiastical matters. Yet M. jewel with his halting arguments limpeth on, and saith.  
jewel. Certainly what good liking S. bernard had herein, it appeareth by his words. For thus he writeth to Eugenius the bishop of Rome. 
Bernard ad Eugenium de Considerate. lib. 3.  When wil● thy consideration aw●ke to behold this so great confusion of appeals? Ambition and pride striveth through thee to reign in the Church. These Appeals be made beside all ●awe and Right, beside all manner and good order. It was advised for a remedy. It is found turned to death. That was triakle, is changed in to poison. I speak off the murmuring and common complaints off the Churches. They complain they be maimed and dismembered. There be either no Churches or very few, but either smart at this plague or stand in fear off it.  
Stapleton This argument halteth down right in deed. S. bernard complaineth of the abuse of Appeals to Rome. Ergo there lay no Appeals to Rome. What? Hath M. jewel forgot where about he went? Or thinketh he by Appeals to Rome, to conclude no Appeals to Rome? Or if it do not this conclude, what maketh it here? Unless he be so beside himself in this passion of contradiction, that Appeals and no Appeals, a thing and no thing is all one. Certainly what good liking Saint. Bernard had in the authority of the See of Rome and off Appeals to be made thither, it shall appear by his words, which are these, written to Pope Innocentius. 
Bernard●s Epist. 190  Oportet ad v●st●um referri Apostolatum pericula quaeque & scandal a eme●gentia in regno dei, ea praesertim quae de fide contingunt. Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum res●r●iri Damna fidei, ubi non possit fides sentire defectum. Haec quip huius praerogativa Sedis. All dangers and offences rising in the kingdom of God must be referred to your Apostleship, those especially which concern the Faith. For there do I think it meet, that the decay of faith be amended, where the faith itself can not fail. For that is the prerogative of this See. Now if matters of faith must all be brought to the judgement of the Pope by S. Bernardes' mind, think you that Appeals to that See, be thought by him unlawful? Again the words which M. jewel allegeth. Repertum ad remedium reperitur ad mortem. That which was found for a remedy, is found turned to death, do they not declare the right of Appeals, but blame the Abuse thereof? No we upon this Abuse M. jewel concludeth thus.  
jewel. 
The 376. Untruth as shall appear.  This is that worthy ground whereupon M. Harding hath laid the first foundation of his Supremacy.  
Untruth. For his first foundation was upon holy Scripture, interpreted by the holy Fathers, namely S. Gregory, to whose place you have not answered M. jewel, as I have before proved. Now forth with your Untrue Conclusion.  
jewel. 
The .377.378. and divers other Untruths as shall appear.  A confusion, a death, a poison, a terror, a dismembering of the Churches, practised against Law against right, against manner, and against good order: misliked by the holy Fathers, disallowed by godly Councils: and utterly abrogated by sundry worthy and noble princes. This is M. hardings principal foundation of his Primacy.  
Here is a heap of Great, Mighty, Maine, Huge words to Amaze the Reader: But in deed a farthel of Open, Clere, and Manifest Untruths to Deceive the Reader. For the Confusion, the Death, the Poison, the Terror, the Dismembering of the Churches (that S. bernard speaketh of) is all of the Abuses in Appeals, not off the Lawful and dew Appeals. Again Appeals were not practised Against law, Against right, Against manner, and against good order, as M. jewel saith, but Beside Law and right, Beside all manner and good order, as S. bernard saith. Now as M. jewels Philosophy can teach him that many things are done Beside Nature which yet are not Against Nature, as the Course off the Planets from the East to the West, the Bringing forth of Monsters, and such like things, so Daily Experience teacheth us that many things are done Beside the law, which yet are not Against the laws: as when good laws are ill abused. Last of all it hath been proved that Appeals absolutely and generally have not been misliked by holy Fathers (unless Arrians be holy Fathers) neither dissallowed by general Councils, but rather approved and commanded by the same, and lest of all abrogated and abolished by any Princes that M. jewel hath yet named. Thus upon a number of Untrue Premises, no maruall if he infer a number of Untrue Conclusions. Now where he saith last of al. This is M. hardings principal foundation of his Primacy, I must tell him again. This is a principal Untruth twice repeated in one conclusion, as hath been before showed. Thus far hath M. jewel ranged about Appeals, and we for justifying of the general Untruth noted hereupon, have followed the Course, and found out the Fox. Verily a deceitful and wily Fox, full of lies and Untruths. Now he cometh to the Allegations off D. harding for Appeals. And here letting slip the Appeals of Theodoretus to Leo the Pope, and of Athanasius to Pope julius, noting thereupon none Untruth, where no Colour of Untruth could be pretended, he teaseth the Appeal of Chrysostom to Innocentius, because he found a hole in the evidence, as he thought. But first let us see the words of D. Harding.  
Harding. In the cause and defence of john Chrysostom, these bishops came from Constantinople to Innocentius the Pope, Pansophus bishop of Pisidia, Pappus of Syria, Demetrius of the second Galatia, and Eugonius of Phrygia. These were suitors of Chrysostom. He himself treated his matter with Innocentius by writing. In his Epistle among other things he writeth thus. Lest this outrageous confusion run overall, and bear rule every where, write (I pray you) and determine by your authority, such wicked acts done in our absence, and when we withdrew not ourselves from judgement, to be of no force, as by their own nature truly they be void, and utterly none. Furthermore, who have committed these evils (107) put you them under the censure of the Church. And as for us, sith that we are innocent, neither convict, neither found in any default, nor proved guilty of any crime, give commandment that we be restored to our Churches again, that we may enjoy the accustomed charity, and peace with our brethren. Innocentius after that he understood the whole matter, pronounced and decreed the judgement of Theophilus, that was against Chrysostom, to be void and of no force. This whole tragedy is at large set forth by Palladius bishop of Helenopolis, In vita joannis Chrysostomi, who lived at that time.  
jewel. The .107. Untruth. S. Chrysostom's words Untruly reported.  
Stapleton The lewdness of M. jewel is such (gentle Reader) in this Untruth, that no words can sufficiently express it. This to be so, thyself shalt judge, if thou but mark the text of D. Harding above alleged, and the demeanour of M. jewel, in his text touching this Untruth, which (after his general discourse against Appeals before answered and discussed) followeth in this wise.  
jewel. 
The .380 Untruth. For not out of Chrysostom's own works, as M. jewel supposeth.  But it is most certain and out of all question, that Chrysostom Appealed to Innocentius. For M. Harding hath here alleged (380.) his own words.  
Mark gentle Reader how M. jewel even at the beginning deceiveth thee. For understand, that D. Harding allegeth not Chrysostom's own words, out of Chrysostom's own works, but out off Palladius bishop of Helenopolis in vita joannis Chrisostomis, writing the life of Chrysostom, and reporting in his life the words which D. Harding alleged. And think not that this is a shift to avoid an inconvenience, or that M. jewel knew not so much. For D. Harding having alleged the words of Chrysostom and the whole manner of his Appeal to Rome, he nameth expressly his Author from whence he took it, in these words. This whole tragedy is at large set forth by Palladius bishop of Helenopolis, In vita joannis Chrysostomi, who lived at that time. In these words (as I said) D. Harding expressed his Author to be Palladius in the life of Chrysostom, not the Epistle of Chrysostom himself, commonly extant in his works. This being so expressed of D. Harding, what cause had M. jewel to note an Untruth in the Margin, and to declaim so against him in his text, noting it also there again in the Margin, M. Harding falsifieth, and untruly translateth S. Chrysostom, what cause, I say, had he to do so, 
The .381. Untruth Slanderous.  but that either very malice pricked him so deeply to dissemble, or at the jest, very gross and rash ignorance made him so fondly to talk? For behold how earnestly and sadly he prosecuteth the matter.  
I grant M. Harding hath here alleged Chrysostom, 
A Truth of M, jewel.  but in such faithful and trusty sort, as Pope Zosimus sometimes alleged the Council of Nice.  
This is well exemplified M. jewel. For even as you have villainously slandered that holy Pope Zosimus (for so S. Augustin himself called him oftentimes after he was dead, being one of those African bishops, which you imagine to have taken him in open forgery, 
August. de G●a●●a Ch●isti. lib. 2. cap. 2.6 7.8. 〈◊〉 17. In epist. ad Bonifacium.  and the African bishops in their letters to Bonifacius next successor to this Zosimus do call him Beatae memoriae Zosimum Zosimus of blessed memory, and Venerabilis memoriae Zosimum Zosimus of reverent memory) even as I say you have villainously slandered this holy Pope Zosimus of blessed and reverent memory, following therein your blind guides of Magdeburge (as hath before been declared) so you have in this place manifestly and wilfully slandered D. Harding. 
In the .97 Untruth  For he in this place alleged not any words out of Crysostomes' works, but he alleged the fact and words of Chrysostom out of Palladius (as he told you expressly M. jewel) which wrote his life. Out of your own words therefore M. jewel this is a clear Conclusion to prove you and all your fellows notorious slanderous of that holy Pope Zosimus in that infamous matter of the Pope's Forgery. D. Harding hath here faithfully and truly alleged Chrysostom, e●go Zosimus faithfully and truly alleged the Council of Nice.  
jewel. Good Christian Reader, if thou have Chrysostom, peruse this place and weigh well his words. If thou h●ue him not, yet be not overhasty of belief.  
Stapleton Good Christian Reader if thou have D. hardings book or M. jewels either, weigh well his words, If thou have them not, yet consider the words of D. Harding, as I have before wholly and thoroughly alleged them, and be not over hasty of belief. For thou shalt find that D. Harding alleged no words out of Chrysostons' works. But he alleged the letters of Chrysostom as it is recorded by Palladius in vita joannis Chrysostomi, in the life of Chrysostom.  
M. hardings dealing with thee herein is not plain.  
M. jewels dealing with thee herein is a very plain mockery. 
The .382. Untruth Slanderous. Epist. Chrysost. ad Innocentium Tom. 5.   
The very words of Chrysostom in latin stand Thus. Ne confusio haec omnem quae sub caelo est nationem invadat, obsecro ut scribas quòd hec tam inique facta & absentibus nobis, & non declinantibus judicium, non habeant ro●ur. Si ut neque natura sua hab●nt. Illi ●utem qui iniqué egeru●, paenae ecclesiasticorum legum ●u●●aceant, No●is vero qui nec con●●●●, nec redarguti nec hab●● ut rei sumus, lite●i● vestr●s & charitate vestra, a●●orumque omnium quarum ante societate f●uebamur, 〈◊〉. which words into english may truly be translated thus, Lest this Confusion overrun all nations under heaven, I pray thee write (
* The .383. Untruth in false translating, as it shalanon appear.  or signify) unto them, that these things so unjustly done, I being absent, and yet not f●●eing judgement, b● of no force, as in deed of their own nature they be of none. an● (writ) that they that have done these things so wrongfully, be punished by the laws of the Church. And grant you, that we that are neither convicted, nor reproved, nor found guilty, may enjoy your letters and your love, and likewise the letters an● love of all others, whose fellowship we enjoyed before. In these few words M. Harding hath notably falsyfyed three places, quite altering the words that he found, and shuffling in and interlacing other words of his own. For these words in M. hardings translation, that seem to signify authority in the bishop of Rome, and to import the appeal, 

The .384 Untruth Slanderous three ways.  
The 385. Untruth For these words are all to be found in Chrysostom.  
The .386 Untruth Slanderous.    
Writ and determine by your Authority: Put you them under the Censure off the Church. give Commandment that we be restored to our Churches,  
M. harding falsyfieth and untruly translateth saint Chrysostom.  
These words I say, are (385.) not found in Chrysostom, neither in the Greek, nor in the Latin, but only are prettily conveyed in by M. harding the better to furnish and fashion up his Appeal. He (386) seeth well, this matter will not stand upright, without the manifest Corruption and falsifying of the doctors. This therefore is M. Harding'S Appeal, and not Chrysostons'.  
Lo: you have good Readers the whole and long process of M. jewels Accusation against D. Harding, with his Note in the Margin, whereby he giveth the Sentence, and pronounceth the party Guilty. You have the whole text of Chrysostom as M. jewel avoucheth D. harding to allege him. You have seen the three places noted in the which he saith, D. Harding Hath quite altered the words that he found, and hath shuffled and interlaced other words off his own. Behold then now gentle Readers the words of Chrysostom in Latin as they do lie in Palladius writing the life of Chrysostom, whom Doctor Harding Namely and Expressly alleged for his Author in this matter, as we have often said. The words alleged by M. jewel in Latin, are translated of Erasmus or some such late Writer of our days. The words which now we will allege, are translated out of Chrysostom's Greek Epistle to Pope Innocentius, by Palladius sometimes the scholar off Chrysostom himself, and a learned Bishop off Helenopolis. Whereby it is easy to be judged, which translation is worthy of more credit. Palladius therefore writing the whole life of Chrysostom his master, and comprising in that the story of his great trouble, and banishment, in the which he Appealed to Pope Innocentius, recordeth the very letter that Chrysostom sent to Innocentius, 
Palladius in vita joan. Chrysostom. Et extat in Aloysio Lipoma no. Tom. 2. lib. 3. par. 2.  and saith. Erat autem epistolae joannis eiusmodi series. The tenor of the epistle that Chrysostom wrote was thus. Then followeth the whole epistle, even as it is in his works commonly set forth, though in a translation somewhat diverse. The words that pertain to this matter alleged by D. Harding in english, do stand thus in the Latin. Ne igitur immanis ista Confusio cuncta percurrat, & ubique dominetur, scribite precor, & authoritate vestra decernite, huiusmodi iniqué gesta nobis absentibus & judicium non declinantibus, nullius esse roboris, sicut per suam naturam sunt profecto & irrita & nulla. Porro qui talia gessere, eos ecclesiasticae censurae subijcite. Nos autem insontes neque convictos, neque deprehensos, neque ullius criminis reos comprobatos, Ecclesijs nostris iubete restitui, ut charitate frui, ac pace cum fratribus nostis consuetae possimus. The whole and perfect english of this latin is in the text of D. Harding above alleged, placed in the beginning of this Untruth. Now in this text of Palladius, the words which by M. jewels own judgement do se●e to import the Appeal, the words which he saith D. Harding hath quite altered, and shuffled, and interlaced other words off his own, these words I say,. Writ and determine by your authority. 2. Put you them under the Censure of the Church, give commandment that we be restored to our Churches, are evidently and manifestly to be found. For the first. Scribite & authoritate vestra decernite: is in plain english: Writ and determine by your authority. For the second, 
M. jewels Untruths particulary laid forth.  Eos ecclesiasticae Censurae subijcite, is likewise in plain grammarian english. Put you then under the Censure of the Church. For the third and last, Ecclesijs nostris iubete restitui, is in right good english. give commandment that we be restored to our Churches. Therefore where M. jewel saith, In these few words M. Harding hath notably falsified three places, it is now evident, he hath not falsified one, but M. jewel hath made a slanderous and triple Lie. Where he saith of D. Harding quite altering the words that he found, it appeareth now, he hath altered not one, but englished them all truly and faithfully as he found them, even as truly as Zosimus alleged the Councll of Nice. Where he saith of D. Harding: shuffling in and interlacing other words of his own, every man seeth now he hath neither shuffled nor interlaced any one word more than is in the epistle of Chrysostom, as Palladius his named and expressed Author reporteth it. Where he saith, that these words are not to be found in Chrisostom, we see now they are found there by one of his own scholars, Palladius bishopd of Helenopolis. Where he saith, But only are prettily conveyed in by M. harding, the Reader seeth now, they are truly alleged out of Palladius, not by him conveyed at all. Last of all where as M. jewel hath blazed in his margin, this note. M. Harding falsifieth, and untruly translateth S. Chrysostom, the contrary doth now appear, and M. jewel is found falsely, and untruly to charge D. Harding and to have avouched therein six Manifest, Notorious, and Slanderous Untruths.  
But now that D. Harding is thus clearly discharged, let us consider M. jewels own translation of Chrysostom's words, whether he have not played a lewd part himself therein, the better to disprowe the Appeal of Chrysostom. Whereas the latin of Chrysostom hath, Obsecro ut sc●ibas, M. jewel translaieth it thus. I pray thee write (or signify) v●to them. In which translation he putteth his gloze to Chrysostom's text and expoundeth the Writing that Chrisostom requireth, to be a Signification, which Palladius Chrysostom's own scholar translateth, Scribite & authoritate vestra decernite: writ and determine by your authority, expounding that Writing to be a determination by the Pope's authority. And thus M. jewel by his wrong translation hath altered the meaning of Chrysostom m●king that to be a Signification to the offenders, which the Author would have to be A determination and decision by way of authority over and against the offenders. And that this was the very meaning of Chrysostom, and that he Appealed in deed to Innocentius the Pope, not only by the words of his epistle (as Palladius reciteth them) it is evident, but much more by the whole Process, and issue of the matter, as it shall now appear.  
It is evident by the Ecclesiastical History and by other words of this Epistle, 
That S. Chrisostome Patriar●he of Constantinople Appealed to Pope Innocentius.  that Chrysostom being bishop of Constantinople and wrongfully deprived by Theophilus of Alexandria, and other bishops of Egypt, appealed in this Case to Innocentius the Pope of Rome, and desired his letters not for Signification of the evil fact, as M. jewel would have it to seem, but for a Determination and Sentence judicial against the offenders, as D. Harding hath alleged it. First that he Appealed to Innocentius being now the second time banished and deprived, it appeareth by his own words in this epistle. Quia non satis est plangere, 
Chrysostomus in epist. 1. a● Innocenti●̄●om. 5.  sed opus etiam ut cura geratu et spectetur qua ratione, & quo consilio gravissima illa tempes●as sedetur, proinde necessarium esse duximus ut persuadeatur Demetrio, Pansophio, Pappo, & Eugonio, Dominis meis maximé venerabilibus, pijsque episcopis, relictis negocijs proprijs, pelagose committere, susceptaque longinqua peregrinatione, ad vestram properare charitatem de omnibus vos manifesté docentes, quo quantocyus rebus succurratur. Because it is not enough to lament, but it is needful also to labour and consider how and by what means, this most grievous storm may be allayed, therefore we have thought it Necessary to entreat Demetrius, Pansophius, Pappus and Eugonius my most reverent Lords and godly bishops, that leaving their own affairs they will take the seas and this long travail to come speedily to your goodness, certifying you at large of the whole matter, to th'intent these matters may the sooner be redressed. Here we see Chrysostom being wrongfully deprived of his bishopric (for these letters he wrote in banishment, 
Nicephorus li. 13. ca 19  as appeareth well by Nicephorus) sendeth four of his bishops to the Pope to instruct him off the whole matter concerning his deprivation, and to have his speedy help and succour, for the Redress of the same. And therefore he repeateth his request again and saith. Sicut prius dixi, ea quae perperam fiunt, non solum deploranda, sed & corrigenda sunt, & ideo charitatem vestram obsecro, ut provocetur ad condolendum faciendumque omnia quo mala haec sistantur. As I said before, faults committed are not only to be lamented but to be Corrected. And therefore I beseech your goodness, to be moved hereat, both to lament with us, and also to do all such things, whereby these troubles may be appeased. Lo Chrisostom writeth not to the Pope only to have him lament the matter, and to Signify only to the offenders, that they had very evil done but also to Correct and amend the matter, and so to allay the trouble of the Church. He wrote not to the Pope desiring his letters of Complaint only, as that he should write to Theophilus and the other Bishops of Egypt which injuriously had expelled Chrysostom, after this sort. I understand you have done this and this, I am very sorry for it. I pray you amend it: this is not well done. This doth not become you: your doings be wrongeful, I tell you so and put you to knowledge thereof. This was not all M. jewel, as you would make it. 1. The sending of those four bishops to Rome. 2. Their long and dangerous travail. 3. The letters of Chrysostom. 4. The suit also of the whole clergy of Constantinople by their private letters, and of. 5. Forty other bishops by their letters (as Nicephorus reporteth) written and sent to this Innocentius Pope of Rome, was not all for such a bare signification as M. jewel imagineth, but (as Chrysostom himself saith) ut quantocyus rebus succurr●tur, that the matters might have a speedy redress: and again Vt corrigantur ea quae perperam fiunt: that the faults and trespasses might be Corrected, that the breach of the Canons, which Chrysostom 
* C●nt●● omnes Can●●es & l●ge●. And ●ont●a to● ac 〈◊〉 canon's.  twice in that epistle repeateth, might be punished. This Chrysostom wrote and desired by these letters, as it shall yet better appear by that which ensued hereof.  
The Pope Innocentius at the sight of those letters of Chrysostom and of the other bishops and clergy of Constantinople, 
Nicephosrus lib. 13· cap. 32. cap 33.  first wrote back to Chrysostom and to his clergy letters of comfort and exhortation off patience in that trouble. Forthwith he called a Synod, and having made a determination of the matter, sent the same to Constantinople, by the hands of Aemylius bishop of Beneventum, of Cathegius, and Gaudentius, Valentius and Bonifacius priests, the Pope's legates in that behalf to the Emperor Arcadius, by whose means Chrysostom was expelled. 
Li. 8. cap vlt.  Sozomene mentioneth five bishops and two Priests to have gone in this legacy to the Emperor. These men going on their journey were stayed in Grece by a Tribune there by the commandment of Eudoxia the wicked Empress who had been all the cause of Chrysostom's trouble, 
Leo epist. ●●.  and not suffered to pass by Thessalonica, to deliver the Pope's letters to Anysius the bishop of that place the Pope's Ordinary legate in that part of the East Church. After this sort being shifted by that Officier in to two ships, they were brought to Constantinople, and in one of the suburbs of that city cast in preson: where after they were racked and grievously tormented, to force them to give up their letters brought from the Pope. Which when they utterly refused to do, saying they would not deliver the letters but to the Emperors own hands, to whom they were sent, at the last one of the emperors Court, Valerius by name, to gratify (as he thought) the Prince, wrong out of the good bishops hands by fine force the letters, breaking also the thomme of him which held them, taking away withal certain plate of silver, and other their necessary provisions: hoping to force them by extreme necessity to yield to the Empress. This being done, and they yet refusing to yield, the next day after certain other came to these poor emprisonned bishops, sent partly from the Empress Eudoxia, partly from Atticus who occupied the room of Chrysostom, ostering them three thousand pieces of money for a bribe, upon the condition they would communicate with Atticus and forsake Chrysostom. All which they yet refusing to do, and seeing no other remedy, entreating they might be dismissed and suffered to return to Rome, the foresaid Courtyar Valerius, shifting them out of preson in to an old filthy and broken vessel, set them so on the seas, to return to Rome or to perish by the way. After four months travail and sailing, they returned notwithstanding, safe to Rome, and declared to the Pope the whole tragedy of their trouble, the whole manner and order thereof. 
Li: ●3. cap. 32. & 33.  Thus far out of Nicephorus in his Ecclesiastical History almost word for word.  
Let us now consider I beseech you M. jewel what manner of letters these were, that, 1. Chrysostom. 2. his clergy, and. 3. other forty bishops first sent to the Pope .4. that caused those four bishops sent with the letters to travail from Constantinople to Rome 5. that made a Synod to be called in Rome, 6. and the decree of that Synod to be sent by solemn legates to Constantinople, 7. such wait laid in the way to stop the Pope's answer, 8. such violence used against his legates to force them, 9 such great bribery to tempt them, whether all these matters I say concurred, either to obtain a letter of Signification from the Pope or to stop a letter of Signification sent by the Pope, as you M. jewel would have it only to seem. If all these Circumstances and the very words of Chrysostons' epistle above alleged be not sufficient to prove an Appeal, let us consider yet farther what followed after all this turmoil and tossing. What think we did Chrysostom himself remaining all this time in banishment, after he understood of this outrage committed? What did the Pope Innocentius himself? You shall hear M. jewel, and by that you shall judge yourself (if any truth or indifferency be in you) whether this were but a matter of Signification only, and not a Just and right Appeal. 10. Chrysostom understanding of these matters wrote a second letter to the Pope Innocentius: In the which he hath these words. Quantum in vestra pietate fitum fuit etc. 
In epist. 2. ad Innocentium 〈◊〉. 5.  As much as lay in your goodness, all things had now been appeased and amended, and all offences had been taken away, and the Churches had been in quiet, all things had prospered, laws had not been despised, nor the decrees of the Fathers violated. But th●y yet proceed in their wicked deeds, and as though they had hither to offended nothing, so they labour to pass their former faults with new mischiefs. But I will not particularly re●ken up such things as they have in this mean while committed. For so I should pass not only the bonds of a letter, but also the measure of an history. Howbeit I beseech your diligence, that although they have dealt troublesomly, and have procured to themselves incurable diseases, scant able to be cured by penance, that yet notwithstanding, if they will receive medicine, they be not farther vexed, 
* Neque cae●uabij●iantur.  nor excommunicated, considering the greatness and ampleness of the work. For this matter toucheth all most the whole world. Thus far Chrysostom commending first his Fatherly diligence (as you have heard) and yet beseeching him not to use the extremity, with the offenders, being in deed so many in numbered, and great of authority. For not only Theophilus the patriarch of Alexandria, and a great number of bishops of Egypt and otherwhere, but also the Emperor and Empress with a great part of the whole Court and City of Constantinople were entangled in this crime of dissension and outrage.  
And truly Innocentius the Pope as long as Chrysostom lived in banishment (which was for the space of three years and more) used no such extremity, but followed the advise of Chrysostom, seeking by fair means to quiet the matter. 
Nicephorus li. 13. Cap. 30.  But after that Chrysostom by the anguish and misery of his banishment departed this life, and all the good people of Constantinople that favoured Chrysostom, by sharp edicts of the Emperor and other means continued in great trouble and vexation, Innocentius the Pope used the .11. Final Sentence of the Appeal, and excommunicated both the Emperor and his wife, and also Theophilus of Alexandria with certain other bishops. The tenor of the Pope's letter containing the excommunication beginneth thus. 
Idem li. 13. Cap. 34.  Vox sanguinis fratris mei joannis clamat ad deum contra te, o Imperator, sicut quondam A bell ius●i contra parricidam Cain: & is modis omnibus vindicabitur. The Noise of the blood of my brother john Chrysostom crieth unto God against thee, ò Emperor, as of old time the blood of the just Abel cried against Cain the murderer: And this Blood shall by all means be revenged. After this the Pope declaring him more particularly the outrage and injury committed against that blessed and learned Father Chrysostom, he cometh to the words of excommunication, and saith. Itaque ego minimus & peccator, cui thronus Magni Apostoli Petri cr●ditus ●st, 
Ibidem  segrego & reijcio te & illam &c. Therefore I the lest of all men and a sinner, having yet the Seat of ●he great Apostle Peter committed unto me, do separate and remove thee and her (he meaneth the Empress) from the receiving of the imaculat Mysteries of Christ our God. Also every bishop or any other of the clergy, which shall presume to minister or give unto you thos● holy Mysteries after the time that you have read the letters of my Bond, I pronounce him or them void of his dignity or office. If now●, as persons of power you force any man unto it, and do violate the Canon's ●n● decrees d●liu●red unto you from Christ our Saviour, by his holy Apostles, know ye, it shall be no small trespass in that dread●ful day of judgement, when the Honour or Dignity of this life shall help no man, but the secrets of all hearts shall be opened and set before the eyes of every on●. A●s●cius which you placed in the bishoply throne in the room of Ch●ysostom, though he be dead, 
* Ex●uthoramus  we depose, and command that his name be not written in the roll of bishops. In like manner we depose all o●her bishops which 
* Consultò  of purposed advise have communicated with him. To the deposing of Theopilus (bishop of Alexandria) we add excommunication, anathematisation, and a deprivation of all fellowship or society of Christianite. Thus far the words of Innocencius the Pope in his letter to Arcadius the Emperor, as Nicephorus in his ecclesiastical history recordeth. And was all this M. jewel a Signification only from the Pope, was it not a Determination, and final Sentence of the Pope?  
The holy and learned Father Chrysostom, patriarch off Constantinople sent his legates being four bishops to the Pope with his letters. 2. In that letters he desireth the Pope that the matters may be redressed, Item that the faults be corrected, Last of all that he will write that such things as had passed between him and Theophilus might be of no force. 3. His whole clergy beside writeth. 4. Forty other bishops do also writer. 5. A Synod is called upon the matter. 6. The Pope sendeth his legates back to Constantinople with an answer. 7. The legates are by all means foul, and fair, by force and flattery, by violence and bribery moved to yield. 8. Chrisostom entreateth the Pope not to use the rigour of Excommunication upon them. 9 Last off all the Pope after long bearing and sufferance, excommunicateth the Emperor, and condemneth the malefactors. And what can prove an Appeal, if all this do not? What can more unvincibly prove the Supreme authority of the bishop of Rome? The patriarch of Constantinople appealeth to Rome. The patriarch of Alexandria is condemned by virtue of that Appeal. The Emperor of the East (an other Emperor Honorius by name then ruling in the west) is excommunicated of the Pope. By all this it may evidently appear that the translation of M. jewel: Writ or signify unto them, is a mere Untrue translation, as the which diminisheth and weakeneth the true meaning of the Author. And thus much of M. jewels wrong translation, and of the Matter itself concerning the Appeal. Let us now see what M. jewel saith to prove all this to be no Appeal. He saith.  
jewel. For the true understanding hereof it shall be necessary to consider the state that these godly Fathers than stood in, 
pag. 268. Epist. 2. ad Innocentium.  and the miserable confusion of the East part of the world in those days. Chrysostom there of writeth thus. It is the contention of the whole worlie. The Church is brought v●on her knees: the people is s●atte●ed, the ministery is oppressed. The bishops are banished: the Constitutions of our Father's ar● broken. 
* Clerus   
Stapleton Gentle Reader M. jewel in this discourse, doth shamefully and impudently abuse thy patience, if thou be learned, abuse thy ignorance though thou be unlearned. These words off Chrysostom are written in his second epistle to Innocentius the Pope. They do follow immediately the words which we alleged even now last out of Chrysostom, where he desireth the Pope not to use the extremity against tkose bishops which had deposed him and vexed his whole province. They are spoken of the great troubles raised not in the whole East part of the would, but in Egypt and Thracia, between the faction of Theophilus of Alexandria, and the faithful people cleaving to Chrysostom in Constantinople. Of those particular men it is spoken, and not off the whole East part off the world. Now let us see how M. jewel proceedeth and what he will conclude hereof. It followeth in his text immediately.  
jewel. 
Socr●tes li. 2. c●p. 11. Sozom lib. 3. cap. 6. Athanasius in epist. ad solitariam vitamagentes. Theodoretus lib. 2. cap. 14.  The emperors captain with a band of soldiers beset the Church, where Athanasius was praying. Of the people that was with him, some were spoiled and banished, some trodden under the soldiers feet, some slain where they went, Paulus the bishop of Constantinople was hanged, Marcellus the Bishop of Ancyra was deprived. Lucius the bishop of Adrianopolis died in preson, Theodulus and Olympus two bishops of thracia, were commanded to be murdered. The Emperor had commanded Athanasius to be brought into him either dead or alive.  
jewel. Here is a great bulk, but no Caesar. If empty words might make proof, than had we here proof sufficient. But what? (will M. jewel say) call you these words empty which which are full of histories, and variety? Yea truly M. jewel in this place they are but empty words. For though they contain matter enough, yet to your purpose they contain no matter at all. 
pag. 151.  And great vessels (you know M. jewel) the emptier they be, the more they sound. The wise Reader will be weighed mith reason and not with talk. Let us see therefore to what issue you drive all these allegations. If in the end they prove nothing, 
The .387. Untruth For these Fathers, Athanasius Chirsostom and Theoret. were in no part of these miseries mentioned, w●en they Appealed to Rome.  then have you but dazed your Reader with great looks, and faced him out with a card often. You proceed and say.  
These godly Fathers being thus (387.) in extreme misery, and seeing their whole Church in the East part so desolate were forced to seek for comfort, where so ever they had hope to find any: and specially they sought to the Church of Rome, which then both for multitude of people, and for purity of Religion, and Constancy in the same, and also for healping of the afflicted, and entreating for them, was most famous above all others.  
Now your juggling and deceiving of the Reader shall appear M. jewel. For where you say, these holy Fathers being thus in extreme misery etc. You mean and speak of Chrysostom, Athanasius and Theodoret. As touching Chrysostom and Theodoret they lived at the lest the one a hundred and more, the other all most two hundred years after those troubles and miseries happened in the East Church. Those troubles above mentioned happened all in the reign of Constantius the Arrian Emperor, and toward the end of his Empire. Chrysostom lived under Arcadius and Honorius, Theodoretus under Theodosius the second, son to Arcadius. Now between Constantius the Arrian and Arcadius were Emperors julian, jovinian, Valens, and Theodosius the first, the time almost of a hundred and fifty years. Under Arcadius those troubles of the East Church mentioned by M. jewel utterly ceased. Now to allege those troubles so long before passed and appeased, to be the cause of Chrysostoms', and of Thedorets' Appeals to Rome which so long after followed, who seeth not that it was impertinently and impudently alleged? Touching the troubles in the East in Chrysostom's time, we have said somewhat before, but shall say more anon, when we come to M. jewels conclusion upon this place. It remaineth therefore that all this must serve to bear out the Appeal of Athanasius, who lived in the time of those troubles, or else M. jewel (as I said before) shall be found to have proved nothing, but utterly to have dazed the Reader with empty words.  
Touching the Appeal of Athanasius, 
The Appeal of Athanasius  though it be not our principal matter, having now in hand chiefly the Appeal of Chrysostom, yet because M. jewel hath so confounded all these three divers Appeals and of divers ages all together, trusting by one general answer to defeat them all, for Truths sake which now I defend, I will show also that all this proveth nothing against the Appeal of Athanasius to the Pope brought in by D. Harding for a clear example of the Pope's Primacy then at that time and of so learned a man acknowledged and confessed.  
It is to be known therefore that all those troubles of the East Church mentioned before by M. jewel, happened after the Appeal of Athanasius to Rome, and therefore could not be the cause of that which before was passed. This to be so I will evidently prove (God willing) by the orderly course and drift of the ecclesiastical History.  
The Ecclesiastical History reporteth that at the beginning of the reign of Constantius the Emperor (under whose reign, 
Histor trip. lib. 4. Cap. 1  and toward the end of whose reign the above mentioned troubles happened, as it shall anon appear) many bishops of the East (which in the life of Constantinus father to this Constantius, a good Catholic Emperor had dissembled, and appeared for Catholics) began then openly to profess the Arrian heresy, 
Cap. 2.  and to condemn the great general Council of Nice holden not long before. At that time Athanasius (being banished before by Constantinus through the deceit of Arrius and his fellows) returned to his bishopric by the means of Constantinus brother to Constantius Emperor of the west. 
Cap. 5.  The Arrian bishops, Eusebius, Theogonius, Theodorus Perinthius and other, intending then as I said, to publish the Arrian heresy (having all ready corrupted the Prince as the history declareth) seeing this Athanasius the patriarch off Alexandria, to be a great block in their way, as being a right learned Father and a most stout defender of the Nicene Council, laboured by all means to remove him from that place, and to deprive him of his bishopric. For this purpose they accused him to the Emperor, 
Cap. 6.  as one that had by unjust means returned to his bishopric. Athanasius having intelligence of their doing, and of the Prince's mind bend against him fled in to the west parts of Christendom. But Eusebius and his fellows the Arrian bishops not contented herewith thinking to work sure in the matter, wrote also to julius the Bishop off Rome, accused him to the Pope, and hoped by that means to have him utterly deprived. The Pope (as the history saith) ecclesiasticam sequens legem, etiam ipsos Romam venire praecepit, & venerabilem Athanasium ad judicium regulariter evocavit, following the law of the Church, commanded them also to come to Rome, and called forth the reverent Athanasius to judgement after the order of the Canons.  
Here would I by the way learn of M. jewel what law of the Church it was, that the Pope followed, when he commanded the bishops of the East to appear at Rome, and cited also Athanasius the patriarch of Alexandria to judgement at Rome, and that Regulariter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by order of the Canons. 
In Rescrip to julij ad Orientales. Concil. Sard. ca 7.  What law, what Canons can he name, but the laws and Canons of the Nicene Council, the only Council General holden before that time, and confirmed afterward by the great Council of Sardica holden somewhat after that time? Well: Forth with the History.  
Athanasius obeying the Summoning came. But his Accusers came not, scientes facile suum capi posse mendacium, knowing that their lying tale should soon be discovered. What did they then? Forsooth (the history saith) seeing the shepherd away from his flock, they thrust in a wolf in his place: Gregorius by name an Arrian bishop. Under this Arrian Gregorius began the troubles which M. jewel before mentioned. 
Cap. 11.  As the besetting of the Church of Alexandria with soldiers, the murder and spoil of the people. For whereas Athanasius after he had appeared at Rome, 
Cap. 7.  by the means of the emperors letters of the west, Constans brother to Constantius, had recovered again his bishopric, the Arrians persuaded the other Emperor Constantius the Arrian to intrude this Arrian Gregoririus by force and violence. 
Cap. 11.  Upon which Athanasius fled the second time to Rome, 
Cap. 12.  and Eusebius the Archearrian sent after him a legacy to the Pope, to accuse Athanasius. At this second coming to Rome, Athanasius found there Paulus the bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus bishop of Ancyra, Asclepas bishop of Gaza, 
Cap. 15.  Lucianus bishop of Adrianopolis, all complaining in like manner to the Pope for injuries done unto them by the Arrians. Now first let us consider that the first flight of Athanasius to Rome was before the troubles mentioned by M. jewel: and that therein (as I said) he hath deceived his Reader, making that to be the cause of Athanasius flight which happened after his flight. secondarily that he bringeth of Paulus the bishop of Constantinople that he was hanged, you perceive I trust already, that therein also he hath brought that for a cause which happened after the effect. Unless M. jewel will say that Paulus was hanged of the Arrians, before he came to Rome to complain of the Arrians. Likewise that he telleth us of Lucius otherwise Lucianus bishop of Adrianopolis that he died in preson, it must needs be after the first coming of Athanasius to Rome, seeing that in his second coming he found the same Lucius or Lucianus at Rome. Marcellus also of Ancyra whom he found at Rome at the same second coming could not be the cause of Athanasius first coming to Rome. Now that which followeth in M. jewels allegations of Theodulus and Olympius commanded to be murdered, and of the emperors fury against Athanasius commanding him to be brought alive or dead, 
Cap. 38.  all this happened after the third flight of Athanasius, and a great many years after his first flight to Rome, of the which only D. Harding here mentioned, and against the which M. jewel would drive all these troubles of the East hitherto alleged, all befalling (as you see) long after the same. Thus you see how that all these alllegations prove nothing against the matter alleged, and therefore were brought in by M. jewel only to Dase and Amaze his Reader for the time, that after he might work his feat at pleasure. For now, where it followeth in M. jewel, as we have before told you his words, These godly Fathers being thus in extreme misery, etc. sought to the Church of Rome, you see neither Chrysostom nor Theodoret (who lived so many years after all these troubles appeased) neither Athanasius whose flying to Rome talked of in this place, happened before all these troubles, can be any of these godly Fathers that M. jewel concludeth of. But only these godly Fathers Chrysostom, Theodoret and Athanasius are alleged here to have sought to Rome. Ergo all this hath been brought utterly beside the purpose, only to deceive and abuse the well meaning Reader. This is the sincerity of M. jewel, when he seemeth to talk most learnedly.  
To show farther that Athanasius in his second flight to Rome, that Paulus of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, 
Paulus of Constannople and divers oath Bishops of the East Appealed to Rome.  Asclepas of Gaza, Lucius of Adrianople all learned and Catholic bishops of the East Church (who met there at that time all together) fled not thither (as M. jewel imagineth) because they knew not whether else to fly, but to be restored again to their bishoprics by the Pope's authority, that therefore I say, they fled and for no other cause, let us consider shortly what the ecclesiastical history reporteth herein. The history writeth thus. Cognoscens ergo Romanus Episcopus etc. The bishop of Rome therefore hearing the accusations and complaints of each one, 
Hist. trip. lib. 4. cap. 15.  and finding them all to agree to the Nicene Council, received them in to Communion, as having charge of them all, through the dignity and prerogative of his own See, and restored to every one their Churches: He wrote also to the bishops of the east, that they had not well used innocent men driving them from their Churches, that also they kept not the constitutions of the Nicene Council. Some of them also he commanded to appear before him at a certain day, that they might know he had pronounced a just determination of them. He told them also he would not from hence forth suffer them, unless they leaved such disorder and innovations in the Church. Thus wrote the Pope. And Athanasius and Paulus sending the Pope's letters to the bishops of the East, recovered each one again their bishoprics. Thus far the Tripartite Hstory out of Sozomenus. Whether all this declare not a Supreme authority in the See of Rome over the East Church no less then over the west, I leave it to the discretion off every wise Reader to consider. Let us now return to the discourse of M. jewel and see how he proceedeth herein.  
jewel. 
The .388 Untruth For Flavianus Appealed to Pope Leo, not to the Emperor.  In like sort sometimes they fled for help unto the Emperor. So Athanasius being condemned in the Council at Tyrus, fled to Constantinus the Emperor. Flavianus unto the emperors Theodosius and Valentinianus. Donatus a casis nigris, unto Constantinus. And the Emperors sometimes called the parties, and heard the matter themselves. Sometimes they wrote favourable letters in their behalf.  
Much of this, is true: but nothing truly applied. Athanasius in deed (as Socrates writeth) in refellendis calumnijs contra Macharium productis, legalibus usus est paragraphis. in refelling the slanders laid to the charge of Macharius his priest, 
Socrates. lib. 1. cap. 31.  pleaded with his adversaries by the law. Therefore he refused, according to the law, their judgements who were known to be his enemies. Neither would suffer that Theoguis, Maris, and such other Arrians should have the examination of his priests matter Macharius, Ischyras his adversary being set at liberty and keeping company with the judges, while Macharius his Priest was laid fast in Chains. Last of all protesting to the whole Synod, and Dyonisius the emperors officer there, that he had injury, and having no remedy thereof, 
Cap. 32.  clanculum discessit, he departed away privily saith Socrates. And a little after. Secessione facta ad Imperatorem fugit. After his departure he fled to the Emperor. All this was ex legalibus paragraphis following the order of the law. afterward he was accused to the Emperor of a Civil matter, as that he had stopped the passage of Corn which was wont ordinarily to be sent from Alexandria to Constantinople. Here was no question of Faith or Religion decided by the Emperor.  
Flavianus was by the heretic Dioscorus deposed. 
Flavianus Appealed to Pope Leo.  He Appealed to Pope Leo, not to the Emperou● as M. jewel saith. For proof hereof, we have the letters of Valentinian the Emperor himself. These are his words, to Theodosius the second them Emperor in the East. 
Epist valent. ad Theodos. tom. 1. Con. pag. 731.  Fidem a nostris Maioribus traditam debemus cum omni competenti devotione defendere, & dignitatem propriae venerationis Beato Apostolo Petro intemeratam & in nostris temporibus conseruare: quatenus beatissimus Romanae Civitatis Episcopus, cui principatum sacerdotij super omnes Antiquitas contulit locum habeat ac facultatem de fide & Sacerdotibus judicare. Hac enim gratia secundum solemnitatem Conciliorum & Constantinopolitanus Episcopus eum per libellos appellavit, propter contentionem quae orta est de fide. The faith delivered unto us from our forefathers (most honourable Father and reverent Emperor) we ought with all competent devotion defend, and preserve also in our time unviolated to the blessed Apostle Peter the dignity of his dew Reverence: so as the most holy bishop of Rome, To whom antiquity hath given the Principalite of Priesthood above all, may conveniently judge off the faith, and of Priests. For, hereupon the bishop of Constantinople (Flavianus) after the accustomed manner of Councils hath appealed to him by libels, upon a certain question moved touching the Faith. In like manner also Galla Placidia Mother to Theodosius wrote at that time, saying of Flavianus, that Libellum ad Apostolicam Sedem mis●rit, 
Ibidem.  he sent a libel off Appeal to the See Apostolic. Thus as Athanasius appealed to julius in matters ecclesiastical, so did also Flavianus to Leo. And as Athanasius fled for succour against heretics to the Emperor, so might also Flavianus seek succour of the Emperor Theodosius. But neither of them fled in like sort to the Emperors, as they Appealed to the Pope. Donatus a Casis nigris was an heretic. Of him we shall speak more anon. Touching matters mere ecclesiastical, the Catholic Emperors never judged and determined such matters, they never restored bishops by their own absolute authority, as we have heard even now the Pope restored Athanasius and Paulus. 
emperors never judged over bishops in matters of Faith.  This to be so without farther particular trial, Let the testimony of S. Ambrose be a sufficient witness in this matter who lived after and in the time of all the cases alleged by M. jewel, and who was (no doubt) much more skilful in these matters than is M. jewel or any man that liveth now. At what time Valentinian the young Emperor would have called Saint Ambrose in judgement before him, as M. jewel would here persuade the reader that Emperors of old time did, he saith unto the Emperor. Quando audisti clementissime Imperator in causa fidei laicos de episcopis iudicasse? 
Lib. 5. epist. 32.  When didst thou ever here most gracious Emperor, that lay men have judged over bishops, in any cause pertaining to the faith? This was after the time of Constantius, of Theodosius, and of Valentinianus the elder alleged before by M. jewel to have had ecclesiastical matters before them, in like sort as the Pope had, which is to have judged and determined other them. Then if M. jewel had been by S. Ambrose when he wrote those words to the Emperor, and had been of the mind that he is now of, he would perhaps have corrected S. Ambrose, and said. No Sir? Never heard you that Athanasius fled to Constantinus, that Flavianus to this man's Father Valentinian the first, that Donatus also to Constantinus, never heard you that the Emperors called sometime the parties, and heard the matters themselves, and that in like sort, as the Pope determined the causes of Athanasius and Paulus? Heard you never of all this? If you did, how then say you to the Emperor. Wh●n heard you & c? If you did not, then yet learn of me that you have miss informed the Emperor. This M. jewel might have as well instructed S. Ambrose then, as avouched it so stoutly now. But. What trow we would S. Ambrose have answered here to this painted prelate, overthwarting so such a learned Bishop? Truly S. Ambrose notwithstanding all those examples alleged by M. jewel, notwithstanding the words of Constantinus Coram me, even before me, which M. jewel maketh so much of, which he blazeth so forth with great letters both in the text and in the Margin, notwithstanding I say all, that either Constantinus or Theodosius or Valentinian did or had done before that time, he would have said to M. jewel farther as he wrote then to the Emperor, these words. Certè si vel scripturarum seriem divinarum, vel vetera tempora retract●mus, quis est qui abnua● in causa fidei, in causa inquam fidei episcopos solere d● Imp●ratoribus Christianis, non Imperatores de episcopis judicare. In good sooth (M. jewel) if we call to mind the whole course of holy Scripture, or the practice of ancient time passed, none I trow will deny but that in matters touching faith, in matters I say (M. jewel) touching faith, bishops are wont to judge over Christian Emperors, Emperors are not wont to judge o●●r bishops. Thus S. Ambrose hath answered you M. jewel. And this his answer that you may the better like and content yourself withal, I wish you to remember what your old Master john Calvin hath written of this very answer of S. Ambrose to the Emperor. He saith these words. 
Institut. li. ●. cap. 11. fere in ●●ne.  Worthily do all men prais his constancy in this behalf. Then you M. jewel I trust, will not dispraise it. Then you will yield to the learning of S. Ambrose, who telleth you in good earnest, that neither by holy Scripture, neither by any practice of the Church Emperors have judged over bishops in matters of the faith.  
jewel. The Emperor Constans wrote unto his brother Const●ntius to call before him the bishops of the East part to yield a re●ckening of their doings against Athanasius.  
Stapleton Of this Matter we shall speak more when we come to the 113. Untruth. Yet presently this may suffice to note, that Constans wrote to his brother he should in any wise restore Athanasius and Paulus, 
Socrates. li. 2 c. 22. Theodor. lib. 2. ca 8  partly because of Pope julius his letters written in that behalf, partly because by the whole Council of Sardica they were judged Innocent. The Emperor herein did but execute the Pope's request, and the Determination of the Council.  
jewel. 
The .389 Untruth joined with a folly.  The Emperor Honorius gave his endeavour, that Athanasiu● might be restored.  
M. jewel, talketh he can not tell what himself. Athanasius was dead and buried at the least twenty years before Honorius was Emperor. His endeavour at that time could stand Athanasius in small stead.  
jewel. Constantinus the Emperor upon Athanasius complaint, commanded the bishops of the Council of Tyrus to appear before him.  
Stapleton. 
Socrates. lib. 1· cap. 26.27.28. Ibidem ca 34.35. Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 31.  He did so, animo commodandi ecclesiae nolens illam discerpi, as Socrates writeth, upon the desire he had to help the Church, and to bring it to Unite. So he restored Arrius himself to Alexandria. So he threatened Athanasius to depose him, if he received not Arrius. So he called those bishops before him. And so in fine he banished that good Catholic Father Athanasius. But in the end he repented him, and commanded in his last will that Athanasius should be restored. These things don● of Zele beside right, can be no prejudice to that, which is right. Let us now see what M. jewel will conclude hereof. 
The .390 Untruth The Conclusion followeth not. Namely in Chryso●●om.   
Thus holy men being in distress, sought help, wheresoever they had hope to find it. This seeking of remedy by way of complaint, a● it declareth their misery, so is it not sufficient to prove an ordinary Appeal.  
If your former talk had been true and to the purpose, this conclusion might have had some likelihood. Now it is evident by that which hath been brought, that all this seeking to Rome, was not by way of complaint only, but by way of Appeal, especially in Chrisostom, and Athanasius as we have declared. And touching Chrysostom, upon whose words we have been occasioned to enter so far with M. jewel, this shift of seeking to Rome by way of complaint, is most ignorantly, or else very deceitefully alleged of M. jewel. For what a poor shift were this, to seek for succour in distress at his hand, who was himself in more distress than the party that sought for secure? And so was it with Innocentius when Chrysostom being banished wrote and sent his legates unto him. For at that very time the Goths wasted and spoiled Italy in most miserable sort, first under Rhadagaisus, and next under Alaricus, 
Orosius ●●. 7. cap. 37. & 39  who Innocentius yet living, sacked Rome itself, and afflicted all that cost most cruelly. At that time the Wandales and Huns invaded the west Empire, the French men entered in to Gallia, now called of them France, and the miserable Emperor Honorius lurked at Ravenna, so careless and negligent of all these matters, 
Baptist● Egnatius lib. 1. Rom. Prin.  that when word was brought unto him that Rome was undone, what, said he, is Rome my Cock slain which fought while here so lustily? thinking it had been spoken of a cock that he had so called, and having more mind of his cockefight game, then of the great City of Rome. And in all these miseries of the west part, of all Italy, of Rome itself, will M. jewel persuade us that Chrisostom sent thither for secure only and redress of his own private misery? 
jewel. pag. 237.  A man may here say to M. jewel, as M. jewel saith in this article to an other: Non satis commodé divisa sunt temporibus tibi Daue haec. These matters hang not well together M. jewel. And this you knew yourself well enough. 
The .391. Untruth For this will never appear.  And therefore you add more matter hereunto and say.  
That Chrysostom made no such Appeal to the bishop of Rome it may sufficiently (391) appear, both by Chrysostom's own Epistles and by the bishop of Rome's dealing herein, and by the end, and conclusion of the cause.  
It behoveth thee here (gentle ●eader) to call to mind, what we have said before of this matter. We have before declared by the two epistles of Chrysostom to Innocentius, by the dealing of the bishop of Rome therein (calling a Synod, and sending his legates to Constantinople about the matter) Last of all by the end and conclusion of the cause, to wit, by the final excommunication of the Emperor, and the other bishops guilty of those troubles, by Innocentius the Pope, that Chrysostom made a just Appeal. Now M. jewel saith he will prove the contrary by those very three divers means again. That were gay. Let us see.  
jewel. Touching Chrysostom himself he maketh no mention off any Appeal.  
Stapleton. Why M. jewel? Can not a man eat his meat, but he must talk of eating, and tell his fellows? Lo I eat meat. Can not Chrysostom make an Appeal, but he must say: reverent Father I appeal to you? We have showed before by his letters and many other circumstances that an Appeal was made. And shall the lack of naming the matter mar all?  
jewel. Nor desireth the Parties to be cited to Rome.  
Stapleton. No. But he desireth the parties may be punished. He desireth the Pope to write and determine the matter by his authority. He desireth to be restored to his Church again. All this I have showed before out of Chrysostom's first epistle. Again the Pope sent his legates to the parties, and therefore needed not to cite the parties.  
jewel. Nor taketh Innocentius for the bishop of the whole Church or for the universal judge of all the world.  
Stapleton. Yet more negative arguments M. jewel? Will you never leave this lewd logic? But I pray you how prove you your negative?  
jewel. But only saluteth him thus. john to Innocentius bishop of Rome sendeth greeting.  
Stapleton This is a slender Erasmian argument, M jewel, taken of the title and superscription of a letter. How many men writ to M. jewel with this superscription, To the Right reverent Father in God & c? And yet M. jewel knoweth himself, he is no bishop at all, and therefore no reverent Fathet, for the which respect he is so called. The Pope neither entitleth himself, nor ever did, the bishop of the whole world or the universal judge of all the world but he entitleth himself, The servant of the servants of God. Yet if titles might make proof, 

Gregor. li. 4. epist. 38  
Vniversales obla●o honore v● ca●i sunt.   we could bring the authority not of one only bishop (as Chrysostom was) but of six hundred bishops assembled in a general Council from all parts of Christendom which called Leo then Pope of Rome, an Universal Bishop. But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter, in the 118. Untruth. Let us now proceed with M. jewels allegations out of Chrysostom's epistles, as he saith. Hitherto he hath argumented of the title and superscription. Now off like he will bring some weighty matter out of the epistle itself.  
jewel. And again in the same Epistle he utterly avoideth all such foreign judgements, 
The .392 Untruth as appeareth.  according to the determinations of the Councils off Carthage, Millevet and Africa.  
Staplet. Untruth. For those Councils were made only for Africa and touched nothing Constantinople or Thracia, where Chrysostom lived.  
jewel. These be his words. It is not meet that they that be in Egypt should be judges over them, that be in Thracia.  
Stapleton. This is M. jewels Argument. Chrysostom a bishop in Thracia refuseth the judgement of the bishops of Egypt. Ergo he refuseth the judgement of the bishop of Rome. The lewdness off this argument will appear by the like. Th● bishop of London refuseth to be judged of the bishops of France. Ergo he will not be judged by his metropolitan the Archebishopp off Caunterbury. For as rightfully may the Pope be judge over all metropolitans; as every Metropolitan over the bishops of his province. Which superiority of the Metropolitan over his bishops, though your religion in very deed (as it seemeth) no more acknowledgeth then the Supremacy of the Pope over all, yet you M. jewel through out this article, do earnestly defend the superiority off patriarchs, Primates and metropolitans each in their provinces, to overthrow thereby the Supreme authority of the Pope over all. And this is all M. jewel which you have brought of Chrysostom's epistles to prove (as you said) that he made no such Appeal to Rome. Which now being laid abroad, is so bare and naked a proof, that yourself I think, if any shame be in you, doth blush thereat for very shame. But go to. Though the epistles of Chrysostom can not help you, yet perhaps the bishop of Rones dealing therein, and the end of the cause will help you. For by these two ways more, you promised to prove that Chrysostom made no Appeal. Let us then see, what the bishop of Rome's dealing herein was.  
jewel. 
The 393. Untruth boldly avouched but no way proved.  Neither do the Bishop of Rome his own words, import any Appeal, but rather the (393) Contrary.  
This is stoutly said. I trust you will prove it as well.  
For (394) he useth not his familiar words off bidding or commanding, but only in gentle and friendly manner exhorteth them to appear, and that not before himself, but only before the Council of sundry bishops summoned specially for that purpose. 
The 394 Untruth This For, forceth not. It was not so in the cause of Chrysostom.   
Let this proof stand for good. The Pope gave them fair words, and desired them to Appear before a Synod. Ergo his words do import no Appeal but rather the contrary. You know M. jewel by the like argument: A Prince writing gently at a time to stubborn rebels, and willing them to appear before his Council not before him, might be proved no Prince or Sowerain, because in that case he doth not exercise his authority. But as I said let the proof stand for good, being in itself over weak and feeble. Forth to the matter.  
For thus julius writeth unto the bishops of the East.  
jewel. 
The .395. Untruth as last before.  Why, where be you M. jewel? Have you forgot yourself? You promised to tell us of Chrysostom's Appeal, and of the words of Innocentius to whom he appealed. And do you tell us now of julius and the bishops of the East? You know julius and these bishops were dead and buried more than a hundred years before this Appeal or complaint (call it as you list) of Chrysostom to Innocentius. And will you prove that Chrysostom did not Appeal to Innocentius, because julius spoke fair to the rebellious Arrians of the East? But thus it is gentle Reader. M. jewel maketh large offers, promiseth much, speaketh great, but he yieldeth nothing, he performeth as much, and proveth as little. As for Innocentius his words (who was the Pope to whom Chrysostom Appealled) and by whose words he promised to prove that Chrysostom made no Appeal, he hath not brought so much as one syllable or letter thereof. And as touching the end and Conclusion of the cause, which was an other means by the which he promised to prove that Chrisostom made no Appeal he hath brought touching Chrysostom nor word nor half word. Only having talked somewhat of julius the Pope that he wrote fair to the Arrians, and that he tried the matter by a Synod, which two things M. jewel taketh for a great derogation of the Pope's authority, whereas all wise men beside will, I think, rather much commend the moderation and discretion of the Pope therefore, as neither using rough words, neither doing all of himself, but with the advise and consent of other, as the Popes at this day do, and always have done, M. jewel I say having somewhat enlarged those matters, at the length speaketh only these words touching the Appealle of Chrysostom to Innocentius, which follow.  
jewel. 

pag. 270. The .396 Untruth Innocentius prosecuted the Appeal by his own authority, as hath b●fore been proved.  
The 397. Untruth For he pronounced hi● self the Final Sentence of Excom. against the offenders.   So likewise Innocentius the bishop of Rome, being very desirous to restore Chrysostom, and to recover the unity of the Chirche, not of himself or by his own authority, but by the decree and consent of a Council holden in Italy sent messengers in to the East. And sitting with others in the Council, he took not upon him that ●niuersall power that now is imagined, but had ●is voice (396) equal with his brethren.  
If you had loved the truth, and had been a faithful instructor of your R●ader, M. jewel, you would not thus have told a piece, and concealed the rest, whereby the authority of the Pope might cheerly have appeared above the Synod. Of this Synod, and of the decree thereof sent from Rome to Constantinople not by messengers M. jewel (as yo● term them) but by bishops and priests, by legates of th● S●e Apostolic, by the Pope not by the whole Synod, we have signified and talked before. But this was not all M. jewel. This was not the end and Conclusion of the cause, by the which you promised (guilefully and untruly) to prove. Chrysostom made no Appeal. The end and Conclusion was (as we have before showed) that the Legates of Innocentius being evil treated, rob, emprisonned, and ignominiously sent back, rather to perish by the way then to return home, those legates also neither by force of threats, neither by way of bribery made to yield or communicate with the Empress, the end an● Conclusion I say was, that Innocentius the Pope of Rome he himself by his own Absolute authority as he p●otesteth, did excommunicate not only Theophilus and the other malefactors the bishops off Egypt, but also the Emperor himself, and the Empress. Thi● was the end, this was the Conclusion M. jewel.  
jewel. 
The 398 Untruth touching ●eltiades.  Yet (saith M. jewel) the Pope had but his voice equal with his brethren. And that he proveth thus.  
As it appeareth by Meltiades bishop of Rome, that sat with three bis●hoppes of Gallia, and xiv. other bishops of Italy to determine the controversy between Cecilianus and Donatus.  
M. jewel endeth this matter with a manifest Untruth. Innocentius (saith he) had but his equal voice with his brethren in the Synod. And why? Because Miltiades the Pope had the like in the judgement of Donatus. Now that Miltiades had but his equal voice, it is a manifest Untruth. Optatus saith. Miltiadis sententia judicium clausum est. 
Optatu● lib. 1.  By the sentence or verdict of Meltiades the judgement was ended. Ergo his sentence was more than the sentence off his fellow bishops. Ergo M. jewel hath made an Untruth to say, that his sentence was equal with the rest. Ergo he hath made an untrue collection that the sentence also Innocentius was but equal with his brethren. Ergo again he hath brought nothing to disprove the Appeal of Chrysostom to Innocentius the Pope. Ergo an Appeal is proved and that of a patriarch of Constantinople, a most holy and learned Father, S. Chrysostom by name. M. jewel though he have ended here with Chrysostom, yet he hath not ended with the matter of Appeals. Let us consider for Truths sake the remnant of his long process about this matter.  
jewel. Now to come to the prosecution of the matter, 
The 399 Untruth ●. Harding knoweth well the contrary, as it s●all i●  M. Harding knoweth that the bishops of the East understood not this singular authority, or prerogative off the bishop off Rome, and therefore being called, obeyed not the Summon, as it is many wai●s easy to be seen.  
What authority and prerogative the bishops of the E●st Understood to be in the Church off Rome, and how well D. Harding knoweth it to be so, it hath well appeared by the Appeals of Chrysostom and Athanasius two the chiefest Patriarches in the East, the one of C●nstantinople, the other of Alexandria to the Bishops of Rome, and shall yet better appear, in the 109. Untruth noted by you M. jewel, where this matter is at large and of purpose treated. Now l●t us consider, by how many ways (for so you speak●) you will prove the contrary.  
jewel. 
Council. T●m. 1.  Therefore they returned unto julius this answer. if you will agree to ou● o●●er●, we will have 〈◊〉 Communion wi●h you, ●ut if you will otherwise do, a●d rather ●●ree unto our adversaries, then unto us, the● we 〈…〉 the contrary. And hence forth ●eith●● will we 〈…〉 Counceil with you, no● obey you, nei●her bear good will ●i●her to you or to any of yours.  
Stapleton These were good charitabl● children in deed. These were Arrian heretics. Their adversaries, whose part Pope julius took, were the most learned and Catholic Fathers, Athan●sius, Paulus, Marcellus, Lucius, and other holy bishops, all defending the Nicene Council, and for so doing all persecuted of these Arrians. Such examples M. jewel hath to follow. He is driue● to forsake Athanasius, Paulus, S. Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Concil. Chalced. Act. 11.  Flavianus (whom the general Council off Chalcedon called Martyr) and divers other Catholic bishops who all appealed to the Popes of Rome, and to join elbow with the wicked Arrians, deadly enemies to the Nicene Council, and detestable deniers of the Godhead of our Saviour jesus Christ. Thus M jewel so he stand against the Pope, h● will choose to st●n●e against most Catholic and learned Father's, 
The .400 Untruth For in this doing, there was no weakness on the Pope's part.  against the N●c●ne Council, and against the blessed trinity itself.  
This Imperfection and weakness of their own doings, the bishops of Rome themselves understood, ●nd confessed. (400) For thus Innocentius writeth unto S. Augustine, Alypius, and others in Africa touching Pelagius. If he con●inewe still i● one mi●●e, knowing th●t I will pron●●●●e against him, as what request of letters, or when will he commute himself to our judgement? Is it be good, he were called to make answer, it were better some other called him, that are near at hand: etc.  
The African bishops S. Augustine, Alypius and others wrote to Innocentius the Pope that, whereas the heresy of Pelagius multiplied secretly in many places, either he should send for him out of the East where then he lived, 
August. e●ist. 95. Innocent. epist. 27.  and was said to have purged himself, or else to write unto him to know the truth thereof. Innocentius answered. Si confidit, novitque non nostra a dignum esse damnation● quod dicat, aut iam hoc totum s●●●fut●sse quòd dix●rat, non a nobis acce●siri, s●d ipse debet potius f●stinar●, v●●●ssit absolui. Nam si adhuc taliter sentit, quan●o se nostro judicio, quibusue acceptis l●teris, quum sciat se damnandum esse, committ●t? If Pelagius do trust, and knoweth his saying deserveth not to have Sentence pronounced against him, or that he hath recanted that which he said before, he needeth not to be sent for of us, but he himself ought to speed hither to be absolved. But if he continue still in his former opinion, when will he commit himself to our judgement, or with what letters will he come, being sure that he shall have Sentence pronounced against him? Thus far innocentius. There appeareth here no weakness in the Pope, but a stubborness in the heretic. If Pelagius had recanted, and had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catholic man ought to be, the Pope doubted not, but he would gladly come, and that with speed, to be absolved for his former naughty doctrine. But if he continued in his opinion, in his heresy, and wicked doctrine, being sure that he should be at Rome condemned therefore, no marvel if th● Pope doubted of his not appearing to any Summon of letter's or otherwise. This declareth the ordinary and usual obedience of Catholics in those days. And this representeth to us the present stubborness of heretics now a days. If the Pope should presently cite M. Iowell to Rome, would he appear trow we? But what th●n? Is not the Pope therefore in his full authority, because M. jewel will not obey? Or was Innocentius of less power, because Pelagius was stubborn? Or because many of the jews believed not, was therefore Gods promise weakened? Nun quid illorum incredulitas fidem dei evacuavit? 
Rom. 3.  Absit. God forbid, saith the Apostle. This declareth a great Imperfection and weakness in your doctrine M. jewel, not in the Pope's jurisdiction, which can bring no better Arguments against the same. For thus you force your reason.  

M. jewels Arguments.  Pelagius continuing in his heresy and being sure to be cast would not appear b●fore the Pope.  
Ergo the Popes jurisdiction was weak and imperfect.  
If some Catholic man of the Church had so resisted, your argument had been the better. Else let this go for good also.  
thousands of jews believed not in the Messiah.  
Ergo Gods promise made to Abraham and his seed was weak and Imperfect.  
This is not only a weak argument but a wicked also. Let us proceed.  
jewel. 
Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 10. The .401 Untruth For not the Pope's infirmity, b●t the stubborness of the heretics was the Cause hereof. E●seb. lib. 7. c●p. 30. Niceph li. 6. cap. 39  And therefore julius the bishop of Rome, finding (401) his own infirmity herein, wrote unto the Emperor Constans, and opened unto him the whole matter, and besought him to write unto his brother Constantin●, that it might please him to send the bishops of the East to make answer to that, they had done against Athanasius.  
This was even now before alleged. It hath before been answered unto. Yet again I say the stubborness of the Arrian bishop and the Arrian Emperor Constantius caused the Pope thus to do. In like manner Paulus Samosatenus being condemned by a great Council of bishops at sundry times and yet not obeying thereunto, but continuing still in his bishopric, the matter was referred by the bishops themselves to Aurelianus then Emperor being a heathen and infidel. The extreme stubborness of that heretic forced those bishops so to do. Yet it is not therefore to be concluded that either bishops ought not to judge upon heretics, or that the Prince especially being utterly an heathen and infidel, aught to take that judgement upon him. Again if the Pope at this day use the secular Arm to the repressing of heresies, it is an argument of the misery and wickedness of our time, it is no argument against the Pope's Supreme authority or jurisdiction.  
jewel. 

Conc. Constant. 5. Act. 1.  
The 402. Untruth For the Pope's Supremacy was known notwithstanding these Complaints. Niceph. lib. 17. cap. 2.   Even so the clergy of the City of Antioch in the like case of trouble and spoil, wrote unto john the Patriarch of Constantinople, to entreat the Emperor in their behalf. It appeareth hereby that this Infinite authority, and Prerogative power over all the world, in those due (402) was not known.  
This example is like the other, and concludeth as well. Severus the Eutychian heretic and bishop of Antioch, who defied the Council of Chalcedon, and had therefore afterward his tongue cut out of his head by the Emperor justines' commandment, who had spoiled the Churches of Antioch, banished the bishops and used much Villainy against the whole clergy, was for these excessive outrages accused to a Synod assembled, and aid required against him with the emperors assistance and help, therefore the Pope had not then the Supreme jurisdiction. If such arguments may go for good, then because the french bishops at the late Tridentime Council complained of their troubles and spoils committed by heretics against their Churches, an● required the Council to entreat their Prince, that some redress might be had, the Pope at this present lost his jurisdiction etc. B●t the Ordinary suit in a quiet state, and the extreme refuges of necessite are diverse. Again the redress of temporal lostes, and spoil, and the decision of matters of Faith are two things. In the one the temporal power and succour hath ben● sought. In the other the Spiritual jurisdiction hath ever concluded.  
jewel. 

The 403 Untruth This hath not yet be●ee proved.  
The .404. Untruth. Nothing hat● be● brought of th'emperor Martian.   I think it hereby plainly, and sufficiently proved, first that the Bishop of Rome had no authority to receive Appeals from all parts of the world, and that by the Councils of Nice, of ●ele, ●nd of Afrika: by S. Cyprian, and by the emperors Martian and justinian.  
It hath appeared plainly and sufficiently, first that the B. of Rome had authority to receive Appeals from all parts of the world, and that from the greatest patriarchs themselves, as from Athanasius of Alexandria, of S. Chrysostom an● Flavianus of Constantinople, and that by the Councils of Nice and of Sardica, by S. Cyprian, S. Gregory and S. Be●narde, by the emperors justinian, Leo, and Theodo●ius, and that none but heretics, as Arrians, Donatists, and Pelagians repined at the same.  
jewel. 
〈◊〉, o● Untruth mer● Slanderous  next that M harding the better to furnish his matter, hath notoriously falsified Chrysostoms' w●rdes three times in one p●ace.  
It appeareth that M. jewel hath notoriously slandered D. Harding therein, and that more than three times in one place.  
jewel. 
The 405. Untruth: For Chrysostom m●de a ●uit Appeal.  thirdly that Chrysostom's letter unto Innocentius contained matter of complaint but no Appeal which thing is also proved by the very words and tenor of the letter, by the bishop off Rome's own Confession, and by the imperfection and weakness off their doings.  
It hath been proved by the very words and tenor off Chrysostom's letter, b● the legacy sent from him to Rome, by the letters off his whole clergy, and of forty bishops beside to the Pope, by the Synod holden of the Pope, about that matter, 
B●fore in th● lea●es. 85. 8●▪ 87. and ●8.  by his legates sent to Constantinople, by the great means foul and fair showed unto them, to win their consent, by the second letters of Chrysostom to the Pope, and last of all by the final Sentence of Excommunication from the Pope, not only to the bishops that had offended therein, but also to the Emperor himself for bearing them out, that Chrysostom made a Just and full Appeal to the Pope, and that neither the bishop of Rome's own Confession, neither h●s doings do import any Imperfection or weakness on his side, but rather the contrary. And thus is appeareth M. jewel hath yet concluded nothing against Appeals. Therefore he seeketh yet other shifts, and saith yet farther.  
jewel. 
The 407 Untruth This way of Compromisse is but a Fable. In Ap●lo. 2. Athanas.  In d●de by way of compromisse, and agreement of the parties, matters were sometimes brought to be heard, and ended by the bishop of Rome, as also by other bishops, but not by any ordinary process or court of law. And so it appeareth this matter between Athanasius and the Arrians was first brought unto julius, for that the Arrians willing●ly desired him, for trial thereof to call a Council. For thus julius himself writeth unto the bishops of the East, as it is before alleged. If I had given advise unto (your messengers) Macarius and H●●ych●●es, that t●ey that had u●●en unto me, might be called to a Council, and th●t inconsideration of our brethe●n, which complained, they suffered wrong, although ne●t●er of t●em had desired the same, yet had mine a●uise ●en void of 〈◊〉. But now seeing the same men, w●om you took to be grave, and worthy of credit, have made 〈◊〉 unto me, that I should call you, verily, you should not take it in ill part. Hereby it is plain that julius took upon him to call those parties, 

The 408. For ●ulius cited t●ose parties, and Athanasius both.  
That Pope julius I●dg●d not in the Cause off athanasius by way● of compromise but by authority. Hist. tripart. lib. 4 Cap. 6.   not by any such universal jurisdiction as M. Harding fansyeth, but only by the consent and request of both parties.  
If it had pleased M. jewel to have uprightly and indifferently considered the rest of this Epistle of julius recorded in the works of Athanasius, of the which he hath here picked out a morsel for his own tooth, he should easily have seen, but if partialite and faction have utterly blinded him, that this Citation and Summon of the bishops of the East to Rome, the Appearing of Athanasius there, and the whole dealing of julius the Pope therein, was not by consent of both parties or by the way of Compromisse, as M. jewel fan●yeth, but even according to the law and by way of authority. It is evident (as we ●aue before declared out of the tripartit history) that th● bishops of the East first accused Athanasius unto Pope julius, desiring his Consent to his deprivation and expulsion. The Pope thereupon Magnum Athanasium evocavit * regulariter, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nic●ph●li. 9 Cap. 6.  called forth, cited or summoned Athanasius the Great according to the Canons. And commanded also the bishops his adversaries to appear at their answer. Eusebius the ringleader and chief of them sent his legates to the Pope to have the matter decided there though against his will, as Nicephorus recordeth. But he soon departing this life, the other Arrian bishops would not appear. julius the Pope in the mean restored Athanasius and Paulus with the other banished bishops, 
Sozom. li. 3. Cap. 8.  tanquam omnium curam gerens propter prop●iae sedis dignitat●m, as one that had care of them all for the prerogative of his own See, saith the Ecclesiastical history: He sent with all letters to the Arrian bishops reproving them for their injuries committed against the Catholic bishops Athanasius and other, as also that they had assembled a Council at Antioch beside his advise. The bishops of the East exaspered herewith, and perceiving the Pope wholly bend to take their adversaries part, 
Socrat. li. 2. Cap. 15.  wrote again, sharp letters to the Pope, off the which M. jewel hath alleged certain pieces, as Sad authorities against the Pope's jurisdiction. To this their sharp answer julius the Pope maketh reply in these letters, out off the which the last words of M. jewel are alleged. In the beginning he writeth with great humility and submission, showing them indeed that they themselves had first moved him therein, wherefore they had less cause to grudge, if he were earnest in the matter. But after all those so gentle and fair words, which M. jewel maketh so much of, he writeth that all that was spoken only in respect of their quarreling and unjust complaints. For thus he saith. Let these be spoken to satisfy the quarreling and unjust complaints of your men against us. 
In epist. I●li●. In Apolog. 2. A●haa●si●.  After this prosecuting the whol● matter off Athanasius and the other Catholic bishops by them expelled, he declareth that both they and Athanasius, had been cited of him by his letters, by virtue of the which Athanasius appeared, but the other would not. The Catholic and learned bishops did, the heretics and Arrian bishops did not. 
Vos per li●eras Citavimus. Lib. 4. Cap. 6. hist. tripa. In epist. I● lij, ubi supra.  All which the ecclesiastical history in like manner recordeth. At the end of the epistle, the Pope expressly telleth them their duty, and what they ought to have done, if Athanasius and the other bishops had been culpable and faulty in deed. For thus he saith. If, as you say, they had been faulty, you ought to have done according to the Canon, and not after this fashion. Yowe ought to have written to all us, that so the right might have been tried of us all. Was there no subjection now trow you M. jewel dew off the East bishops to the See of Rome? Was there not a Canon or decree that had so appointed, that matters should be removed out of the East to Rome itself? Let us yet go farther in this same Epistle. The Pope saith farther to the bishops of the East. Why would you not write unto us specially of the City of Alexandria? Are you ignorant, that this is the custom, 
Vt pri●● 〈◊〉 nobis scribatur, ut hinc quod justum est, definiti posset.  that first of all you should write unto us, that from hence the right might be determined. Therefore if you had had there any quarrel against any bishop, you ought to have referred it hither to our Church. Now these men not putting us to knowledge, when they have done what them pleased, require us to approve their damnation which we have not been made privy unto, These are not the decrees of Saint Paul. The Fathers have not so taught us. But this is a puffing pride and a novelty. I beseech you hearken to me gladly. I writ you these things for the Common quiet. I signify unto you such things as we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, neither would have written to you these things, which you know already, but that your doings had troubled us. I beseech you leave these matters. Thus far Pope julius in those letters to the bishops of the East. In these words it appeareth that he cited them, that by order of law and Custom they ought to refer their matters to him and his Church, that there also a definition or determination ought to be sought for. After all this these Arrians not obeying the great Council of Sardica was assembled, in the which by three hundred bishops out of all parts of Christendom well near, it was pronounced against them, that because being Cited and called by the letters of julius they had not appeared, they declared themselves to be mere slanderers, and injurious oppressers of those Catholic bishops Athanasius and other. These things considered, let us view, what token or show of Compromisse may appear in this matter, as M. jewel fansyeth, there was no other thing in all this doing.  

L. statutis. d. sentent. & brevicul. recit.  First Athanasius was cited to Rome, not having put up his matter thither, but being accused by his adversaries, whereupon he appeared. In a compromisse or arbitrement between dayesmen, no party can be cited, but they must appear vountarily.  

L. inter stipul § si. slichin. ff. d. verb. oblige.  Again julius forced the bishops of the East to receive again Athanasius, and restore him to his bishopric, with other, as appeareth in the tripartit history. This was a judgement by way of authority not by way of comprimisse, and forcing the adversary against his will, which in a Compromisse can not be, as the law declareeh.  

L. none di●ing. §. non cegitur. ff. de receipt. arb. & l. diem proffer. §. fi. ibidem. L. 1. ff. d. Arbitr.  Thirdly because they appeared not to julius cited, the Council pronounced against them. But in a Compromisse the Arbiter can not punish, nor any other in the Arbiters behalf. Therefore being condemned of the Council for not appearing to julius, declareth that julius was their judge, not an Arbiter.  
Last of all the Arbiter or Compromissary hath no jurisdiction. But the judge hath. And such julius challenged over them by virtue of a Canon and Custom of the Church. Theefore julius the Pope was their judge not an Arbiter, and dealt with them by way of authority and judgement, not by way of Compromisse.  
jewel. 
The 409. Untruth For not therefore that is not upon a Compromisse made, but being accused, he cited him  And therefore julius saith. He caused Athanasius to be cited Regulariter that is, according to order: for the order of judgement is, that a man be first called, and then accused, and last of all condemned.  
Lo M. jewel confesseth Athanasius was cited by order of judgement, but in a Compromisse no party can be cited, as hath before been proved, and as the law expressly teacheth, therefore by M. jewels owed Confession this was no Compromisse, or agreement of the parties. For such do meet together vountarily, not cited.  
jewel. 
The .410 Untruth For he meaned so.  But he meaneth nor thereby the order of Canons, as M. Harding expoundeth it.  
julius himself alleged a Canon therefore, as his words last alleged declare. Therefore he meaneth by the order of Canons. This also hath before been proved. It is needless here to repeat it.  
jewel. 
The .411. Untruth as appeareth.  For touching Appeals to Rome there was no Canon yet provided.  
Untruth. For in the Nicene Council such a Canon was provided, as it hath before been declared both out of the epistles of julius, and of Leo, and also by the testimony of Zosimus, who is now proved no Forger.  
jewel. The Couterfeite epistle of Athanasius to Felix is answered before.  
Stapleton. 
The .412. Untruth For his words to lo are certain testimonies of his judgement.  There is more to be answered then that Epistle M. jewel, if you will defend this untruth, as hath abundantly before appeared.  
Theodoretus was deposed, and banished, and cruelly entreated, as it appeareth by his letters unto Renatus, and therefore the words that he useth, are rather tokens of his miseries, and want of help, then certain testimonies of his judgement. For every man is naturally inclined to extol him, and to advance his power, at whose hand he seeketh help.  
This is the third example of Appeal alleged by D. Harding. 
Theodoretus Appealed to Pope lo.  The two other of Athanasius, and of Chrysostom, are now proved to have been just and right appeals. To prove the like in Theodoretus that learned Father of Christ's Church it is easy notwithstanding M. jewels guess to the Contrary. His words in his own letters to Pope Leo be plain. And the whole general Council of Chalcedon doth witness this Restitution made upon his Appeal. Thus he writeteth to Pope Leo, having first declared the injuries done unto him etc. Behold after all this sweat and travail, I am condemned being not so much as accused. 
In epist. prefixa ommentar. in Paulum.  But I look for the Sentence of your Apostolic See. And I beseech and require your holiness to aid me in this case, justum vestrum & rectum Appellanti judicium. Appealing to your right and just judgement, and command me to come before you, and to show that my doctrine and belief followeth your Apostolic steps. In these words being condemned by Dioscorus the patriarch of Alexandria, and of the patriarch also of Antioch Maximus, his own Ordinary, yet he Appealeth expressly to Pope lo. And he saith farther. Before all things I beseech you I may know from you whether I ought to stand to this wrongful judgement, or no. For I look for your Sentence. Si iudicatis me stare iusseritis, stabo. And if you shall command me te Abide the judgement, I will abide it, and never trouble man here about any more: but abide the just judgement of my God and Saviour Christ jesus. These words I trow declare sufficiently, plainly and expressly that Theodoretus appealed to the Pope, and rested upon his Final Sentence, as the Supreme judge in earth. By this Pope Leo he was restored to his bishopric, and set among other bishops in the Council of Chalcedon, 
Act. 1. & Act. 8.  as in the Acts thereof it is evident. These are certain testimonies of his judgement, M. jewel, and undoubted Arguments of his Appeal. What have you yet more to say against Appeals? This practised authority troubled much M. jewel, And therefore he laboured long and many ways how to avoid it. His escapes yet hitherto are found to be weak, insufficient and Untrue. Let us now consider the remnant. 

The .413. Untruth For Ostiensis saith not so, as M. jewel fancyeth Extrad. appel in. Sexto. ●om. Eccles. in Glosa.  
The .414 Untruth For by all law an Appeal importeth a superiority. Stapleton. That Appeals do import a superiority. L. q. §. si. quis. ff. d. Appellat.    
But if it were granted, it was lawful then for the bishop of Rome to receive all manner Appeals, in such order, as it is pretended, yet can not M. harding thereof necessarily conclude, that the Bishop of Rome was Head of the Universal Church. For Ostiensis saith. Appeals may be made not only from the lower judge unto the higher, but also from equal to equal. And in this order, as it shall afterward be showed more at large, Donatus a Casis nigris, was by the Emperor lawfully removed from the Bishop of Rome, to the bishop of Arle in France. Ostiensis words be these. Non nocebit error, si appelletur ad Maiorem quàm debuerit, vel ad parem. The error shall not hurt, if the Appeal be made either to a higher judge than was meet, or to an equal. Where also it is thus noted in the margin. Appellari potest ad parem si de hoc sit consuetudo. Appeal may be made unto the equal, if there be a custom of it. Hereby it is plain that the right of Appeal by fine force of law, concludeth not any necessary superiority, much less this infinite power over the whole universal Church.  
Well pleaded, and like a lawyer. But Like divinity, like law. For shame understand your laws, better before you allege them, Or else follow the Painters Council Ne suitor ultra crepidam The words of the law upon which Ostiensis groundeth, are these. Si quis ergo vel paren, vel maiorem judicem apellaverit, alium tamen pro alio, in ea causa est ut error ei non noceat sed si minorem, nocebit. If any man therefore do Appeal to an equal judge, or to a higher than he should, as yet mistaking one for the other, the error shall not hurt, but if he Appeal to an inferior judge, it shall hurt. As in a Case. john being cast by the archdeacon, Appealed to the archbishop, where as he should first have appealed to the bishop, as to a nearer Superior. But this error doth not hurt, because he appealed to a higher judge. The same john from the archdeacon appealed to the Official of Caunterbury, where as he should have Appealed to the judge of the Prerogative Court. This error hurteth not neither, because he Appealed to a judge equal and off like authority to that judge to whom he ought to have Appealed. Therefore his Appeal shall proceed before the judge to whom he should have Appealed, notwithstanding the error committed in meaning an other judge, being his equal. In the thierde Case john Appealed from his bishop to an other bishop, where as he should have Appealed to the Archebishopp. In this case he looseth the benefit of Appeal. Because he hath appealed to a judge, neither higher, neither equal to that judge to whom he ought to have Appealed, that is to the archbishop, butt to an inferior judge. For the bishop to whom he Appealed, though he be equal to the judge who before had given the Sentence, yet he is inferior to the judge to whom the Appeal aught to be made. In this case therefore the Appeal is void. The words therefore of Ostiensis and of the gloze saying that the error hurteth not when the Appeal is made to an equal judge, do not mean, 
The true meaning of Ostiensis his words.  a judge equal to the party Appealing, or equal to the judge from whom the Appeal is made, but they mean a judge equal to him to whom of right the Appeal should have been made. It is therefore a manifest Untruth, contrary to all law and reason that M. jewel saith. Appeals may be made not only from the lower judge to the higher but from equal to equal And to say that Ostiensis or the law so saith, it is a double Untruth. 

L. in p. ff. d. Appellat.  
L. ille quo §. tempestinum. ff. ad Trebel. & L. name magistrate. ff. de arb. heart. L. 1. n. p ff. d. appellat L. §. sic●●is d. appelat.   The law is plain to the Contrary both Civil and Canon. which is easy to be proved. Appeals were admitted (saith the law) to correct and amend the iniquity, rigour or error of a former judgement. But no Inferior or equal can correct the judgement of his superior or equal, because he hath no rule over such. Therefore no Inferior or equal can take an Appeal from his Superior or equal. Again the learned lawyers define an Appeal thus. Appellatio est ius quo interim primasententia extinguitur, & iterum causae cognitio ad judicem superiorem devoluitur. Appeal is a law by the which the former Sentence is for the time made void, and the trial off the matter is removed to a Superior judge. So that the superiority of judgement is off the very nature of an Appeal. And therefore that every Appeal aught to be to a Superieur, it is proved saith Bartolus by infinite laws: And one law expressly saith, 
L. minor. magistr. ff. de. minori. gl. ibidem.  Minor magistratus contra sententiam maioris non restituet. The inferior judge or Magistrate shall not acquit against the Sentence of an higher judge. Nor shall not sit upon any Appeal so made. And against all Appeals to equal judges the Authentikes speak expressly. The words are these. Cum non oportet ad compares judices appellationes referri, 
In antent d. apple. et intr. que temp § illo col. 4.  sed a minore judicio in maius tribunal ascendere.  
Whereas Appeals may not be removed to equal judges, but they ought always from an inferior judgement, remove to a higher bench. Finally as certain a principle it is in the law, that every Appeal is to a Superior, as it is in divinity, that all that do swear, do swear by their letter, as the Apostle saith. 
Hebr. 6.  Therefore the Canon law admitteth Appeals but only to a Superior, where it saith. 
29. q. 6. c. Omnis opp●essus etc. placuit.  Placuit ut si a quibuscunque ecclesiasticis judicibus ad alios judices ecclesiasticos, ubi est maior Authoritas, provocatum fuerit, audientia non negetur. It hath seemed good, that if Appeal be made from any ecclesiastical judge to other ecclesiastical judges which be of a higher authority, that Audience be given. This shift therefore neither of Ostiensis and the gloze, Neither of any other law Civil or Canon helping any whit against the authority of Appeals: what other conveyance hith M. jewel to dasel the Readers eyes withal, or to blank his evident and most assured Argument of the bishop of Rome's Supremacy over all bishops, as being one to whom all other, the chiefest patriarchs themselves have appealed? You see how many ways he had laboured against it, and what pains and travail he hath bestowed thereon, and yet hath brought no Argument, but such as if it were true, it was of no force, if it was of force, it was not true. Lest all his labour therefore should be lost, he dilateth yet the matter one way more and beginneth as if it were a fresh, thus.  
jewel. 
The .415 416. and 417. Untruths, as shall particulary appear.  But M. Harding might so have foreseen, that this his first principle of Appeal would easily be turned against him ●●●fe. First for that it is well known, that Appeals then even in the Ecclesiastical cause● were made unto the Emperors and civil Princes. secondly for that the bishop of Rome determined such cases of Appeal, by warrant, and Commission from the Emperor. Thirdly for that matters being once heard, and determined by the bishop of Rome, have been by Appeal from him removed further unto others.  
Stapleton. Here be three? but if. M. jewel thrive with any one, let him take all.  
jewel. 
The .418 Untruth For the contrary appeareth in S. Augustin jewel.  As touching the first, that Appeals in Ecclesiastical causes were lawfully made to the Prince, it is clear by Eusebius, by Socrates, by Nicephorus, and by S. Augustine in sundry places.  
All these four Authors, are brought about one self matter. And that is this.  
Donatus being condemned by three score and ten bishops in Africa, appealed unto the Emperor Constantinus and was received.  
Stapleton. That heretic Donatus appealed in deed, and was received. but know you, how he was received M. jewel? Optatus an African bishop and living in the heat off that tragedy himself, writeth thus. Lectis literis, Constantinus pleno livore respondit. In qua responsione et eorum preces prodidit, dum ait. Petitis a me in s●culo judicium, cum ego ipse Christi judicium expectem. Et tamen dati sunt judices etc. The Supplications of the Donatists appealing from their own bishops to the Emperor being read, the Emperor answered in a great chafe, (in the which answer also he betrayed their request) saying. You ask judgement of me here in this world, which do look for the judgement of Christ myself. Yet he appointed them judges. It appeareth by this, Donatus with his fellows were received, as M. jewel saith, but with what contentation of the Emperor they were received, and how well he liked their dealing therein, it appeareth by his Answer.  
jewel. S. Augustin saith. 
Contra epist parm. lib. 1. cap. 5. Contra Crossed. lib. 3. ca 71.  Parmenianus willingly suffered his fellows to go unto the Emperor Constantinus. Again he saith. Here I bring in the words off Constantine, out of his own letters, wherein he confesseth, that he heard the parties, and found Coecilianus to be innocent.  
This was done of Constantin as S. Augustine immediately after declareth, quum ad judicium eius post episcopalia judicia partes perductae fuerant, 
Stapleton  
August. ibidem  when the parts were brought to his judgement after the bishops judgement had passed upon them. But how well he took that, and how he repented him after thereof, it shall anon appear.  
jewel. Likewise he saith, What, 
Contra epi. Parm. lib. 1. ca 7.  is it not lawful for the Emperor or such as shall be sent by the Emperor, to pronounce Sentence of Religion? Wherefore then came your Ambassadors to the Emperor? And so Likewise again, if Emperors have nothing to command in these cases, or if 
* He speaketh there of punishing heretics  this matter nothing touch a Christian emperors charge, who then forced your predecessors to remove Caecilianus matter unto the Emperor?  
Stapleton. All this S. Augustin spoke against those stubborn Donatists of whom Parmenianus was one, which complained, 
Aug. ubi supra.  quod eos Constantinus ad campum, id est, ad supplicium duei jussit, that Constantin called them forth to the camp, that is to punishment. He reasoned I say against the Donatist, by his own doing. Not as allowing the Donatiste in appealing to the Emperor, but as proving him unreasonable, which for their vantage would appeal to him, and then when he pronounced against them, and bad them be punished, would strive and repine at his commandment, and say he did them wrong, and ought not being a temporal prince to punish bishoops. For in like manner when a Donatiste objected to S. Augustin, of one Felix a Catholic bishop, saying. Non debuit Episcopus proconsulari judicio purgari. 
Augustin. epis. 162.  A bishop ought not to make his purgation before a temporal Magistrate, S. Augustine in like manner answered, as he did here to Parmenianus. Si culpandus est quem judex ter●enus absoluit, cum ipse sibi hoc non poscisset, quanto magis culpandi sunt, qui terrenum regem, suae causae judicem esse volverunt? If that bishop Felix be to be blamed, because he was absolved of a temporal judge, whereas he himself sought not so to be absolved or examined, how much more are they to be blamed, which desired themselves the temporal Prince to be judge in their Cause? In both these places S. Augustin confuteth the Donatists by their own doings, which is a kind of answer quoad hominem sufficient. 
The App●●●● of 〈◊〉 is to the Emperor misliked.  But how in deed both the Emperor liked that Appealing of the Donatists to him, and what S. Augustine himself hath judged thereof, it shall now shortly appear. That the Donatists Appealed M. jewel hath proved. And it is not denied. But how well they did in it, he saith nothing. Behold therefore gentle Reader how well it was liked, and judge thereby what a grounded example M. jewel hath brought to build this Principle upon, that Appeals in ecclesiastical causes were made to Emperors and Civil Princes. Optatus writeth thereof thus. 
Optatus lib. 1. contr. Parmenianum.  Donatus appellandum esse ab Episcopis credidit, & reliqua. Ad quam Appellationem Constantinus Imperator sic respondit. O rabida furoris audacia. Sicut in causis gentilium fieri solet appellationem interposuerunt. Donatus thought good to Appeal from the bishops and so forth. Unto the which Appeal the Emperor answered thus. O desperate rage and fury. As in the suits of heathen and Pagans, so these men put up their Appeal. So well the Emperor liked their doing therein how well S. Augustin liked it, and how well the Emperor received the Appeal of those unruly and furious Donatists, it shall now appear by his own words, which I beseech thee, gentle Reader, diligently to consider and bear away. These are his words. Dedit ille aliud Arelatense judicium aliorum scilicet episcoporum, non quia iam necesse erat, 
August. epist. 162.  sed eorum peru●rsitatibus cedens, & omnimodo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere. Neque enim ausus est Christianus Imperator sic eorum tumultuosas & fallaces querelas suscipere, ut de judicio Episcoporum qui Romae sed●rant ipse iudicaret, sed alios, ut dixi, Episcoposdedit a quibus tamen illi ad ipsum ru●sum Imperatorem provocare maluerunt. Qua in re illos quemadmodum detestetur audistis: Atque utinam saltem ipsius judicio insanissimis animositatibus suis finem posuissent, atque ut eis ipse cessit, (ut de illa causa post episcopos iudicaret, a sanctis Antistibus postea veniam petiturus, tamen illi quod ulterius dicerent non haberent, si eius sententiae non obtemperarent ad quem ipsi provocaverunt) sic & illi aliquando cederent veritati. Constantin the Emperor (saith S. Augustine) gave to the Donatists (after they had been one's cast by Meltiades the Pope with other bishops) an other judgement at Arles in France, of other bishops: Not because it was now needful, but because he yielded to their stubborness, and desired by all means possible to overcome their outragyousnesse. For that Christian Emperor durst not so to admit their seditious and feigned complaints, that he would himself sit judge upon the Sentence of those bishops which had decided and determined the matter at Rome, but he appointed them as I said, other bishops: From whom yet once again these fellows Appealed to the Emperor himself. Wherein how he detested them, you have 
* In the words ●f Epitatus last alleged.  heard. And would God that upon judgement and determination, they had ones ended their most outrageous stubborness, and as he yielded unto them (so far that he took upon him to judge of that Matter after the Bishops, minding yet to ask pardon thereof of the holy bishops, so that at length yet they might have no more to say, if they would not yield to his Sentence, to whom they had themselves Appealed) as he I say yielded to them, so they would once to the Truth. Thus far that holy and learned Father S. Augustin. In whose words I answer to you and to your whole Argument M. jewel thus. Would God M. jewel (and from the bottom of my heart I wish it) that as that good and virtuous Emperor Constantin the great, yielded so far to those outrageous unruly, and furious Donatists, that being condemned in their own Country by three score ad ten bishops he gave them yet (appealing to him beside all law and order of the Church) two other judgements of bishops one in Italy an other in France) which last was more than need as S. Augustin expressly saith) only to stop, if it were possible, their outragions clamours and seditious complaints, as he at the length was content to hear their matter himself, after the judgement of so many bishops, whereof he would afterward ask them pardon, as having in deed passed therein the bounds of his jurisdiction, as this good Emperor I say did all this, not as by lawful authority, but as yielding to the Donatists unruly appetit, so that you also M. jewel would once yield to the Truth, that you would no more bring this and such like examples (deceived herein undoubtedly by the writers of Germany especially those of Magdeburge) for the authority of Civil Princes in Causes ecclesiastical, whereas by the clear verdict of S. Ambrose neither by practice of the Church, 
Ambros. lib. 5. Epist. 32.  neither by the doctrine of holy Scriptures, Emperors did ever judge over bishops in matters of the Faith. And thus I leave your example of Donatus, whose example beside can make no law, he being an heretic, and for maintenance of his heresy seeking all help and succour, by right and by wrong, by order and beside order, by means good and bad. Now to that which followeth.  
jewel. Therefore the Emperor Constantius summoned the Bishops of the East that had been in the Council of Tyrus, to appear before him, and to render account of their doings. His words be these. I will you to make your appearance, and to show in deed how sincerely and justly ye have dealt, and that even before me.  
Stapleton. How this was done and upon what occasion, and in what a cause, and what ensued thereof, I have declared. To that place I remit the Reader, Let us now consider your Conclusion.  
jewel. 
The 419. Untruth For by these examples such jurisdiction in the Prince appeareth not.  By these few examples it may well appear that Appeals in ecclesiastical causes in these days were made unto the Prince, and that it was thought lawful then for the Prince to have the hearing of the same. Yet was not the Prince therefore the head of the Universal Church.  
Your examples have been but two. And both of one Emperor and Prince Constantin by name. And with what conscience he took upon him to judge of matters decided before by bishops, you have heard S. Augustin tell you M. jewel. He did the first to pacify those outregious Donatists, and ●he asked pardon thereof afterward of the bishops. He did the latter to pacify likewise the Arrians, and in a matter not mere ecclesiastical, as hath before been declared. Of the Issue whereof he repented him at length also. These be your examples M. jewel that in the time of so many Christian Emperors and Princes you have chosen out as most worthy and especial. One more you recite even after your Conclusion made, which is this.  
jewel. Certainly S. Gregory thought it not amiss to commit a Spiritual matter, touching the purgation of a bishop to Brunichi●da th● French Queen, Notwithstanding it be noted thus in the gloze. Fuit tamen 〈◊〉 nim●●m papaliter disp●nsatum.  
Stapleton. S. Gregory committed a Spiritual Matter to the Queen of France. Ergo Appeals may be made to the lay Prince. Thus M. jewels reason proceedeth. But doth not the Contrary directly Conclude? The Pope committed a Spiritual matter to the lay Prince. Ergo the lay Prince was but the Pope's Commissioner. Verily the Commissioner is ever Inferior to him that giveth forth the Commission. And thus M. jewels reason runneth roundly against him. As touching this Commission S. Gregory had a reason for his so doing. But what his mind was for any Appeal to be made to Civil Princes in Ecclesiastical matters, or for their intermeddling there withal, it may appear well both by the universal Supremacy that he practised over all Christendom, as hath before been declared, and also by these words of his to Mauritius the Emperor. Sacerdotibus autem non extrema potestate dominus noster citius indignetur, 
Lib. 4. epist. 21. In the Fortress fol. 145. Ang. epist. 166. Greg orat. ad subl●tim. Ambros. lib. 5. epist. 32.  sed excellenti consideratione propter eum cuius servi sunt eis ita dominetur, ut etiam debitam reuerentian impendat. Let not my Sovereign for his worldly power conceive quick Indignation against the priests, but by a worthy and Princely consideration, for his sake, whose servants they are, let him see rule over them, that yet he yield them also dew and Bounden Reverence. Of this matter, how in Spiritual causes the Christian Princes are subject to their spiritual Pastors and bishops, I have otherwhere out of S. Augustin, S. Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen, ye out of Calvin himself and the right or Zealous Lutherans of Germany, Illyricus and his fellows declared. But because M. jewel putteth it here for a principal that Princes received Appeals in Causes ecclesiastical, and all his examples have failed him, let us consider what may be farther yet brought to the Contrary. Athanasius that learned Father saith of the Arrians. 
Apolog. 2.  Qua fronte comentum Synodi appellare audent, Cui Comes praecedit. How dare they call that an assembly of a Synod, where the Princes Officier was precedent? 
Epist. add so litariam vitam agentes.  And in an other place he saith. Quando a condito aevo auditum est quód iudi●ium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit, aut quando hoc pro judicio agnitum est? When was it ever heard that an Ecclesiastical judgement took his authority of the Emperor? Or when was that taken for any judgement. Behold M. jewel how contrary this is to your Appeals to Civil Princes in Causes ecclesiastical. Yet behold an other. The Fathers of the Millenitane Council in Africa whose authority so oft and so greedily you have alleged, decreed in this sort. 
Concil. Mill●nit. Cap. 19  Placuit ut quicunque ab Imperrtore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum petierit, honore proprio privetur. Si autem Episcopale judicium ab Imperatore postulaverit, nihil ei obsit. It hath seemed good unto us, that if any sue to the Emperor to have him hear and determine public judgements, that he be deprived therefore of his dignity. But if he require of the Emperor a judgement of bishops, it shall not hurt him. Semblably to these holy Fathers, the bishops in the Council of Aquileia dealt. For whereas Palsadius the heretic required the lay men of worship to come in to the Council, and to hear the matters debated, saying. Sunt hic honorati multi. Here be many men of worship, 
Ingesiis Conc. Aquil●iensis. tom. 1. Concil. fol. 402.  S. Ambrose one of the learned bishops of that Council said. Sacerdotes de laicis judicare debent, non laici de sacerdotibus. priests ought to judge of the lay, not the lay of the Priests. And because that heretic Palladius persisted yet in his request, that the lay men off worship should enter and be a part of the Council, S. Ambrose without any farther business, pronounced out of hand the Sentence against him (which the whole Council followed) in these words. Though Palladius hath been taken in many faults, y●t this makes us ashamed that he which goeth for a Priest, should seem to be condemned of the lay? And therefore because even for this point he is to be condemned, that looketh for the judgement or Sentence of the Say men, whereas rather Priests ought to judge over the Say, according to those things as we have heard this day Palladius to speak, and for other things which he would not revoke, I pronounce him unworthy of priesthood, and to be deposed, and that some Catholic man be Ordered in his place. Thus the learned and godly Fathers in those days dealt with such which would from bishops appeal to the Civil magistrate. In like manner Dioscorus the Eutychian required in the Chalcedon Council, to have the temporal magistrate to be a part of the Council at their Examinations. but Cecropius a Catholic bishop answered him for the Council in these words: Quando quaedam regularia examinatur, neque judices neque alios aliquos laicos interesse oportet, nisi tantummodo tuam sanctitatem que in propria persona accusatur. When any things touching the Canons are examined, neither judges neither any other of the lay aught to be present, but only your holiness, whose proper person is here accused. Thus in matter mere ecclesiastical the Godly Fathers and Catholic bishops of those days admitted not at any time the lay Prince or Magistrate to the hearing and determining thereof. Only heretics, the donatists, the Arrians, the Eutychians and such like have so done. Beware M. jewel left in defending this your absurd Principle so just concurring with the humour off old heretics, and so directly repugnant to the Catholic and learned Fathers, S. Augustin, S. Ambrose, Athanasius, S. Gregory, and the Fathers of the Councils of Millenitum, of Aquileia, and of Chalcedon, you prove yourself to be of a cousynage to the one, and no true child off the other. Thus much of your first principle. Now to your second.  
jewel. 
The 420 Vnttruthe Captain, Infamous and Notorious. Hi●t. trip. lib. 4. Niceph. li. cap.  As touching the Bishop of Rome's power herein, it is certain, he heard such matters of Appeal by warrant of the emperors Commission, and not as having authority of himself.  
This is certainly a lewd and a loud lie. Athanasius, Paulus Asclepas, Marcellus, Lucius and divers other godly bishops Appealed to julius the bishop of Rome, and yet had all of them the Emperor Constantius expressly against them, Chrysostom appealed to Innocentius the Pope, and yet had Arcadius then Emperor directly against him, so that the Pope was driven at the length to excommunicate that Emperor. Flavianus an other patriarch of Constantinople appealed to Pope Leo, though Theodosius took the part of Dioscorus his adversary. Theodoretus in like manner to the same Pope appealed, though the Emperor of the East upholded the faction of Dioscorus and Maximus of Antioch by whom that learned Father was injured. 
Leo epist. 24. et valentin. in epist. ad Theodos. In epist. ad Leonem. Liberatus Cap. 18.  john Talaida the Patriarch of Alexandria being removed from his bishopric by Zeno the Emperor, and Petrus Moggus intruded in his place Romanum Pontificem Simplicium appellavit, sicut & beatus fecit Athanasius, ppealed unto Simplicius bishop of Rome, as his predecessor blessed Athanasius had done before him saith Liberatus. These many therefore of the greatest patriarchs and of right learned Fathers Athanasius, S. Chrysostom, and Theodoretus appealing all to the bishop of Rome not only beside the emperors warrant, but even directly against the emperors will and pleasure: how can M. jewels principle possibly be true, that bishops of Rome heard such matters of Appeal by warrant of the emperors Commission? Yet let us behold his proofs.  
jewel. S. Augustine opening the Contention between Caecilianus and Donatus a Casis nigris, uttereth this matter it large in wise. But should not the bishop of Rome Meltiades etc.  
Stapleton This is all in the world that M. jewel hath to prove his General Principle true, this one only example I say of that rude and outrageous heretic Donatus. How is so doing was liked of S. Augustin and of Optatus, and with what confidence that good Emperor dealt therein, it hath even now been declared. Were M, jewels cause good he would bring better examples and more copy of them. But as una hirundo non facit ver, so one example maketh no law. Again all that being done only to satisfy and quiet, if it were possible, the most outrageous and harebrayne stomachs of the Donatists, only Bono Pacis, for the love and Zeal of Unite of that godly and zealous Emperor Constantin, it must not be drawn to make a general rule and Principle, but with such as will take precedent of heretics doings. If you do so M. jewel, I can but wish you a better mind. Verily the examples of Catholic bishops above named, so many, so learned, of such great authority in the Church of Christ, which practised the Contrary, which appealed to the bishops of Rome not only beside the warrant, but even against the emperors will and pleasure: may and aught with much more reason serve to build a contrary rule and Principle upon. Yet you upon this Only beggarly example of that Outrageous heretic so much misliked of the Emperor himself, of the learned Fathers Optatus and S. Augustin, and of all the posterity sense, as the like thereof hath not been Practised but by heretics and schismatics, conclude solemnly and say.  
jewel. 
The .421 Untruth past all shame and honesty. Stapleton.  Here is evident to be seen that bishop of Rome was the Emperors delegate, and in Ecclesiastical jurisdiction had his authority, not from S. Peter, but from the Emperor.  
With what face speak you this M. jewel, or speak you it with any Face at all? How would you Conclude and Triumph if you had copy of examples, and that of Catholic bishops, yea and the most learned Fathers of Christ's Church (such as I have brought you to the contrary) which do so mightily conclude and so royally triumph, of One wretched example, done by One desperate Heretic, misliked by the Emperor himself, and by other godly Fathers beside, Optatus and S. Augustin by name? But bold affeveration maketh no proof. And you know M. jewel, great vessels be not always full: but the emptier they be, the more they sound. The wise and discrete Reader will be weighed with Reason, and not with talk. And it must soon be concluded, that can but lightly be proved. Your Report of Pope Clemens, because you speak it without book, only upon Report, I let pass. Eadem facilitate negatur, qua asseritur.  
jewel. Neither was the Bishop of Rome's determination of such force, 
The .422 Untruth. For that was never lawful.  but that it was lawful then for the party grieved, to refuse his judgement, and to Appeal further.  
Stapleton. This is M. jewels third Principle. Behold how substantially he proveth it.  
jewel. 
The .423 Untruth. For not therefore j not because it was lawful, donatus his Appeal was admitted.  And therefore Donatus being condemned before Meltiades appealed from him, and upon his complaint unto the Emperor, w●s put over unto the bishop off Arle in France, and to certain others. And in Conclusion, understanding, that judgement there would pass against him, last of all he appealed to the Emperors own person. And the Emperor himself confesseth by his letters that he sat in judgement and heard both parties.  
Stapleton. Phy on heresy, fie upon wilful blindness. One desperate Act of One furious heretic Donatus by name must serve M. jewel to build Three Great Conclusions and Principles upon. Donatus did all this. But the Emperor called it Rabidamfurioris Audaciam. A desperate Rage and Fury. M. jewel calleth it a Lawful Appeal. 
Optatus lib. 1.  After the bishop of Rome's judgement, the Emperor granted to Donatus yet an other, S. Angustin saith. Non quia iam nec●sse erat, 
August. epist. ●6●.  sed eorum perversitatibus cedens & omnimodo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere. Not because that was needful, but because that the good Emperor yielded to their extreme frowardness, and desired by all means to overcome their passing outragyousnesse. M. jewel buildeth upon this fact a Principle that all men might lawfully Appeal from the Pope to the Emperor. Constantin sat in judgement, and heard both parties himself. S. Augustin saith A Sanctis Antistibus postea veniam petiturus, Minding to ask pardon therefore afterward of the holy bishops. M. jewel saith it was well and Lawfully done, and so it should be. And this is he forsooth, which will yield to any One Sentence of any One Father or Doctor, in a number of Articles, O M. jewel. If you mean plainly, if you will in deed yield to the Fathers, why make you a ground of Doctrine upon such a fact as by their judgement is so detested and abhorred? You offered your Reader a Feast of three fair dishes. But all is moved to a calves tongue, diversly dressed. All is the desperate fact of one outrageous heretic. Your Art is good. But Alas you w●nte Matter, For behold, Of so weak proof, what a strong Conclusion you make.  
jewel. 
The 424 Untruth Facing. and extreme Impudent.  Now if receiving Appeals necessarily import this Universal Power, than was the emperors power Universal. For he received All appeals, out of all Countries without exception, and that even in Causes ecclesiastical.  
Loe. Of one desperate fact, Of One Rabida furoris Audacia, One presumptuous fury, M. jewel concludeth All Appeals out of all Countries without exception. I can say no more. But a whetston, a whetston for you.  
jewel. 
The .425 Untruth As before.  Again, then was the bishop of Rome's power not Universal, for it was lawful then to refuse him, and to Appeal to some other.  
Lese nothing I pray you, Conclude apace and as mightily as you can. What M, jewel? Think you to outface us with jolly brags and great vaunts, as if ye were playing at post, and should win all by vyeing? No M. jewel. You may not so dor us. 
jewel. pag. 302.  Your single sold fact of One desperate heretic, may not conclude a Threefold Principle and an Universal proof for all Catholics to follow. If you like such precedents, follow them. we like them not, we defy them. They are the enemies of God's peace, the Cancre of Christian common wealths, the poison of our souls. We have better precedents, learned Fathers, Catholic bishops and holy Counsels to follow both in making Appeals to Rome, and in refusing of all Appeals to the Civil magistrate, as it hath in this Conflict at large been proved, Now you make an end.  
jewel. 
The 426 Untruth Slaund.  And this M. hardings reasons run roundly against him.  
Thus M. jewels proofs have all failed him. His threefold Assault in Conclusion hath proved but single sold.  
Hitherto of Appeals from the chiefest patriarchs of the world to the See of Rome, whereby the superiority and Primacy of that See over all Churches is unvincibly proved. All that M. jewel could possibly devise to say against it, is answered, I trust, sufficiently. God grant my small labour may edify, and help to bring us to the dew Obedience of Christ's vicar here on earth, without the which we shall never see end of heresies, schisms, and dissension.  
Harding. The special grace and singular privilege (of the Church of Rome never to fail in the faith) is to be imputed unto the prayer of Christ, by which he obtained of God for Peter and his successors (108) that their faith should not fail.  
jewel. 
The .427 Untruth Slaund.  The .108. Untruth. For many Popes have erred faith as shall appear.  
Then it behoveth us to answer to the reasons, and arguments, by which you will persuade that it will so appear. First you allege three places out of the prophets, wickedly and notoriously wrested and wreathed, as it hath before been declared in the 105. Untruth, where you draw us to this common place of holy scriptures by you wrested and wreathed from their due and right meaning. And truly to this purpose they make nothing: Unless M. jewel will frame his reasons after this sort. Micheas said that the priests and Prophets being wicked rested themselves upon the Lord. Hieremy saith of the priests and of the elders that they had a confidence in their Council and law as though it should never fail. Item Micheas again saith, that the priests of the jews should have night and darkness in stead of their visions and prophecies. Ergo many Popes have erred in the faith. Who ever made any such arguments in any school? what, will M. jewel make folk believe that Micheas and Hieremy the prophets have written in their prophecies that many Popes have erred in the saith? jewel. 
pag. 6.  Or doth M. jewel think that these reasons must be taken because he speaketh the word? But he will say. Micheas an hieremy do tell us that the priests did amiss, and yet craked that they could not be deceived. We deny it not. But did they speak any thing of the Popes of Rome, did they testify so long before that they should err in the faith? why may we not think rather that Micheas rebuked the proud priests, and foretold of the fall of their synagogue, and of their blindness they should be in at the coming of the Messiah. And that Hieremy rebuked their vices, not their belief, 
Hierem. 18.  their conspiracy to destroy him (as he did in deed) not any Council of theirs touching the observation of Moses' laws? Thus M. jewel wresteth and wretheth holy Scripture at his preasure.  
jewel. Certainly the very gloze upon the decretals putteth this Matter utterly out of doubt. These be the words: It is certain that the pope may err. And Alphonsus saith. Every man may err in the faith, yea although it be the Pope.  
Stapleton. You know well, M. jewel, it is not avouched by D. harding, neither defended by the Catholics, that the Pope in his own person, and as a private man, can not possibly err. For so we say with the decretals and with Alphonsus to, 
In what sense it is avouched, that the Pope can not err.  that the Pope may err and hath erred both in faith and in manners, touching his own private person. But the thing which is here avouched by D. Harding and which is by us defended, is that the Pope as the Head of the Church can never err, that is, he can never decree any thing erroneous or contrary to the faith, he can never deliver any false doctrine to the Church contrary to the faith. You know M. jewel by the debating of this controversy among the learned of this age, as well on your side, as among the Catholics, this to be the State of the question. For so the faith of Peter was prayed for not only for the person of Peter (in whom it was very weak, when he denied Christ, even after that prayer made) but for the whole Church committed to Peter. This is the State of the question. Now to your Proofs.  
Alphonsus de Castro saith. It is certain that Liberius was an Arrian. 

jewel. C●n●r. haer. li. 1. cap. 4. Stapleton. Lib. 2. cap. 17.  
In epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes.    
By Theodoretus and Athanasius better Authors than is Alphonsus, it is certain he was banished two years for not yielding to the Arrians and resisted also the Emperor Constantius face to face in defence of the Catholic faith, against the Arrian heresy. Of h●s yielding afterward though Athanasius do mention, yet he excuseth him expressly for no Arrrian. And certain it is he never decreed for the Arrian heresy.  
jewel. Pope Honorius was an heretic, 
Concil. Constant. 6. Act. 13.  off the sect of them which were called Monothelite, condemned for the same in the sixth Council holden at Constantinople.  
Stapleton. That Council in deed as it is now set forth, Doth reckon Honorius the Pope of Rome among other bishops condemned for that heresy. But Bloudus, Aeneas Silvius, Sabellicus Platina do report that this Pope Honorius was the first that condemned the same heresy. That also by the means of this Pope, Heraclius the Emperor being fallen in to that heresy was reduced to the Catholic faith, and persuaded to banish one Pyrrhus by whom he had been seduced into Africa. Therefore as this very sixth Council of Constantinople confesseth that the Acts of the fift general council had been corrupted by heretics, yea and epistles forged in the name of Vigilius the Pope unto Menna the bishop of Constantinople and again of Menna to Vigilius, in defence of that same heresy of the Monothelites: so it may seem this sixth Council hath been by the grecians corrupted ●nd the name of Honorius the Pope thrust in among other bishops. And this to have been the manner of the grecians to feign writings of Popes off Rome, or to corrupt them with heresies, it appeareth well by the complaint off Pope Nicolas the first in his 
a Tom. 1. Conc. fol. 748.  epistle to Michael the Emperor, of 
b In praefat.  Athanasius in the 8. Synod. of 
c Epist. 82.  lo the first in his letters to the bishop of Palestina, and in 
d Lib. 5. Epist. 14.  S. Gregory. in his letters to Narses. But an unvincible argument that Honorius the Pope was no heretic nor condemned in that Council, are the words of Agatho the Pope, whose legates were precedent at that Council, the words I say off his epistle sent to the Council, and read in the Council, where he hath these words. 
Actione. 4  Hec est verae fidei regula, quam & in prosperis & adversis vivaciter tenuit Apostolica Christi ecclesia, que per Dei gratiam a tramite Apostolicae traditionis nunquam errasse probabitur nec hereticis novitatibus depravata succubuit, quia dictum est Petro. 
L●cae. 22.  Ego pro te rogavi ut non deficiat fides tua: & tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos. Hic dominus fidem Petri non defuturam promisit, & confirmare eum fratres suos admonuit, quod Apostolicos pontifices meae exiguitatis predecessores confidenter fecisse semper cunctis est cognitum.  
This is the rule of the right faith, which the Apostolic Church of Christ hath earnestly defended both in prosperity and in adversity, which also by the grace of God shall never be found to stray from the path of Apostolic tradition, neither hath yet yielded to heretical novelties. Because it was said to Peter. 
Lucae. 22.  I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith shall not fail. And thou being sometime converted Confirm they brethren. Here our lord hath promised that the faith of Peter should not fail, and our Lord here commanded him to confirm his brethren. Which the Apostolic bishops my predecessors to have always earnestly done, it is known to all men. Thus far Agatho the Pope in that epistle sent to the sixth general Council, read in that Council, and allowed by their commom consent all crying, in ea per Agathonem Petrum loqui, that Peter speak in that letter by the mouth of Agatho. Now how is it possible that Honorius the Pope who lived not three score years before that time, 
Actor. 4.  should there presently have been condemned for an heretic, and yet the epistle of Agatho then Pope, avouching constantly that none of his predecessors ever were heretics, be allowed for Catholic. Therefore undoubtedly either that Council is now corrupted, as the fift general Council was by heretics, or else Honorius was condemned not as Pope, nor as decreeing and defending that heresy by public authority, but as holding that heretical opinion by himself, and as uttering the same in his letters to Sergius of Constantinople. And then Honorius was in deed condemned there for an heretic, but not the Pope: Else Pope Agatho had most impudently abused the Council, and the Council no less wickedly dissembled his falsehood, when both he avouched that none of his predecessors had been heretics, and that his avouching the Council allowed. Hereunto may be added that Photius the bishop of Constantinople, writing of the seven general Councils, and reakoning up all that were in those Councils condemned, maketh no mention at all of this Honorius Pope off Rome. 
In epist. ad Michaelem Bulgariae principem.  And thus far it appeareth that the example of Honorius doth nothing weaken the prayer off Christ, praying for Peter's faith never to fail, either in him or his successors.  
jewel. Pope Marcellinus openly made Sacrifice unto an Idol.  
Stapleton. So S. Peter denied Christ, even after Christ had prayed for him that his faith should not fail. But as Peter notwithstanding suffered after martyrdom for Christ's name, so did this Marcellinus also suffer martyrdom even by that Emperor Diocletian, by whom he had been before constrained for fear of death to commit Idolatry. And again S. Peter is not said to have erred in the faith, or to have lost his degree of Apostleship because for fear of death he denied Christ, and by penance recovered again, so neither can marcelius be said to have erred in the faith or to have corrupted the succession of Christ's vicars, seeing he repented of his wickedness and suffered afterward martyrdom in that cause. But such is the good will of M. jewel to the See of Rome, from which we englishmen received our first faith and baptism, that he omitteth no one Pope that did amiss, that so he may disgrace that succession. And truly if such exceptions may be heard, M. jewel may prove that S. Peter also lost his Apostleship, and erred in the faith.  
jewel. 
middot; The .428 Untruth Slanderous.  Pope john the .22. held a wicked heresy against the immortality of the soul.  
Stapleton This is a wicked blasphemy of john jewel against Pope john, of a protestant against Christ's Vicaire, of an heretic superintendant, against a Catholic bishop. He held no opinion against the immortality of the soul. It is a slanderous lie. He held opinion (and that before he was Pope) that the souls of the just see not God until the day of judgement. 
Melchior Canus lib. 6. de locis con. cap. 8. Benedictus 11. in sua extrauag.  This opinion was holden of divers learned men, as of Ireneus, Chrysostom and S. bernard before the matter was defined to the contrary, and yet were not accounted therefore heretics. Neither did Pope john ever decree that matter, but before he could bring it to pass, was prevented by death. But if that opinion M. jewel be a wicked heresy touching the immortality of the soul, how many your brethren do preach at this day a wicked heresy in our country, while they preach openly that the soul sleepeth until the day off general judgement. That is a wicked heresy in deed M. jewel, not of Pope john, but of Protestant preachers.  

●ewell.  Pope Sylvester the .2. was a sorcerer, and had familiar conference with the Devil, and by his procurement was made Pope.  
Stapleton Then was he a naughty man. But what is this to the faith of the Church? Luther had familiar conference with the Devil, and by his procurement was made an enemy to the Mass, and so became the Pope off protestants. This is no fable M. jewel. Luther's own book yet extant entitled De Missa angulari & unctione sacerdotali reporteth it. And will you pronounce Luther an heretic? Truly though you will say with your Saramentary brethren off Zurich, you must not only pronounce him an heretic, but also an arch-heretic, yea and say also that the Devil spoke in Luther. For so they say and write to. 
Platina in Siluestro. 2  Touching Sylvester as he was a naughty man, so he repented at the end. It is written off him that in his last will he commanded his body to be laid in a Coach and to be buried there, where so ever the horses should carry it: beseeching God thereby to show some sign thereby off his state after this life. It was so done as he willed. The horses of their own accord carried his body in to the great Church off S. john Lateran, where it lieth buried at this Day, as his tomb there yet to be seen witnesseth. And the Author hereof Platina, is of a good credit as Holcot the schoolman whom M. jewel allegeth.  
jewel. Pope Athanasius communicated with Photinus the heretic, 
The 439. Untruth Slaund.  and therefore was forsaken of his clergy.  
Stapleton This is a fable of Gratian, grounded upon no good authority or truth. He saith also in the same place that he would have restored to the Church Acacius the heretic before condemned. But all this to be false, his epistle to Anastasius the Emperor convincethe, in the which he willeth expressly that Acacius be not so much as named of Christian people. He that condemned Acacius the bishop, would he trow we communicate with Photinus the deacon being of the same heresy that Acacius was, and communicating with Acacius? M. jewel to prove such weighty matters, should bring more weighty proofs, and not so hunt like a wanton Spanyel, and range at riot, and beat up butterflies.  
jewel. 
The 430 Untruth For priests marriages have always been forbidden in Christ's Church.  Pope H●ldebrande that first of all others in these country's forebadde the lawful marriages of priests etc.  
I think it be natural for M. jewel always to report things untruly. As for marriage of priests, being priesstes and after holy orders taken, it was never lawful neither before hildebrand's time neither sithons in the Church of Christ. You should have made that one of your Articles M. jewel, and so have tried what could have been said therein. Now for you to drop lies by the way, and to say so only, it shall be enough to answer you with saying the contrary, and by the way to note you a liar. Howbeit what may be said herein I have somewhat touched otherwhere. But what was this Pope Hildebrande? M. jewel saith.  


The .431. Untruth There was n● such Council holden.  
The 432. Untruth Cankered and Slanderous   Both for his life and also for his Religion he is set out at large in a (431.) Council holden at Brixia, where he is called and published to the world, to be a vicious man, a burner of houses, a Robber of Churches, a maintainer of murders and perjuries, an (432.) heretic against the Apostolic doctrine, the old disciple of Berengarius.  
Then M. jewel is an heretic against the Apostolic doctrine for he is a disciple of Berengarius, and defendeth stoutly the opinion of Berengarius in this his Reply, the fift Article.  

The .433 Untruth Slaund.  A Sorcerer, a Necromancer, a man possessed with the devil, and therefore out of the Catholic faith.  
This Council of Brixia that M. jewel allegeth, is not to be found in the tomes of the Councils. It was a conventicle of some such as he is himself, conspiring against the Pope to flatter the Emperor. 
Platina in Greg. 7.  Truly this Hildebrande is described of Platina to be a man of great virtue and wisdom. He was chosen Pope by the consent of all good men. He resisted stoutly the wicked attempts of Harry the fourth Emperor. He drew the clergy of Germany especially of Ments from their concubines and Harlots. For these causes he was much hated and much evil spoken of by such as were nought them selves, and flattered the evil Emperor. Who yet notwithstanding at the length repenting his former wickedness humbled himself to this Pope, and was by him absolved. As for heresy or any such cankered matter as M. jewel hath here heaped up, no approved Author chargeth him withal.  
jewel. The Fathers in the Council of Basile say. We read that many bishops of Rome have fallen in to errors and heresies.  
Stapleton Yet those Fathers say not that ever any Pope decreed any heresy. Their office not their person, their public decrees not their private opinions are defended. But it is well that M. jewel now calleth them Fathers, when they make for him, than they shall be his Fathers and he will be their child. But when they make against him, than they are ignorant men and lead a way with the blindness of that age, and then he will rather be a bastard of Luther's brood, than a child of the Catholic Fathers. So bernard shall be holy S. bernard when he declaimeth against the vices of Rome: but when he calleth the Pope for power Peter, 
fol. 420. he calleth S. Gregory an obscure and late doctor.  for his anointing Christ the pastor of all pastors, and one to whom alone the whole flocke●s is committed, than he is Bernard the Abbot. Likewise S. Gregory, when he rebuketh the proud title of Universal bishop in john of Constantinople, than he is holy S. Gregory. But when he writeth of saints lives, and of purgatory, than he is Father Gregory the dreamer. So Origen must be Old Father Origen when he speaketh for M. jew. but when he speaketh for the Catholic faith, 
The 434 Untruth For the bishop of Rome saith not those words.  than Origen hath many errors and heresies. And thus M. jewel maketh Fathers and Saints, when and whom it pleaseth him.  
And the Bishop of Rome himself saith. Notwithstanding the Pope 〈◊〉 innumerable companies of people by heaps with him in to hell, yet let no mortal m●n once dare to reprove him, unless it be found that he stray fr●m the faith.  
This is a flat lie. The Bishop of Rome saith no such thing. They are not the words of the Pope. M. jewel thinketh what so ever is written in the lying libel of one of his brethren entitled. The Protestation off the Pope. That it is cock sure, and undoubtedly true. But if M. jewel had loved the truth, and tendered his reader's Instruction, he would have looked to the original and have seen the words both whose they were, and what they were. The words that M. jewel allegeth are in the decrees, and in the place by him noted. But they are there reported to be the words not of any Bishop of Rome, but of Bonifacius the Martyr. And the words do not say (as M. jewel reporteth them) Let no mortal man once dare to reprove him, 
Dist. 40. Si Papa.  but: huius culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus. No mortal men doth presume to reprove his faults here. declaring thereby rather the obedience of Christian people toward their Superior, then commanding all Christian people to hold their peace. And the reason followeth. Because he must judge all men, but he is not to be judged off any. Which saying of that holy Martyr, if it seem to M. jewel over proud or unjust, he may remember that the whole Council of 3000. bishops in Sinuessa in the year of our Lord .300. presumed not to condemn marcelius the pope having sacrificed to Idols, and being convicted thereof by the Testimony of .72. witnesses, but after he had condemned himself before them all, 
Tom. 1. Concil. in condemnat Marcellini.  they confirmed it and said. I ustè ore suo condemnatus est. Nemo enim unquam iudicavit Pontificem nec Praesul Sacerdotem suum: quoniam prima sedes non iudicabitur à quoquam. He is condemned justly by his own mouth. For no man at any time judged the bishop, nor the bishop his (high) priest. For the chief See shall be judged of no man. Now where Bonifacius saith that he may not be reproved unless he be found to stray from the faith, that doth import that a case may happen, when the Pope may err, but not that the Pope may decree any error or establish any thing contrary to the faith.  
jewel. To conclude. Nicolaus Lyra is driven to say. We find that many Popes have forsaken the faith.  
Stapleton This was a very simple Conclusion that hath no better Author, then Lyras a friar of late years. Let it be true that many Popes have forsaken the faith, yea and Christ to, because of their wicked lives, and heinous deeds. Be it true, that some of them have had wrung opinions. Yet M. jewel hath showed none that ever decreed any error or heresy. This is that is avouched by Catholics. This the Reader looked for. And this M. jewel should have proved. God's name be blessed. M. jewel hath snott his poison against that holy See, and in the succession of fifteen hundred years and upward, among the number of two hundred and thirty Popes he hath not found one for all his prying and searching that ever decreed any error or heresy, or that ever delivered to the Church any doctrine, contrary to the Faith. Thus we see: Christ's prayer hath had his effect, notwithstanding all the malice of M. jewel, and of all other his masters and teachers, against S. Peter's chair.  
Harding. That the Bishop of Rome had always cure and rule over all other Bishops (109.) specially them of the east (for touching them of the West Church it is generally confessed) beside a hundred other evident Arguments, this is one very suffieient, that he had in the east to do his stead three delegates or vicars, now commonly they be named Legates. The one was the Bishop off Constantinople as we find it mentioned In Epistola Simplicij ad Achatium Constantinopolitanum. The second was the Bishop of Alexandria, as the Epistle of Bonifacius the second to Eulalius recordeth. The third was the Bishop off Thessalonica as it is at large declared in the 82. epistle of Leo, Ad Anastasium Thessalonicensem. By perusing these Epistles every man may see that all the bishops off Grece, Asia, Syria, Egypt, and to be short off all the Orient, rendered obedience to the Bishop of Rome, & caet.  
jewel. 
The 435 Untruth Slanderous.  The .109. Untruth. For the bishops of the East never yielded such subjection to the Pope.  
Stapleton. What say you then M. jewel to three legates of the Pope placed in the east. mentioned by D. harding? Did not they yield subjection to the pope? Are not the authorities true and good. The Epistles or Simplicius to the Bishop of Constantinople, of Bonifacius the second to Eulalius of Alexandria, of Leo that learned Father to Anastasius of Thessalonica, are they not true Epistles? Are they not incorporated to the volumes of the Counsels? Are they not all within the compass of your first 600. years? What say you to them? Why answer you not? Will you ever play Aristoteles Ass: Will you ever deny more than Aristotle can prove? Good Reader look upon M. jewels text upon this place. Thou shalt see, he answereth nothing to the places. But like an impudent ass of the country standeth upon his denial, and saith.  
It is not only untrue, but also utterly without any shadow or colour of the truth.  
jewel. 
The 436 Untruth ●acinge.  This is boldly avouched. But if M. jewel bring any one word to p●o●e these allegations untrue, that let him be Aristotle, and not the Ass. For you shall see what followeth.  
These authorities of Leo, Symmachus and Bonifacius, 
The 437. Untruth For Bonifacius condemned not S. Augustin.  for as much as they are alleged without words, may likewise be passed over without answer.  
If they be untrue, why prove you it not? If they be true, why pass you them over without answer? All that you answer is this that followeth.  
jewel. 
The 438.439. and 440. Untruths, as it shall particularly appear.  Howbeit this Bonifacius the second in defence of this quarrel is forced to say, that (.437.) S. Augustin that godly Father, and all other the bishops of Aphrica, Numidia, Pentapolis, and other countries adjoining, that withstood the (.438.) proud attempt of the bishops off Rome, and found (.439.) out their open forgery and falsifying the Nicene Council, were (.440.) altogether inflamed and lead by the devil.  
Stapleton. Let us suppose all this were true. Yet is all this nothing to the Pope's legate in Alexandria, the bishop thereof, as in the epistle of Bonifacius it is mentioned. Unless M. jewel will reason thus.  
Bonifacius condemned the Bishops of Carthage wrongfully, 
M. jewels Argument.   
Ergo the Bishop of Alexandria was not his legate.  
But now let us see how many Untruths are couched in the former few words of M. jewel. First S. Augustin was none of them which wrote the last epistle of the African Council to Celestinus, upon which M. jewel groundeth the discovering of the Pope's forgery. His name and subscription is not there. Though in the other epistle to Bonifacius it be. Neither should his name have been left out, being the legate for the whole province of Numidia, if he had been there present. Again there was no proud attempt of the bishop of Rome, but challenging of that right which both the Council of Nice, and the Council of Sardica had decreed before. Thirdly he committed no forgery, nor falsified the Nicene Council, as hath been before proved. Last off all Bonifacius saith not off the African bishops, that they were altogether inflamed and lead by the devil, these be the cankered words of M. jewels tender heart. Only he saith instigante diabolo. The Devil pricking them and moving them thereto. Thus with a mess of Untruths and a heap of cankered malitiouslies M. jewel thinketh to answer the places alleged and to prove them Untrue, yea and as he saith, Utterly without any shadow or colour off truth. Which to be a most impudent, shameless and desperate outfacing lie, let the words themselves prove. Pope Leo writeth thus to Athanasius the bishop of Thessalonica. As my predecessors to your predecessors, 
Epist. 82. Vices mei mo●eraminis delegavi.  so I unto you (following their examples) delegated my room and authority, to th'intent that you after the example of our discretion might help that which we own unto all Churches principally by God's institution, and that you might supply the presence of our visitation in the provinces far distant from us. Because you being there at hand may readily know, what things may by yourselves be ended, and what things to our judgement may be reserved. These be the words of that learned and most holy Father Leo so much commended and reverenced in the fourth Council of Chalcedon. By these it appeareth that not only by Leo but by his predecessors before the Bishop of Thessalonica was the Pope's delegat in that part of the East Church, and in the provinces adjoining. And therefore the great Council of Sardica long before the time off Leo, for the great resort off Priests and Deacons to Thessalonica about such suits to the Pope's legate, 
Act 6. Concil. Sard. Can. 20.  made a decree that such Priests and Deacons should make no long abode in that City. In like manner Simplicius writeth to Achatius of Constantinople, wondering that he had not yet certified him of the state of the Church of Alexandria, 
Tom 1. Conciliorum.  being both required Vt participata solicitudine literas apud principem prosequeretur, & instituti veteris memor in orthodoxorum defensionem semper incumberet, that taking part of his care and charge he would promote his letters to the Prince, and also remembering his old office, should emplie himself always to the defence of the Catholics. Bonifacius the second certifying Eulalius bishop of Alexandria of the reconciliation of the africans saith. Vota nostra charitatem tuam latere nolumus, ne qui particeps fuit sollicitudinis, gaudiorum fructus reddatur extorris. We will not conceal from you our good tidings, lest that he which taketh part of our charge, may seem to lack part off our joy and comfort. Thus as Leo calleth Anastasius his legate in Thessalonica, a helper off his universal charge, so Simplicius and Bonifacius do call the bishops off Alexandria and Constantinople Sollicitudinis particepes the partakners off their Universal charge, as being their legates in that part of the world.  
And thus far it is proved that the bishops of the East were subject unto the Bishop of Rome. Which also by that which before hath been said, touching the Appeals of Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, of S. Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople, and of Theodoret bishop of Cyrus. Also of Flavianus an other patriarch of Constantinople, of john Talaida a patriarch of Alexandria, of Paulus, Marcellus, Asclepas, Lucianus and divers others, all bishops in the East Church, doth appear clearly and sufficiently proved. Yet M. jewel ever better able to appose and make objections against a truth, then to answer to the proofs brought for the truth, that is, as one that is full off doubts, but resolved in nothing, ever learning (as S. Paul saith) but never attaining to knowledge, 
1 Timo. 3.  and more expert in reproving the Catholics, then in confirming his own positive opinion, (as S. Augustin noteth of the Manichees) though he could not answer to the place alleged, 
Lib. de uti litate credendi. cap. 1.  yet he can say somewhat against the position. Thus he saith.  
jewel. What duty the Bishops off the east part owed to the bishop off Rome, whosoever hath read and considered the story and the practice off the times, may soon perceive. First the Council of Nice, appointed every off the three patriarchs his several charge, none of them to interrupt or trouble the other. And willed the Bishop off Rome as Ruffinus reporteth the story, to oversee Ecclesias suburbanas, which were the Churches within his province.  
Stapleton. 
Fol. 51.  How this is to be understanded, I have before spoken in part, but more largely you may read in the Confutation off your Apology. Such common objections must have a common solution.  
jewel. And therefore Athanasius calleth Rome the chief or mother Church of Roman jurisdiction.  
Stapleton. 
In e●ist. ad soli●artā vitam agentes.  This therefore followeth not. Athanasius in that place talking of the persecution of pope Liberius by the Arrians, exaggerating their wickedness saith. Th●y spared not so much as Liberius the Bishop of Rome, having no reverence of him, neither as it was the Apostolical See, nor b●cause Rome was the chief City off the Roman jurisdiction. By this disjunctive proposition, making a distinction between the Apostolical See, and the City of Rome, it seemeth Athanasius took not there the word Metropolis, for Mother Church as M. jewel hath translated, but for the chief or head City. Otherwise if M. jewel will in good earnest have Rome to be the chief and Mother Church off the Roman jurisdiction by the verdict of Athanasius, than not only the Roman diocese or province, but all Egypt, and Grece, all the East Church, being at that time of the Roman jurisdiction, as all subject to the Emperor of Rome Constantius, shall be subject to the See of Rome as being the Chief and Mother Church of them all by Athanasius his witness and by the Confession of M. jewel. 
Hist. trip. lib. 4. ca 6 Cap. 15.  And truly that Athanasius bishop of Alexandria in Egypt was subject to the bishop of Rome, it appeareth well both by that Athanasius being cited thither by julius the Pope appeared there and pleaded his cause, and was restored by the Pope's letters unto his bishopric, and also by his Appeal to Rome the second time, through the often persecutions of the Arrians.  
jewel. 
The 441. Untruth joined with a folly, as shall appear. Ioa●. 20.  And for that cause the bishops of the east in their Epistle unto julius call him their fellow Servant, And Cyrillus the Bishop of Alexandria, writing unto Celestinus, calleth him his brother. Fellows and Brothers be titles (.441.) off equalite, and not of subjection.  
Stapleton. Well reasoned and like a divine. Christ our Saviour in the gospel calleth the Apostles his brethren, even after his Resurrection and Glorification. But what then M. jewel? Was not Christ therefore their head? See what blasphemies your manner of reasoning inferreth. Agayine you are driven in the end off this Article to confess, that Peter was head of the Apostles. Yet Christ said to him: Thou being converted confirm thy brethren. By this example of Christ our Saviour, the pope both then and now writing unto all bishops, calleth them, Fratres, Collegas, Consacerdotes, brethren, fellow bishops, fellow pristes. The Metropolitan writing to a bishop of his province, the bishop writing to a priest, useth the same title. And all this according to the commandment of Christ. He that is greatest among you, shall be as the least. The meanest priest and the Pope himself in office of Priesthood are equal. In jurisdiction the one is subject to the other. therefore of the Office they are called brethren, fellow priests, fellow bishops and so forth. Saint Augustine, writing to S. Hierom a priest, calleth him brother. What then? Be Bishops and Priests equal in jurisdiction and authority? Celestinus writing to Cyrillus calleth him brother, and yet was Cyrillus his legate in the Ephesine Council. A thousand such examples might be brought. Lo●ke in all Councils, in all the Epistles of Bishops to their metropolitans, or to their priests of their dioceses, you sh●ll find them all called brethren. And yet one is under the other and an order is to be kept according to the Canons. You Master jewel when you writ to any priest off Salisbery diocese, where you bear yourself for a Bishop, call you not them brethren? If you do not, then writ you more stately than true bishops do or ever have done: if you do, is not therefore the priest under his bishop? I am ashamed to stand so long upon such bald peevish arguments of M. jewels. But it is easy to be seen what store of good proofs he hath which useth so oft such a begarly shift.  
jewel. 
The 442 Untruth Slaund. Facing, and impudent.  Certain it is that (442) sundry the bishops of Rome began very rathe to seek this pre-eminence, even with manifest forgery, and corruption of counsels, as is already proved, but the bishops of other countries never yielded to them, nor understood these vain titles.  
Certain it is that M. jewel hath slandered the bishops of Rome, far within his first .600. years, even of the primitive Church, most impudently, as it hath been already proved. Certain it is that all other countries hath yielded to the See of Rome not upon titles or terms, but of true obedience as to Christ's Vicaire in causes of weighty importance.  
jewel. 
The 443 Vntr●the For th●y said not so much.  The bishops of the East writing unto julius, allege that the faith that then was in Rome came first from them.  
They were Arrians, they lied in so saying. And M. jewel hath increased there lie, by saying (the faiethe that then was) for no such words are in their epistle.  
jewel. 
Lib. 5. cap. 8. lib. 2. Cap. 15.  And that the●r Churches (as Sozomenus writeth) ought not to be accounted in●e●iour to t●e Church of Rome: and as Socrates further reporteth, that thy ought not to be ordered by the Roma●● bishop.  
Stapleton. You do the devil good service M. jewel. You take part with the Arrian heretics, cursed and detestable blasphemers of the godhead of our Saviour jesus Christ. You forsake that learned and holy Father Athanasius of Alexandria, Paulus of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, Asclepas of Gaza, Lucius of Adrianopolis, that famous father Osius of Corduba, and an infinite number of other Catholic bishops of Thracia, Celosyria, Phenicia, Palestina, which all fled to Rome, were subject to the Pope, acknowledged his supreme authority, (quoniam (as Sozomenus writeth) propter Sedis dignitatem, omnium ad ipsum cura pertinebat. Because for the prerogative of his See, 
Hist. trip. lib. 4. cap. 7.8. & 9  the Charge of them all appertained to him) and they all were persecuted by the Arrians, were thrust out of their bishoprics: all these you forsake utterly, and join to those wicked and detestable Arrians, who beside their blasphemous heresies expelled all good Catholic bishops, and defied the Pope for taking part and upholding the Catholic bishops. You have an eye to the wicked doings of heretics, you build upon the disobedience of the Donatists, who appealed from the Pope to the Emperor, and make thereof an argument (o passing impudence) that the Emperor was above the Pope: 
Lib. 3. cap. 8.  whereas yet the Emperor extremely offended with that barbarous fury of those Donatists, when they appealed to him cried out in a great rage. O rabida furoris audacia, 
Optatus lib. 1.  sicut in causis gentilium fierit solet appellationem interposuerunt. O desperate and furious rage. They appeal to me, like as Pagans and infidels do. To these barbarous Donatists, to these heathenish Appeals, to these blasphemous Arrians M. jewel casteth his eye, their doings he beholdeth, them he liketh, them he embraceth. Their furious disobedience he taketh for a pattern of right. But what did julius the Pope answer to that impudent and heretical disobedience of theirs? I wish thee gentle Reader if thou be learned to peruse the answer of Pope julius as it is reported of Athanasius himself in his second Apology. He answereth with fair words, with great humbleness, learnedly, meekly, and with such and so far yielding, that M. jewel hath gone about with certain of his sentences picked out of that epistle, to prove by the Pope's own words that he had no authority over the bishops of ●he East. The words thou hast seen before alleged by M. jewel, and by other words of that Epistle in that place answered. Thither I refer thee gentle Reader for better consideration of his whole demeanour of the Arrian Bishops of the East with Pope julius. Verily there thou shalt see, that notwithstanding the proud disobedience of the Arrians, whose part M. jewel taketh, that yet the See of Rome both by custom and by Canon or decree challenged them of their duty, which the Catholic bishops of the East, Athanasius and his fellows, gladly yielded to and acknowleadged. I can say no more herein M. jewel, but if you will needs claim by heretics, that you be taken for such.  
jewel. 
The 444 Untruth False Translation.  Gennadius the bishop of Constantinople together with the Council there, thus writeth unto the bishop of Rome. Cu●et sanctitas tua Vniversas custo●ias tuas, ●ibique su●iectos Epis●opos. Let thy holiness see unto thine own charge, and unto the bishops appointed unto the.  
Gennadius speaketh not as M. jewel maketh him to speak. He is by M. jewel untruly translated. Thus stand his words Let your holiness see unto all your charges, and the bishops which are subject unto you. The word universas, all, M. jewel omitted, and for subiectos (subject) he readeth appointed, to induce a certain limitation of the bishop of Rome's jurisdiction. Thus much we see of M. jewels juggling by his false translation only, but if it had pleased him to have quoted the place, and to have told us what Council it was, or when this Gennadius lived, I doubt not but the very circumstance of the place would have answered itself, and the weakness of M. jewels proofs would the more have appeared. As for Gennadius, for the space of the first 600. years, there was but one of that name bishop of Constantinople, soon after the time of the Chalcedon Council, 
Nicephorus lib. 15. cap. 13. Trithem. in scriptor.  successor to Anatolius, and predecessor to Acacius a man of great virtue, learning, and holiness, as it appeareth in Nicephorus and Trithemius. Of him there appeareth no such writing, neither any Council to be holden by him or in his time. If this Gennad●●s therefore be a later writer, he beareth no authority in this matter, because as all the learned do know, the Church of Constantinople hath remained in schism these certain hundred years not only for disobedience to the See of Rome but for divers other particular heresies, 
Actor. 4.  as for denying the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Son, and such other. Beside the Church of Constantinople as it hath been twelve times reconciled to the Church of Rome, so hath it long and many years continued in schism unreconciled. It was therefore necessary and convenient that M. jewel alleging the testimony of so suspicious a place, should have told us when and in what age that Council was held, and where it might be found. Certainly Chrysostom a learned and holy Bishop of Constantinople far within the first 600. years, confesseth that to Peter and to the successors of Peter Christ committed those sheep which he had redeemed with his blood, also that Peter had the primacy over the whole world. And for proof of Supreme authority, he appealed himself (being one of the greatest patriarchs) to Innocentius the Pope of Rome, as hath before been declared. So did Flavianus a holy Martyr and patriarch of Constantinople Appeal to Leo the first.  
jewel. 
Ruffinus lib. 1. cap. 29.30. ●● 31. The 445 446. and 447. Untruths, as it shall particularly appear.  The Council of Alexandria committed the visitation and reforming of all Churches in the East unto Asterius. And of all the Churches in the west unto Eusebius the bishop of Vercellae. By authority of which Commission Eusebius together with Hilarius visited and corrected all the Churches of Illyricum, France and Italy. A man might say where was then the Universal power of the bishop of Rome.  
Nay a man might say more, if your tale were true M. jewel, where was then the bishop of Rome himself? Where was his private jurisdiction, where was his diocese? Even now you confessed that both by the Nicene Council and by the testimony of Athanasius, Rome was the fourth patriarch of the world, and the Chief Church of all the Roman Jurisdiction. Now what was under the bishop of Rome's jurisdiction, if Italy itself were not in the which Rome standeth. 
pag. 283.  Illi●ycum you confess afterward M. jewel and prove by the authority of Damasus that it was a part of the bishop of Rome's jurisdiction. France if it were not vnde● the patriarch of Rome, show under what patriarch it was. This then if neither Illyricum nor France, nor Italy itself be found to be subject to the See of Rome, if this tale of yours be true M. jewel, than not only a man might say where was the universal power of the bishop of Rome then, but also a man might say where was the power at all? And so M. jewel to disprove the Universal authority of the bishop of Rome, hath now found a knack to prove him no bishop at all, no not of Rome itself. And verily as well he may conclude the one as the other. But it is not possible for M. jewel to leave his lying. For first the●e was no commission given in that Council to Correct the Churches: that is the fairest Untruth. Again that which Hilarius did, was not by virtue of that Council, but of his own zeal and authority. Thirdly all this matter was no reformation by way of commandment, but a voluntary zeal to call home to the Church, such as by the storm of the Arrians persecution had yielded. These many lies M. jewel hath committed in so few words, as it shall now appear by Ruffinus whom M. jewel allegeth. At what time Constantius the Arrian Emperor being dead, 
Ruffinus li. 1. ca 27.  julianus succeeding in the Empire not of zeal to the faith, but for overthwarting the decrees of Constantius, had called home the bishops from banishment, a number of the good bishops meeting together forthwith (before they returned to their own Churches) at Alexandria, took counsel and advise together, what order were best to be taken touching such as in their absence had yielded and subscribed to the Arrians. Some thought good that none of the clergy should be received again to their offices which had subscribed. Other thought better to remove only the chief authors and promoters of the heresy, and to receive again all other which would abjure the Arrian heresy and submit themselves to the decrees of the Fathers. This sentence prevailed, strait way, 
Cap. 28.  ex concilij decreto Asterio caeterisque qui cum eo erant Orientis iniungitur p●ocuratio, Occid●ntis verò Eus●bio decernitur. by the decree of the Council, Asterius and his fellows were commanded to see unto the East, and Eusebius to see unto the west. Now what this commission was, whether it were to Correct by way of authority or no, you shall hear by the words of the History in the next chapter following. 
Cap. 30.  Eusebius circuiens O●i●ntem atque Italiam, medici pariter & sacerdotis fungebatur officio. Singulas quasque ecclesias abiurata infidelitate ad sanitate recte fid●i revocabat. maximè quòd Hilarium regr●ssum iam & in Italia positum hec eadem erga instaurandas ecclesias sedemque patrum reparandam reperit molientem. Eusebius (saith Ruffinus) going about all the East and Italy, did the office both of a Physician and of a priest. He called back every Church to the wholesome right Faith, all infidelity being utterly abjured. Especially finding Hilarius who was now returned from banishment and was in Italy labouring in that same matter to the restoring again of the Churches and of the Catholic faith. This is all that Ruffinus telleth of them. They laboured to reduce men to the Catholic Faith. They found Hilarius so doing of his own head without any commission. Here was no correcting or visiting by way of authority, but only a zealous labour toward a reformation, such as Hilarius took upon him without any commission or commandment, and such as many a good man would perhaps take in our own country, if a time of reformation were granted, without any breach or diminishing of every bishop's authority in his own diocese, or of the Pope's primacy over all. Thus M. jewel by falsifying and wrong applying of histories will establish his schismatical disobedience toward the See off Rome.  
jewel. 
Epist. 48. The 448 Untruth in falsifiing S. Basiles text  S. basil saith. The state and safety of the Church of Antioch dependeth off Athanasius the Bishop off Alexandria, and not (as M. harding here sayeth) of the Bishop off Rome. And therefore he desireth Athanatius to see unto it.  
Stapleton. Not one Sentence of any weight or Authority can be alleged of M. jewel without some manifest and notorious Untruth. The later words of his sentence alleged out of S. basil and printed with a divers letter, and the words of S. basil, these words I say, and not off the Bishop off Rome. are not in that place of S. basil, neither in the Latin nor in the Greek, but are conveyed in prettily by M. jewel, to furnish and fashion up his Untruth, that the Bishops of the East yielded no subjection to the Bishop of Rome. The words of S. basil are these. 
Basil. epist. 48.  Ad reliquas equidem Orientis res componendas fortassis ampliore auxilio tibi opus est, & necesse est expectare Occidentales. Antiochensis vero Ecclesiae O●dinatio palam ex pietate tua dependet, ut alios gubernes, alios quietos reddas, Ecclesiae vero robur per concordiam reddas. For the quieting of other troubles of the East, it shall be perhaps needful for you to look for some greater help, and it is necessary to tarry for the bishops of the West, but the ordering or state of the Church of Antiochia dependeth manifestly of you, that you may rule some, pacify other, and finally restore to the Church her strength by unite and concord. The meaning of S. basil is to desire Athanasius being then a man of great authority, for his long and manifold troubles suffered for the Church, and for his old age, to take the charge for the time of other Churches being then by the persecution off Valens pitifully mangled by the Arrians. He desired him before to send some men of his own Church learned and discrete to the bishops of the West, to unto them their troubles and adversities. But because Antioch was (as S. Basil there saith) the head and principal part of the East, he desireth in the mean while Athanasius to look unto that Church especially. This is all that S. Basil there requireth of Athanasius, 
Dimit●e aliquos exsacta Ec●lesia tua v●ros ad occidentis ep●scopos. Basil. epist. 53.  not as though he had any jurisdiction over Antioch, but because as a man in that time of more authority and years than any other, he might do much good (as he writeth in an other epistle to Athanasius) alloquendo, admonendo▪ scribendo, mittendo semper aliquos qui optima suggerat. by talking with them, by admonishing them of their duty, by writing, by sending always some to instruct them. Now because M. jewel will gather hereof a negative argument, yea and to make it bear the more authority, will make S. Basil himself to say that of Athanasius, and not of the bishop of Rome the state of Antioch dependeth, let us see what S. basil saith about the quieting of these self same troubles of the East, and writing thereof to this very same Athanasius, thus he writeth to Athanasius. not long after the former epistle written as it may seem by the placing of his epistles in his works, and also by the matter itself. Visum est nobis etc. 
Basil. ad Athanas. epi. 52.  We have taught good to write to the bishop of Rome, that he will consider the matters in these parts, and point us a Council, to the intent that because it is hard to have some sent from thence by a common decree of any Synod, that he will give authority to the matter choosing some sufficient men able to bear the pains of travail, and able by gentle demeanour and upright behaviour to correct the froward among us, who also may skilfully govern and instruct us, and bring with them all that was done at Ariminum for the dissolving and undoing thereof? Thus far S. Basil a bishop of the East Church acknowleadging as it well appeareth the authority of the bishop of Rome over the East parts, more than M. jewel would gladly he had done. So far is it that S. Basil by desiring Athanasius to look to the Church of Antioch, would therefore exclude the bishop of Rome's authority, as M. jewel not only would gather thereof, but also hath untruly made S. Basil to say, shifting in those words (and not of the bishop of Rome) into the text of S. basil, which S. Basil never spoke.  
jewel. 
T●e 449 Untruth As befor●. Cod. de S●cro San●tis eccles. lege 6.  The Emperors Honorius and Theo●osus appointed over all matters of doubt arising within the country of Illyricum to be heard ●nd ended before the bishop of Constantinople, and not before the bishop of Rome. The emperors words be these. The Church of Constantinople enjoyeth now the prerogative of the old Rome.  
This notorious and manifest Untruth hath before been avouched and answered. Now it is brought again to make up matter, and to bolster up an other Untruth which is this.  
jewel. 
The 450 Untruth ●or the Gloze there expound●th not that s●●e l●we D●st. 22. Re●ou●●tes: in glosa.  And the very Gloze upon the decrees expounding that same law of Honorius, and Theodosius hath these words. The Emperor s●●eth, the patriche of Constan●inople hath the same authority over the people of his province, that the Pope hath over his.  
I know not whether M. jewel when he wrote his Reply intended to Win the whetstome for ever, and to pass all the world in lying, but truly he so plyeth that game, that it may seem he was not a little bent that way. The gloze in that place expoundeth not this law of Honorius and Theodosius, but expoundeth the decrees of Popes and Councils, which are no Emperors laws pardy. And in that, note though the gloze apply a law of the Emperor to the decree, yet he meaneth not there this law, or these Emperors. But he meaneth an other law of an other Emperor. He means the Authentikes not the Cod●, ● law of justinian not of Honorius and Theodosus. For so he quoteth his note: ut in authen. d● eccl. tit. §. 1. ●c●lat. 9 And thus much touching the untrue applying of M. jewels gloze to the law Honorius and Theodosius. Now what the gloze means ●et the text try. The text saith out of the sixth Synod. 
Di●t. 2●. Ren●uā●●s.  Renovantes Sancti Constantinopolitani d●cr●tae Concil●j poti●us ut Constantinopolitana sed●s sim●lia priuil●gia que inferior Roma habet ac●ipiat: n●n tamen in ●cclesiasticis r●bus magnificetur ut illa, s●d hec s●cunda ●ost illam ●xistens ●rius quam Al●xandria numeretur. Renewing the decrees of the holy Council of Constantinople, we desire that the See of Constantinople have the like privileges, which the lower Rome hath. Not yet that in ecclesiastical matters she be preferred as Rome, but that being the second after Rome, she may be placed before the See of Alexandria. This is the text M. jewel. 
Ibid●m 〈◊〉.  Upon this text the gloze declareth that Constantinople simile habet privilegium in quibusdam. hath in certain things the like privilege that Rome hath. As that bishops may immediately appeal thither, that it may depose bishops, and last of all that upon her own subjects she hath the same power and authority as Rome hath in her subjects. Notwithstanding all this Rome is preferred and justinian himself (who made the same law which the glosser allegeth) call it Caput omnium sanctarum ecclesia●um, The head of all holy Churches. 
Cod. de summa T●in. & fi. Cath Nos Reddentes.  And thus M. jewels laws, decrees, and gloss, run roundly against him.  
jewel. 
Gregor. li. 1. epi. 24 & ●5. & lib. 6. epist 5. The 451. Untruth Manifest and unfallible, as shall appear.  And therefore for more proof hereof, whensoever any patriarch, in any of these four principal Sees, was newly chosen, he wrote letters of Conference and friendship unto the other Patriaches, wherein ●uery of them declared unto other their Religion and consent of faith. Thus did the bishop of Rome unto others, and thus did others unto him. This is an (451.) Unfallible token that their authori●e was equal, and none of them had power and government over his follows,  
If this be an infallible token, it is because M. jewel saith so. For truly if any other man had made such reasons, all had been but a guess, a Surmise, a likelihood, a Conjecture. Such are all D. hardings proofs to M. jewel, be they never so clear and manifest. But now every guess that he bringeth must be an unfallible token. For how say you M. jewel? Be these letters of Conference an unfallible token of equality? And where find you that letters of Conference, and between whom? You find them in S. Gregory: For him only you note in the Margin. And you find such letters of him to the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antiochia. How then if S. Gregory himself which wrote such letters of Conference to the bishop of Constantinople, doth yet expressly say the Church of Constantinople to be subject to the church of Rome: Shall not then M. jewels unfallible token prove an unfallible Untruth? Unless to justify M. jewels words, we must make S. Gregory contrary to himself and to save his Untruth, make S. Gregory a liar. Let us then hear what S. Gregory saith. 
Gregor. epist. 63. lib. 7.   
These are his words. Nam de Constantinopolitana Ecclesia quod dicunt, quis eam dubitet sedi Apostolicae esse subiectam? For as touching tha● they tell us of the Church of Constantinople, who doubteh but that she is subject to the See Apostolic. Which also our most godly Emperor and our Brother Eusebius bishop of that Cite do continually profess. Yet if she or any other Church have any good thing to be followed, I am ready to follow my inferiors in good things, whom I forbid from unlawful things. For he is unwise which thinketh himself therefore to be chief, that he may neglect to learn the good that he seeth. Thus far holy S. Gregory. In whom we see notwithstanding he wrote letters of conference to the bishop of Constantinople, and calleth him here his brother, yet he calleth him his inferior, and dissembleth not that his Church is subject unto him. And in the next epistle he writeth of the bishop of Constantinople, that being accused of a certain crime, the judgement was referred unto him of the Emperor juxta statutae Canonica According to the statutes of the Canons, not by the mere will or commission of the Emperor. Now if M. jewel do marvel how such letters of conference, such titles of brethren should pass between S. Gregory and the other Patriaches, and yet they notwithstanding be subject unto him, S. Gregory will tell him soon the cause hereof, in these words. Cum culpa non exit, omnes secundum rationem humilitattis aequales sunt. Where no fault is committed, 
Epist. 64. lib. 7.  all by the reason of humility are equal. And in that sense S. Paul saith. Wilt thou not fear the higher power? Do well. 
Rom. 13.  And he will praise thee. For he is the minister of God to do the good. But if thou do evil, then fear him. Thus S. Gregory was brother to all other bishops, wrote familiarly and friendly unto them until they offended. Then he would use and show his power over them, even over the bishop of Constantinople him sefe, the chiefest of all the patriarchs after the Pope. So he excommunicated john of Constantinople: so he judge over Eusebius bishop of the same See: and so he expressly professeth and putteth it out of doubt that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the bishop of Rome. And thus M. jewels unfallible token is not found to be so much as a bare guess. But void of all truth and weight. By such false sleights and silly surmises M. jewel maintaineth his schismatical disobedience against Christ's Vicaire, and draweth other to the snare of his schism.  
jewel. 
The .452. Untruth. For not therefore S. Gregory wrote so humbly. Lib. 7. epist 30.  And (.452.) therefore when Eulogius bishop off Alexandria, had written thus unto Gregory being then bishop of Rome, S●utiusfistis as ye commanded, Gregory utterly shunned and refused that kind of writing, for thus he answereth him. I pray you, have aw●y this word of Commanding from my hearing. For I know both what I am and also what you are. Touching your place, you are my brethren, touching manesses, are my Fathers. Therefore I commanded you not, but only showed I what thought good.  
Stapleton. 
Lib 7. epist. 54.  Tis declareth the great humility of holy S. Gregory. This proveth true that which he said before: Cum culpa no●●x●git, omnes secundum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt. Where ●o fault is committed, all by the reason of humility be equal. And thus the saying of the Apostle is verified. justo ●on est lex posita. The law is not made for the righteous. All this is true that all bishops and Priests are brethren, the one commandeth not the other when nothing is amiss. If I offend not the law, the magistrate hath nought to do with me. He can not command me. But the Master may command his servant, do he well or evil. The Pope is not so primate over other bishops that he hath them at commandment as servants. But if they break the Canons he commandeth them and forceth them to their duty, or else removeth them from their authority. So S. Gregory himself which shunned the word of commanding, yet he putteh it out of doubt that the See of Constantinople who was not inferior to the See of Alexandria was subject to the See of Rome. So Athanasius bishop of Alexandria being cited to the Church of Rome, appeared there as to his superior, So Cyrillus bishop also of Alexandria, was legate to Pope Celestinus in the third General Council of Ephesus. Yet as S. Gregory would not command Eulogius: so neither julius commandeth Athanasius, nor Celestinus in the third General Council of Ephes●s commandeth Cyrillus. Thus M. jewel for lack of matter and weight, hunteth after terms and phrases, to build up his schismatical disobedience to our mother Church the holy See of Rome.  
jewel. 
The .453. Untruth. For not that only or principally. Paulus Aemilius in Histor. gallorum lib. 8.  Finally (453.) for that Michael Palaeologus The Emperor of the East parts, in the Council holden at Lions, about the year of our Lord● .1442. after great entreaty made unto him by the bishop of Rome, hide acknowleadged the bishops of the East to be subject unto him, after he returned home again in to his Empire and was dead, his Clergy would not suffer him to be buried. Yet, saith M. Harding, All the bishops of Grecia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, and to be short. all the Orient, read and exhibited their humble obedience to the See off Rom●.  
M. jewel is miserably forced for the maitenaunce off his schisne not only to falsify counsels, to take part with the Arrians and with Donatists old condemned heretics of the primitive Church, to gather gheasses and conjectures upon titles and phrases, to falsify S. basil, to misalleage the decrees, but now at the last (to such miserable shifts he is driven) the poor creature is forced to claim by the late schismatics and blasphemous heretics of grece against the proceeding of the Holy Ghost. 
Paulus Aemil. li. 7  For in that Council holden at Lions M. jewel in the presence of Michael Paleologus the Emperor, about the year of our Lord .1280. (you came short in your reckoning of almost two hundred years) the greeks wholly reconciled to the latins not only touching the bishop of Rome's supremacy, but also touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. 
Blondu● Decad. 2. lib. 8.  For this reconciliation (as Blondus reporteth) not only for acknowleadging the Pope's primacy, the Emperor after his death was so used of the schismatical clergy. Now M. jewel if you will needs hold by schismatics, as you claim by their example in the one, so may you in the other, so may you multiply your heresies and schisms, so may you forsake the latins and become Grecians, so may you at length come to Mahomet's law, and be Turks as many of grecians are become at this day. Our Lord send our country a better mind, and give than all grace to beware in time of such perilous teachers, wh● can not defend their doctrine but by heretics and schismatics, by lies and Untruths, by manifest and open corruptio.  
Harding. For the Pope's authority concerning Confirmation of ●e Ordinations and elections off all bishops, many example's might easily be alleged, as the request made to julius by ●he 90. Arrian bishops assembled in Council at Anti●che against Athanasius that he would vouchsafe to consume those that they had chosen in place off Athanasius, Pa●lus, Marcellus and others whom they had condemned and deprived.  
jewel. 
The 454. Untruth. Slanderous.  The 110. Untruth. For the Bishop of Rome confirmed the bishops of his own province: but not all bishops thorough out the world.  
Stapleton. Then M. jewel can name us some bishop, that the Pope confirmed not, and stood yet for a true and Catholic bishop. Peruse his text who list, he shall find that M. jewel nameth not one. And yet must his negative stand for good, because he saith it? D. Harding hath alleged the examples of the Arrian bishops, who though they were heretics, coveted yet to have the Pope's confirmation for the bishops by them placed in the Rome's of Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus and others. He hath alleged the Confirmation of Leo for the bishop of Alexandria, 
Hi●●. trip. li. 4 ca 6.  and of S. Gregory for the bishop of Salona in Illyricum. And yet shall it be sufficient for M. jewel to play still Aristotle's Ass and to deny all? Is it not meet he give an Instance or Exception in some particular, if he will destroy the universal? The order of schools and reason require so. But M. jewel for lack of good arguments, hunteth after his gheasses, and having nothing to bring, would disprove ●hat is brought. You shall hear what he saith.  
jewel. That the bishop of Rome ordered and admitted all the bishops through out the world it hath no possibility, and may easily be reproved.  
Stapleton Why M. jewel? Is the wind at that door? We talk off confirmation of such as are ordered, and you tell us of ordering and admitting, as though D. Harding had said that the Po●e did consecrate all bishops of the wourld with his own ha●●es. For so you bring us in sadly and solemnly the exam●●e of Agapetus the Pope, who about the year of our lord● 40. ordered with his own hands Memna archbishop of C●nstantinople, avouching withal that from the time off Peter the Apostle, the East Church never received any other bishop consecrated by the hands of the Pope, whereas yet Leo almost a hundred years before this Agapetus had confirmed the bishop of Alexandria Proterius, and the bishop of Constantinople Anatoleus. You know this is not to the purpose, and therefore you add to excuse the matter.  
jewel. 
The .455. Untruth. For D. harding seemeth not so to do.  Let not M. Harding find fault that I place the ordering of bishops in stead of their Confirmation, for he himself (.455.) seemeth to make Confirmation and Ordering both one thing. or at least to join them both together. These be his words. Leo would not in any wise Order and Confirm Anatolius.  
Stapleton. What a trifler is this? M. jewel placeth Ordering in stead of Confirmation. Why? Because M. Harding seemeth to make them one. If he do but Seem to do it, why do you it in good earnest, and so solemnly? Yet M. jewel saw that was not true, and therefore he correcteth himself and saith: At the least to join them together. Lo because they are joined together in one sentence, M. jewel will disprove one by the other. Then if I put chalk and cheese together in a sentence, M. jewel will prove I can eat no cheese because I can eat no chalk. Again though D. Harding talk of ordering, yet he speaketh not of ordering with the Popes own hands: such as the example by M. jewel alleged is. Thus he toyeth and trifleth, that he may seem to say somewhat.  
Here followeth an other toy of S. Marks Cloak, out of Liberatus, as much to the matter, as if one would prove that the Mayer of London hath no authority from the king because he is chosen in the gild hall, not in the Court.  
jewel. 
The .456. Untruth. A manifest Corruption off the whole history.  And S. Cyprian writeth unto the bishops of Spain, that Sabinus, whom they had lawfully chosen bishop, should so continue still, yea not withstanding Cornelius being then bishop of Rome, misliked him and would not Confirm him.  
This is utterly untrue, false, and forged. Cornelius was dead when Saint Cyprian wrote this epistle. It was Steven the Pope (who was Pope after Cornelius) which had confirmed Basilides in stead of Sabinus, moved thereto by wrong information. This is the case. Basilides being bishop of Euerite in Spain was deposed for committing idolatry in the time of persecution. Sabinus was orderly and lawfully chosen in his place. Basilides after this sued to Rome to be restored, and by wrong information got the Pope's letters for the recovery of his bishopric. The clergy complained to the bishops of Africa, unto whom at that time appeals were made, as M. jewel before confesseth ex Consilio Telenci. This untrue dealing of Basilides saint Cyprian an African bishop misliked, 
Lib. 1. epist. 4.  and therefore he saith. It can not dissolve the lawful ordering of Sabinus, that Basilides after the detecting of his fa●ltes even by his own confession, going to Rome, hath deceived our follow bishop Steven dwelling far of, and being ignorant off thecase and truth, coveting so to be unlawfully restored to his bishopric, from the which he was lawfully deposed. These do prove that the faults off Basilides are not so much wiped away as increased, adding to his former offences, the crime off deceit and wrong information. For he is not so much to be blamed, which was stolen upon by negligence, as he is to be abhorred that guilefully did steal upon him. Thus far S. Cyprian. Whose words M. jewel, do evidently confirm the Pope's authority in Confirmation of bishops. For seeing the sentence of Pope Steven in the behalf of Basilides, was unjust for no other cause, but because the suggestion was untrue: it followeth that if it had been true, the sentence had been good, and he lawfully restored. Otherwise if the Pope had no authority to restore Basilides, it might have served for a quick exception, to say as no doubt M. jewel (had he been here in S. Cyprians place) would have said: Pope Steven hath no authority in this matter. He hath nought to do here to restore or confirm any bishops. But now the fault is laid not upon the Pope's restoring, but upon Basilides his wrong information. And this Sabinus continued bishop not contrary to the confirmation of Pope Cornelius, but contrary to the restitution of Pope Steven. And yet not because Pope Steven restored Basilides, but because Basilides had miss informed Pope Steven. Thus M. jewel altereth and falsifyeth stories, choppeth and mangleth S. Cyprian, and yet can name no one bishop whom the Pope confirmed not. Now followeth a decree of Anacletus touching the ordering of bishops, and the question is of confirming bishops either already ordered or to be ordered. And here endeth all M. jewels proofs for this matter. But he will disprove the allegations of D. Harding, and so establish his negative proposition, off not all bishops confirmed by the Pope. First he answereth to the place of S. Gregory complaining to Constantia the Empress, that the bishop off Solom was ordered, neither he, 
Gregor. Li. 4. epis. 34.  nor his deputy being made privy unto it, and saying farther, Herein that thing hath been done which never happened in the time of any Princes before our days, and saith.  
jewel. 
The 457. Untruth. He meant of more than his own charge, as M. jewel taketh the Pope's Charge to be.  That Gregory meant this not of all bishops but only of the bishops within his own charge, it is evident by his words. For thus he writeth. My bishops, being Bishops within my cure.  
S. Gregory saith well M. jewel, he calleth his bishops and the bishops of his Cure, not only the bishops of his own province as he was bishop of Rome, but also of his Patriarkship as Illyricum and all the West, whereof he was patriarch, and so are we of England (specially brought to the faith by him) subject thereunto. What have ye now got M. jewel? Will you that England be subject to Rome, as Illyricum was? Or will you break the order of the first 600. years?  
jewel. 
The .458. Untruth For it was more than a general allowance, as shall appear.  Where as it is alleged that the bishop of Rome was required to ratify the election of Flavianus, Anatholius, and of the Arrian bishops, that was meant of a general allowance, such as was common to all bishops, specially to the four principal patriarchs, and not only to the bishop of Rome.  
Stapleton Yes only to the bishop of Rome of necessity, for aught that you M. jewel have showed to the contrary. And for you to say things without proofs, being now taken in so many Untruths, when you seem to prove most, it is no time M. jewel, Your credit is not such. Certainly the Confirmation of the Arrian bishops denied by Pope julius, restored again Athanasius, Paulus and his fellows to their bisshopprickes, and declared thereby the necessity of his authority. This before hath been declared in the matter of Appeals. The Confirmation also of Anatholius and of Proterius was so necessary, that the emperors Theodosius, and Martianus wrote therefore. And to Theodosius, requiring of Leo the Pope the Confirmation of Anatholius in the Patriarkeship of Constantinople, Leo writeth this answer. De ordinatione eius qui Constantinopolitanae caepit ecclesiae praesidere, 
Hist. trip li. 4. ca 6. Leo ad Theodosium Epist. 33.  ●i●il interim in alterutram partem temere rescribendum putavi, non dilectionem negans, sed manifestationem Catholicae veritatis expectant As touching the Ordering of him, which hath begun to govern the Church of Constantinople, I have thought it good as yet to make no certain answer thereunto, not denying unto him my good will, but looking for a declaration of the Catholic Truth. And the reason hereof he specifieth in an other letter where he saith. 
Leo epist. 34. ad diversos  Et ipse Constantinopolitanus Episcopus, & qui eundem consecr●●ant, preter id quod ad ordinationem novi Antistitis pertivebat, nihil nobis de compressis vel abdicatis erroribus indicarunt. Both the bishop himself of Constantinople (Anatholius,) and those which had consecrated him, beside that which appertained to the Ordering of the new bishop, have signified nothing unto us of the wrong opinions in doctrine laid aside or condemned. This was the Cause why the Pope would not out of hand Confirm him, before he knew he was a man of a Catholic and right believe. And therefore in his letters to the Emperor Theodosius, he willeth this Athanasius to read over and peruse certain writings of Cyrilius against the heresy of Nestorius, and his own epistle written to Flavianus against the heresy of Eutyches. Ita sinceram Cummunis fidei Confession●m, absolutissima Subscriptione coram omni Clero & vniu●rsae plebe declaret Apostolicae Sedi, 
Leo. epi. 3●  & universis domini Saecerdotibus & Ecclesi●s publicandam So that he pronounce before all the Clergy and the people, the right Confession of Common belief, with a most exact Subscription, which after might be published to the See Apostolic, and to the Priests and Churches of God. Moreover in the same epistle, he desireth the Emperor thus. Agat clementiae vestrae d●uotissimae fides & c●. Let the most holy faith of your Clemency bring to pass, that the letters of the B. of Constantinople, as it becometh a Catholic and approved bishop to write, be sent unto us, 
* A pert● a●que dil●●c●de pr●testantia.  openly and plainly protesting, that if any man do believe or attach any other thing touching the Incarnation of Christ, our God, 
* Quàm Catholicurum omnium et mea ●●fessi● p●ot●statur.  th●n all Catholics and I do profess, I● do exclude him utterly from his Communion, that so we may rightfully bestow upon him our brotherly charity in Christ. Upon such conditions and no otherwise would that learned and holy Pope Leo Confirm this Anatholius, though the Emperor, the bishop himself, and the other which had consecrated him, had written to the Pope therefore. So necessary and of such importance seemed at that time the Confirmation of the Pope, even for the patriarch himself of Constantinople, as light a matter as M. jewel would have the world to think it. Therefore also this Anatholius having at length under Ma●tianus that Catholic and Zealous Emperor (of whose virtue and Zele Theodosius the second his predecessor lacked much) subscribed to the Catholic faith according to the ple●●ure of the See Apostolic, Leo the Pope confirmeth his doings in an other letter written to the same Anatholius, where he saith these words. Societatem tuae dilectionis amplectimur, & gestorum quae sampsimu● serien, necessarijs (sicut oportuit) munitam Subscriptionibus approbamus. We embrace the fellowship of your, and the whole process of your doings, 
Eco. epist. 40. ad Anatholium.  which we have received, witnessed with the Subscriptions requisite thereunto, as it behoved, we do approve and allow. And that this Approbation off the Pope was in deed the Confirmation off this Anatholius in this bishopric, it appeareth otherwhere. For at what time the General Council of Chalcedon being ended, this Anatholius patriarch of Constantinople by the persuasion of certain had taken upon him the next pre-eminence after the bishop of Rome over other metropolitans, contrary to theorder taken in the first Council of Nice, and contrary to the Pope's legates consent in the Council of Chalcedon; this learned and holy Pope Leo writing to the Emperor Martianus thereof, 
Can. 5.  both dissalloweth that unlawful attempt, and putteth him in mind of the former benefit, saying. Nos v●strae fidei & interuentionis habentes intuitum, 
Leo epist. 54. ad Martianun.  cum secundum su● Consecrationis Authores eius initia our baren●, benigniores circa ipsum quam instiores esse voluimus. We at the contemplation of your promise and intercession (saith Leo the Pope to the Emperor Martianus) though the beginning of his bishopric was out of order, touching those which did consecrate him, used yet more favour and Clemency, than rigour or justice toward him. And a little after in the same letter he saith. Sati● sit, quòd praedicto vestrae pietatis auxilio & mei favoris assensu, Episcopatum tantae urbis obtinuit. Let it suffice that by the help of your goodness, and the Consent of my good will he hath attained to the bishopric of so great a city. And at the same time in an other letter to Pulcheria the Empress thus he writeth. 
Leo epist. 55. add pulcherian.  My brother and fellow bishop Anatholius hath little considered, with what a great benefy● off your Clemancy, and 
* Et 〈◊〉 favourite assensu.  Consent of my good will ●e hath obtained the Bishopric of Constantinople. Thus lo these Emperors Theodosius and Martianus his successor had entreated Pope Leo for Confirming of this Anatholius, (because as Leo in an other place writeth. Ordinationis eius non inculpa●a erant Inicia, the beginning of his Consecrating bishop had been somewhat against Order) the Pope prescribed him both to profess openly the Catholic faith, and to send his Subscription thereunto to Rome, Anatholius did as the Pope had prescribed him. The Pope thereupon confirmed him. And afterward (when he behaved himself ambitiously) did put him in mind off the former favour showed unto him, and what is a Confirmation by way of authority, if this be not? Or when shall the practise off so many hundred years paste be sufficiently proved, if this be not? Again this principal patriarch of the East Church, being so Confirmed by the Pope of Rome, who doubteth but much more all other inferior Bishops, (especially if they had not been ordered according to the Canons) were also necessarily to be confirmed of the Pope? Yet saith M. jewel.  
jewel. 
The 459. Untruth as before.  Neither was the bishop of Rome's admission thought so necessary, a● if ●e only had a voice negative, to make in and to put out whom he lifted, but only of congruity and Consent, that it might appear, there was no bishop in the Church, but was liked and allowed of his brethren.  
Stapleton. How chanced it then M. jewel that you and your fellows bearing yourselves for bishops, have not so much as this congruity and consent, I will not say of the Pope, but of any Christian bishop at all through out all Christendom, neither are liked and allowed of any one of them all, but have taken upon you that office, without any Imposition of hands, without all ecclesiastical authority, without all order of Canons and righ●? I ask not who gave you bishoprics, but who made you bishops. Howbeit it appeareth well M. jewel that this Answer of Consent and congruity was but a shift for the present: But your Doctrine of Luther's teaching, it is a plain discord and disorder, that any bishop or priest should be admitted or approved off others. And therefore you play the bishops yourselves, without any regard or respect to the allowance of any other Christian bishops in the whole world. Verily it appeareth by this example of Anatholius his Confirmation, that it was more than of Consent and congruity, and that it was both necessary, and obtained by long and special suit.  
Yet you will prove it was but of consent and congruity, and of no necessity you say.  
jewel. 
S●z●● li. 3. Ca 8.  For otherwise the bishops of the East wrote thus unto julius. If you will ●llo●e the bishops that we have ordered, we will be at peace and communicate with you? Iff not we will proclaim the contra●y.  
Stapleton. These Arrian bishops have done you much good stead in this Article. It is mere that protestants make much of heretics. And it is well that for lack of Catholic examples, you claim by heretics. Such plea becometh you very well. To the matter we have answered before at large, 
Hist. trip. li. 4. Ca 6  and presently do say thus much. At the first they accused Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus and other Catholic bishops to Pope julius, desiring him to confirm such Arrians as they had placed in their rooms, 
Sozun. li. 3. 〈…〉.  declaring thereby how glad they would have been to have had his Confirmation. After, when they saw they could not speed, they defied the Pope and the Nicene Council both, and maintained openly the Arrian heresy. The like example may be seen in Luther. First he wrote to Pope Leo the x and submitted himself unto him, 
Pontanu● gall li. 1. pag 10 〈◊〉 exposit. Art. ad Leo non. Ann 15. ● ●ib. eodem pa 15.  hoping the● that for the matter off pardous, which only yet he hath called in controversy, that he should be heard and have favour. But a year after seeing by Caietane the Pope's legate that the Pope was ●●holy bend against him, and minded to proceed with him according to the 〈◊〉, than ●o he defied the Pope, as all th● world knoweth. This did the Arrians, and thus did Luther. M. jewel taketh part with both.  
jewel. 
The 460 and .461. Untruth as shall appears. Sozom. li. 7. ca 8.  And the Emperor Gratian made Nectarius bishop of Constantinople contrary to the minds of the most part of the bishops.  
M. jewel overreacheth his author Sozomenus. For he saith not so much as M. jewel reporteth him to say, these are his words. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Emperor understanding that the same Nect●rius (whom before he had pricked, being first named of certain the bishops) was not yet baptized, yet he continued in his mind, many of the bishops again saying it. But after when all the bishops agreed and accorded to the emperors mind, he was baptized, and having yet his baptism cote upon him, by the common voice and consent of the Synod, he was created bishop of Constantinople. In these words we see first, that Nectarius was not bishop at all contrary to the minds of the most part off the bishops, as M. jewel fableth, but by the Common consent and agreement of them all. Then also, that at the first not the most part, as M. jewel maketh Sozomenus to say, but many of the bishops resisted it which yet all afterward agreed, and then by them so agreeing and all their voices, he was made bishop. And this to be so, the bishops themselves in that Council do expressly witness in their letters to Damasus then Pope of Rome. where thus they say. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Theodore●. li. 5. ca 9  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most reverent and most godly Nectarius we have Consecrated bishop, in the general Council with Common agreement. This was not then against their minds as M. jewel fableth and feigneth. Neither was all this done in the presence of Gratian as M. jewel ignorantly babbleth, but as tho●e bishops do report to Damasus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Ibidem.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in the presence of the most godly Emperor Theodosius. But what is all this against the Pope off whose only authority the question is here, not off other bishops? Verily this whole Council of Constantinople certified Damasus the Pope of this their doing, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Leo epi. 34  and of other bishops whom they had at that time also consecrated and desired his consent thereunto, Even as those which consecrated Anatholius certified Pope Leo of the same, and required his Confirmation. And Gratian himself (whom M. jewel allegeth) acknowleadgeth so much the Authority of the Pope, that for a short ending of all controversies, he enacted by a public decree, that all the world should follow that faith and Religion, which had continued from S. Peter the Apostle in the See of Rome, and which Damasus then Pope held and professed. And thus far is M. jewel aided by Gratian.  
Harding. The ecclesiastical rule (as we read in the tripatit story) commandeth that no Council be celebrated and kept, without the advise and the authority of the Pope.  
jewel. 
The 462. Untruth Slanderous.  The iii Untruth. Standing in wilful falsifying of the text.  
Stapleton. Haddit M. jewel Loved the Truth, tendered the instruction of his Reader, and been of that civility and gentle demeanour as his outward behaviour pretendeth, truly he would never thus have dealt. Thou shalt see, gentle Reader, M. jewels proofs in the text, by the which he is moved to charge D. Harding not only with falsifying, but also with wilful falsifying. He saith,  
jewel. 
The .463. Untruth pregnant For D. Hard. hath avouched no such Untruth. The 464 Untruth For Cassiodorus made no such translation but Epiphanius.  Here H. Harding hath avouched two great Untruths. The one in his translation in the english: the other in the allegation of the story. Touching the first Cassiodorus in his latin translation writeth thus. Canonesiubent, extra Romannū nhil decerni pontificem, Socrates in the greek, out of which the latin was taken, writeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The english hereof i● this. It is provided by the Canons, that rules to bind the Church be not made without the consent of the bishop of Rome.  
Let your traslation stand for good M. jewel a while. Let nihil decerni, be truly englished, that no rules be made to bind the Church, without the consent of the Pope. Have you not said as much for the Pope's authority, as the translation of D. Harding saith? What difference is there in effect between the celebrating of a Council, and between making of Canons that bind the Church: whereas such Canons are made only in Council. Unless you be such a Papist, that the Pope alone without a Council, may make Canons, to bind the Church. If we had so largely translated the word decerni, off like you would have crowed mightily. But let us now see the faults which you find in the translation used by D. Harding, supposing he had translated, these words which you allege. For the contrary shall anon appear.  
jewel. 
The 465. Untruth facing and impudent as it shall appear. Stapleton  Wherein M. Harding hath purposely corrupted and falsified altogether both the greek and the latin, not reporting one word that h● found in the Original. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or decernere, he englisheth to keep, or as he termeth it, to celebrata Council.  
Yet that is better translated than did your friend Wolfgrangus Musculus, who turned the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesias consecrare, to consecrate Churches. Howbeit touching D. hardings translation, if we take the whole sentence of the place, we shall see his translation may stand for true and good. The whole place is this. julius rescripsit eis qui fuerant in Antiochia congregati, culpans eos primum de iniurijs literarum, 
Hist. trip. lib. 4· cap. 19  deinde cur se ad Synodum suam non vocassent, canonibus nimirum iubentibus pieter Romanum nihil decerni Pontificem. julius (the Pope) wrote back to the bishops of the East assembled together in Antioch, blaming them first of their injurious letters, them because they called him not to their Council. Whereas the Canons do command, that nothing be determined beside the bishop of Rome's sentence.  
The story mentioneth, that the Pope blamed the bishops of the East which called a Council, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not making him privy thereunto. And what was the reason why the Pope so blamed them? The story saith. Canonibus nimirum iubentibus etc. Because the Canons do command that nothing be determined (how, but in council?) without the advise of the Pope. And is not this as much in effect, as to say. Without the advise of the Pope no Council can be summoned? But we shall see anon that the very translator of the Greek Epiphanius hath translated in an other place this very Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concilia celebrare, to keep and celebrate councils, even as D. harding hath englished it. But now let us proceed with M. jewels corrections.  
jewel. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is praeter sententiam, or as Cassiodorus turns it, extra, he englisheth: without the advise and Autho●ite..  
Stapleton. Not Cassiodorus M. jewel, but Epiphanius turned that Greek, It appeareth you trust not always your own eyes in these matters. But to the purpose. First for praeter and ext●a, you turn it yourself M. jewel, in your own translation without. And why I beseech you, may not D. Harding so turn it? Is there such partialite in the kind heart of M. jewel, that he may translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without, and D. Harding may not translate it so? Then for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: sententia, which D. Harding turneth advise and authority, M. jewel turneth consent, for that I remit it to the Grammarians. I am right ●ure that the dictionaries both greek and latin do confess that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, and sententia in Latin, doth rather, more ofte●, 
The .436. Untruth. joined with mere folly.  and more properly betoken Adu●se and authority, than Consent. Let us proceed.  
No, he would not suffer, no not him in whose quarrel he thus fighteth, to pass without a venwe. ●or where he saw ●im named 〈◊〉 ●●e Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Latin Romanum Pontificem, the Roman bishop, he thought it best to l●aue both the Creke and the Latin, and to call him the Pope.  
Stapleton See what heresy and malice is. Did ever any man, I will not say learned as a divine, but conversant in common grammar, so wrangle, so trifle, so quarrel about nothing. I remember at the last Mart of Franckforde, the brethren of Wittenberg and Lipse had pointed Flaccus Illyricus riding upon a goat and the Devil drawing him in to hell, with this posy about him in verses, Certans de lana caprina. Behold a man that fighteth for goats wool. This picture and posy may from Flaccus Illyricus be most rightly derived to M. jewel. For I beseech you M. jewel what difference is there between the Roman bishop, and the bishop of Rome? And then again between the bishop of Rome and the Pope. Is there any other bishop of Rome, than the Pope? Or is there any other Pope, than the bishop of Rome? Other bishops have sometime been called Popes. But the bishop of Rome always hath been so called. And these certain hundred years none but the bishop of Rome. And is this a wilful falsifying of the text, to call the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. O what a precise fellow M. jewel is? These be the hypocritical Pharisees, which straining a gnat, do devour up camels. fight and quarreling upon terms, do let slip the matter. And yet he concludeth as though he had fought a great battle, and killed God have mercy on his soul.  
jewel. 
The .467 Untruth: For t●ere hath no such falsifing b●ne committed.  And thus to increase the Pope's authority, he had altered the whole place, and not translated one word as he found it.  
Thus saith M. jewel. But thou seest now gentle Reader, that even taking the words both of the Latin and of the greek as he hath alleged them, and withal the whole sentence of the place, which M. jewel thought good utterly to dissemble, there is no falsehood nor Untruth committed, but even that sense and English delivered there which latin and greek both do bear. But now what if M. jewel all this while hath harped upon a wrong string? What if the latin which he allegeth is not the text of that place that D. Harding meaneth? What if the same very greek be so translated of the very same writer in the very same book as D. Harding hath englished it? Hath he not then all this while spun us a fair thread? Truly so is it gentle Reader. But yet I will not therefore charge M. jewel with any Untruth or falsehood. Only as I said in the beginning of this place so I say now, if he had loved in deed the truth, tendered sincerely and uprightly his reader's instruction, and been of that civility and gentle demeanour, as he seemeth to men to be, he would not thus have dealt, he would not in such sort have stormed and quarreled for a little error in the quotation: but, as his learning served him, would soon have espied what text and place of that history it was which D. Harding alleged. For thus it is gentle Reader. The quotation of that place in D. hardings Answer is thus. lib. 4. Cap. 19 It should have been lib. 4. cap. 9 It was the same very book of the tripartit History, and the 19 Chapter in stead of the 9 It was only the error of one iota. Neither could M. jewel Undoubtedly having read and seen so much, be ignorant hereof. But in deed either because he would not be a known of the place to the which he could not answer, or else because he owed but little good will to D. Harding, more careful how to deface his adversary, then how to try the truth, he took the advantage as he found it, and seeing the weapon out of his place, laid loode on, spared no part, but used his force to every word and syllable of it. And that so far, that Romanus Pontifex must not be translated the Pope. This kind of play as in worldly combats it is but the part of a coward, and dastardly wretch, so in Divine matters, to deal after such sort, and that for a man of ripe years, a man of learning and knowledge, a man that beareth himself for a bishop, I know not who would do so, but M. jewel. The place itself which D. Hard. there meaned, in the greek of Socrates is thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. word for word as the Greek by M. jewel alleged. 
Lib. 1. Cap. 8. Trix. Hist. lib. 4. ca 9  The latin of Epiphanius the tranlatour not of Cassiodorus (as M. jewel ignorantly calleth it) is thus. Cum utique regula ecclesiastica iubeat non oportere praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis Concilia celebrari. In english thus much, even as D. Harding hath most truly translated it. The ecclesiastical rule comundeth that no Council be celebrated or kept without the advise and authority of the Pope. The greek of Socrates in this place, and his greek in the other place alleged by M. jewel is all one (as I said) Word for word. The translator Epiphanius in this place of the .9. Chapter, hath translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Concilia celebrari, which is in english Counsels to be kept or celebrated. The same translator in the 19 Chapter quoted by D. Harding hath translated those very words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nihil decerni, nothing determined in Council, for of a Council there he speaketh held in the East beside the bishop of Rome's knowledge. And how is it now true that D. Harding hath forsaken both the Greek and the latin, which hath englished the greek, even with the same words in english, as the translator Epiphanius hath done in latin, as well in the Chapter quoted according to the sense, as in the other chapter meaned according to the very letter.  
Thus far the lewd trifling or M. jewel, hath forced us to trifle touching the translation: wherein though he said before that D. Harding had Wilfully falsified the text, it appeareth now evidently that Master jewel hath Wilfully mocked and abused his Reader. Now to the story itself.  
Harding. The councils holden at Ariminum, at Sileucia, at Sirmium, at Antiochia, and the second time at Ephesus, for that they were not summoned nor approved by the Bishop off Rome, have not been accounted for lawful councils, but as well for that rejected, as for their heretical determinations.  
jewel. 
The .468 Untruth Slanderous.  The .112. Untruth. For in those days the Bishop of Rome had no authority to summon councils.  
Stapleton. What say you then to the examples alleged M. jewel? What ●aye you then to the testimony of the Ecclesiastical story twice repeated by Socrates, and before alleged? Let us repeat the whole words more at large. The ecclesiastical story writeth thus. 
Hist. tripa. lib. 4. ca 9  Egit Eusebius ut in Antiochia Syriae Synodus fieret, sub occasione quidem dedicationis Ecclesiae quam pater Augustorum fabricare coeperat, & post eius obitum Constantius decimo anno eam à fundationis tempore expleverat, in veritate autem ad subversionem atque destructionem Niceni Concilij: Ad quam Synodum convenerunt ex civitatibus diversis episcopi nonaginta. Maximus tamen Hierosolymitanus Macarij Successor non affuit, cogitans quòd ipsi posset subripi, ut in damnationem subscriberet Athanasij. Sed neque julius interfuit maximae Romae praesul, neque in locum suum aliquem destinavit. Cum utique regula Ecclesiastica iubeat, non oportere praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis Concilia celebrari. In English thus. Eusebius (the Arrian intruded bishop of Constantinople) caused a Synod to be held in Antiochia of Syria, under the pretence of dedicating of a Church which Constantin the Great had begun to build, 
Dedication of Chir●hes in the year of our Lord.  and Constantius his son in the tenth year after the first foundation laid had finished, but in deed for the overthrowing and undoing of the Nicene Council. To this Synod there were assembled out of diverse Cities the number of fourscore and ten bishops. Yet Maximus bishop of Jerusalem and successor to Macarius, was not present thereat, fearing that he might be forced by some guile, to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius. No neither julius the Bishop of the greatest Rome, was present, neither h●d sent any legate in his place. Whereas yet the Ecclesiastical Rule doth command, that beside the Authority off the Bishop of● Rome, no Councils ought to be celebrated. Lo M. jewel. A Council holden of fourscore and ten bishops, a council holden in Syria in the East Church, well near twice further from Rome then England, holden in the year of our Lord .346. more than twelve hundred years sense, and in that same Council holden of so many bishops, so far from Rome, so many hundred years sense, the authority of the bishop of Rome, by commandment of an Ecclesiastical rule or Canon, required. If his Authority was required thereunto and that by the virtue of an ecclesiastical Rule or Canon, shall it be yet untrue that the Pope had then authority to summon and approve Counsels? Is not this argument good M. jewel?  
No parliament can be holdem, without the authority of the queens Majesty.  
Ergo the Queens Majesty hath Authority to call a parliament.  
And then is not this as good.  
No Council ought to be celebrated without the authority of ●he bishop of Rome.  
Ergo the bishop off Rome hath Authority to call a Council.  
Unless M. jewel will say that though he have authority to celebrat, yet he hath no authority to Summon it: the summoning being less than the celebrating, and the authority off celebrating without the authority of summoning being none at all. Else what a mockery were this? The Prince hath authority to hold a parliament: but he may not call a parliament except it please the subjects. Such rebels arguments may help M. jewel. Other help or shift here he hath none. Again to put more force to this matter, the history sayeth, that the Ecclesiastical rule or Canon doth command that no Councils be holden without the Authority of the Pope. 
Li. 4. Ca 9 His●or. tripa●ttiae.  I ask M. jewel. Where was this ecclesiastical rule or Canon decreed? There was no general Council before that time but the first Nicene Council. The great Council of Sardica was held certain years after, though in the time of this julius, as it appeareth evidently by the ancient stories, and by the new Chronographies. It could be no Canon of any provincial Council, that should make such a general decree, to bind Syria itself and all the East to the authority of the bishop of Rome. I ask M. jewel then by the way, where was that Canon decreed? Let him scour out his note books, let him examine the Centuries of the Magdeburgenses, let him look to the common approved tomes of the Council, he shall find it no where decreed before that time, but in the Nicene Council, and in the Nicene Council he shall find it decreed, not in the imperfect copies commonly extant, nor in the corrupted authentics alleged of the Africanes against pope Zosimus: But he shall find it in the epistle of julius this same Pope here mentioned, to these same Arrian Bishops of the east. For in that epistle complaining of their schismatical Synod, and blaming them therefore, that neither he nor any in his place was present thereat, he giveth the reason saying, Canonibus quip in Nicena Synodo iubentibus, etc. Seeing the Canons in the Nicene Council do command, that without the authority of the bishop of Rome, councils in any wise ought not to be celebrated, nor bishops be condemned. Now to this testimony of the ecclesiastical story and to the Canon or decree off the Nicene Council (as it now appeareth to be) alleged, what answereth M. jewel? He putteth it for an Untruth, that the Pope had no such authority. But what doth he answer then to the examples alleged by D. Harding, and namely to this testimony of the Ecclesiastical story? Undoubtedly this testimony went even to the heart of M. jewel. And being not able otherwise to answer it, he stormed and took on about the translation off it as you have heard, 
Tom. 1. Conciliorum epist. 1.  but to the story itself what saith he now?  
jewel. Touching the story, he saith. The Arrians Counsels were not allowed, for that they were not Summoned by the Pope.  
Stapleton Yea M. jewel, D. Harding saith so in deed: but that is not all that he saith. He saith, Not summoned, nor approved. Not forcing so much the formal summoning, but the material approving. Well. How prove you the contrary? How prove you that the Arrians Counsels were not disannulled for lack of the Pope's authority? How prove you the Untruth which you have noted. Thus you prove it.  
jewel. 
The 469 Vntruth● it was principally his part so t● do.  Yet, he knoweth right well, it was no part of the Pope's office in those days, to Sumon Councils.  
Must D. hardings knowleadge be M. jewels proof? Answer to the point M. jewel. Answer to the testimony off the ecclesiastical story. Prove the examples alleged to be false. You told the readers before that D. Harding hath committed two Untruths. The one in his translation in the english, the other in the allegation of the Story. The Reader see now that you have mocked him before in the one. And will you mock him so now in the other? Verily you deal herein as weak reasoners, and simple logicioners do in schools. When they are not able to answer to the argument, they will make arguments of their own to the contrary and tell a long tale for the part they defend, and so seem to answer. But the great philosopher Aristotle in his rules off reasoning hath taught you M. jewel, that contra opponere, non est respondere. To make argument of the contrary, is not to answer. Yet let us see what you can bring to the contrary. And the law saith. Retorsione criminum non probatur innocentia. By recharging the Adversary, a man's own innocency is not proved.  
jewel. 
The 470 Untruth for not he alone did so.  ●o● it is evident by the policy and practice of that time, that Constantinus t●e Emperor summoned the Council of Nice.  
Not he alone, nor by his only authority, but as Ruffinus writeth, ex sententia sacerdotum, by the advise and authority off the bishops.  
jewel. 
Ru●fi●us li. 2 Cap. 1. Th● 47● Untruth as s●all appear. Theodor. li 5 Cap. ●  Theodosius the first, the Council of Constantinople.  
The bishops of that Council avouch the contrary. For thus they writ to Damasus the Pope. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We assembled ourselves to Constantinople by the late letters off your honour sent unto the most godly Emperor Theodosius. In these words they confess they were Summoned by the letters off Damasus the Pope to the Council. M. jewel sayeth the Emperor did Summon them, not the Pope. Let the Reader consider, who is more to be credited.  
jewel. Theodosius the second, the Council of Ephesus.  
Stapleton. Euagrius writeth, that whereas Nestorius the heretic would not obey neither Cyrillus the learned bishop of Alexandria nor Celestinus then Pope of Rome, 
lib. 1. ca. 2 hist. scolast.  merito oportuit Theodosij junioris nutu tunc sceptra tenentis Orientalis Imperij, primam in Epheso Synodum congregari etc. It behoved very much that the first Synod of Ephesus should be assembled at the commandment off Theodosius the second, than Emperor off the East. And it followeth that he directed his letters to the bishops, and appointed them a day to meet together. The like writeth Socrates. But what of that? The Emperor than was of best ability to bestow such charges, as in summoning bishops from all parts of the world are requisite. But the question of the Pope's authority standeth not so much in summoning, 
In epist. Ephes. Con. ad Nesior●●●●.  as in ruling, directing, and confirming a Council. In this first Council of Ephesus, Celestinus the Pope was precedent as the Epistle of the whole Ephesine Council professeth, Cyrillus the bishop of Alexandria being his legate there, and Nestorius the heretical bishop of Constantinople was deposed by the Council, 

In epist. Ephes. Con. ad Nesiorium.  
Conc. Chel. Act. 1. Cyrillus epist. 11. & 12. Euagrius li. 1. cap. 2.   juxta dilationem literis praefinitam sanctissimi & reverendissimi consacerdotis nostri Romanae praesulis Ecclesiae Caelestini, according to the delay and time appointed him by the letters of our most holy (saith the Council) and most reverent fellow priest Caelestinus bishop of the Church of Rome. Of the which term appointed by the Pope, Cyrillus also maketh mention, in the letter of excommunication which he sent to Nestorius. And the Pope himself Caelestinus in his letters to Cyrillus writeth thus. Adiuncta tibi sedis nostrae authority, 
Cyrillus Epist. 10. & 11. Caelest inter epist. Cirilli. epist. 12.  & vicis nostra successione & potestate usus, istam exacta cum severitate exequeris sententiam, ut nisi intra decem dies ab huius admonitionis die numeratos pravas suas predicationes scripta confession anathematisaverit, & han● se de Christi & dei nostri generatione fidem retinere affirmaverit, quam & Romana & tuae sanctitatis & universalis regio predicat, conf●ssini sanctitas tua Ecclesiae illius provideat, ut sciat se quou●s modo a nostro esse corpore removendum. Taking unto you the authority of our See, and occupying our place and power, you shall execute (upon Nestorius the heretical patriarch of Constantinople) this sentence exactly and straightly, that Unless within ten days, reakoning from the day that he shall be warned, he do anathematise and accurse by Confession in writing his wicked preaching and doctrine, confessing himself to have the same faith touching the Incarnation of Christ and our God, which the Religion of Rome, of your holiness, and of the Universal Church doth teach, let your holiness out of hand provide for his Church (off Constantinople) and let him know that he is utterly to be cut of from our body. Thus the Pope executed the final sentence in the Council over the patriarch of Constantinople, the whole Council followed the determination of the and Cyrillus the patriarch of Alexandria was the Pope's legate in that behalf. And that learned Father Cyrillus thought the authority of the Pope herein so necessary, that notwithstanding by his learning he knew Nestorius to hold an heretical doctrine, and was as he protesteth in letters to the Pope, Paratus synodicis id literis manifestum reddere ready to prove it by letters of Conference (as the manner than was among bishops) yet he durst not to refrain from communicating with Nestorius or to condemn him, 
Cyrillus Epi. 18.  therefore he wrote thus unto Celestinus the Pope in the same letter. Veruntamen nos ipsi ab illius communione cum fiducia non eximimus, donec ista pietati tuae communicemus. Quapropter quid videatur exprimere dignare, an aliquando debeamus illi communicare, aut in posterum confidenter edicere quod talia & sentienti & docenti nemo nostrum Communicet. Nevertheless we have not been so bold as to withdraw ourselves from his Communion, until we did certify your holiness of these things. Wherefore vouchsafe to signify what is your pleasure, whether we may at any time communicate with him, or else boldly pronounce that from hence forth none of us do communicate with him having such opinion and teaching such things. Thus far Cyrillus. Again whereas the bishops of the East and specially of Macedonia did seem to consent to the wicked heresy of Nestorius, Cyrillus writeth also to the Pope, that his pleasure also might be known to them, how they ought to deal with Nestorius. For thus he writeth immediately after the words which went before. Scopum vero integritatis tuae perspicuum oportebit fieri per litter as etiam religiogis simis qui per Macedoniam sunt episcopis, 
Cryillus Ep. 5. inter Epist. Syn●dal.  & simul omnibus per Orientem. The intent also of your meaning must be known in like manner by your letters to the most holy bishops of Macedonia, and through aught the whole East. Such was the authority of the Pope in that Ephesine Councel●, and to Cyrillus the Head and Precedent of that Council under the Pope, notwithstanding the summoning made by the Emperor. Neither did the Emperor Theodosius in that Council take upon him the approving or determining any matter in the Council, but referreth the whole to the Canons and to the Council. For thus it appeareth in the Imperial letters off Theodosius written unto Cyrillus, where the Emperor saith thus. Sunt exemplaria a nostra Maiestate de praedicta sanctissima Synodo deo dilectis per universas Metropoles Episcopis scripta, 
Inter epist. Crylli, tomo 4. epist. 17.  ut hoc facto & perturbatio quae ex controversijs istis accidit, secundum ecclesiasticos Canones dissoluatur, & quae indecenter committuntur corrigantur, sitque & pietati erga deum, & publicis rebus commoda firmi tudo, nec aliquid quacumque in re ante sanctissimam Synodum & futuram illius communem sententiam, a quoquam separatim innovetur. The copies of our letters written to the godly bishops from our Majesty through out all provinces are extant touching this holy Synod (held at Ephesus) that hereby both the trouble which by these Controversies hath risen may be ended and determined according to the ecclesiastical Canons, and such things as are done amiss, may be corrected: that so both God may duly be served, and the Common wealth furthered, nor any thing of any man privately be altered or changed before the most holy council and the uniform sentence and determination that shall be made by the same. By these it is evident, that the Emperor intermeddled not defining and determining any matter in the Council, or in approving the decrees of the same. And therefore the same holy Council, at what time one of the emperors Nobility, 
joannes C●ntes.  john by name, went about to bring john the patriarch off Antioch with his adherents in to the Council, from whence for taking part with Nestorius the heretic they were excluded: the Council would none of it, not suffering the lay magistrate to intermeddle therewith, but told the same john the emperors high Officer these words. Non opus est Regi ut fidem discat, cum hanc sciat, inque illa baptisatus sit. 
Cyril. epist. 22. tom. 4  The Emperor needeth not to learn his Faith, knowing it well enough already, as in the which he hath been baptized. By which it appeareth that this Theodosius the second though he summoned the bishops and appointed the place where they might conveniently be assembled, yet he approved not, nor confirmed the decrees off the Council in like Authority as Cael●stinus the Bishop of Rome then did whose legate in that Council Cyrillus that learned patriarch of Alexandria was, and who in the same Council was the whole Precedent and chief doer, as hath before been proved, and as the Greeks themselves Marcus of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nice in the eight general Council confessed. 
Co●e. Flor. Sess. 5. Marcus Ephesius. Sess. 8. Bessar. Nicen. Episc.  And as Caelestinus by his Legate and Vicegerent Cirillus directed that Council, appointed the ten days of delay to Nestorius the Bishop off Constantinople, and confirmed the decrees of the same: so Sixtus successor to this Caelestinus in the See Apostolic, confirmed and approved that Council also, of whom Cyrillus thus writeth. 
Cyrillus Epi. 29. Tom. 4.  Scripsit Consona Sanctae Synodo, & omnia illius gesta confirmavit, ac nobiscum consentit. He wrote agreeably to the holy Synod, and confirmed all the doings thereof, and consenteth with us. Of such Confirming and approving Counsels the question now is, not of only summoning bishops to a Council.  
jewel. 
The 472 Untruth.  And Marcianus the Council off Chalcedon.  
Stapleton. Martianus summoned not that Council by his own authority only, but by the authority of Leo also Pope at that time, as it shall anon appear.  
jewel. 
Socra. li. 5 in proaemio  And Socrates in his Story saith thus. Therefore I have comprised the Emperors within my Story, for that sithence they began to be Christened, the state of the Church dependeth of them and the greatest Councils have been kept and be still kept by their advise.  
Stapleton. Who doubteth but that the state of the Church depended much then and doth also now of good Emperors? And that general Councils are kept by their advise? But what is this to the purpose? The emperors help than doth no more exclude the Pope's authority at that time, than the late help and Advise of all Christened Catholic Princes. namely of the most Catholic Emperors, Charles the fift, and Ferdinandus his brother, in and about the late general Council of Trent, doth exclude the Pope's authority at this tyme. But touching the state of the Church depending of the Emperors as Socrates writeth, john Calvin himself will tell you M. jewel that the same taketh not away the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Church. For he speaking of the Ecclesiastical authority to bind and to lose sinners saith thus. Whereas many think that those things endured but for a time when the Magistrates were yet strangers from the profession of our Religion: 
john Calvin in his I●stitutions, lib. 4 ca 11. par. 3  they are deceived in this that they considre not, how great difference and what manner of unlikeness there is of the Ecclesiastical and Civil power. And a little after in the next paragraphe he saith. When Emperors and Magistrates began to profess Christ, the spiritual jurisdiction was not by and by abolished, but only so ordered, that it should diminish nothing of the Civil jurisdiction, or be confounded with it. It seemeth here by Caluins' judgement that the state of the Church depended not so of Emperors after they were Christened, that the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was thereby either abolished or confounded.  
jewel. And the bishops in the Council of Constantinople witness that they were summoned to the Roman Council by Damasus the B. of Rome: But they add withal. By warrant of the emperors letters: 
The .473 Untruth as shall appear. Theodoret. lib. 5. ca 9  Not by any his own authority.  
Stapleton. These last words, not by any his own authority, are avouched of M. jewel only of his own authority, beside the mind and true report of his Author which he hath quoted in the Margin. The whole words of Theodoret or rather of the bishops in the Concel of Constantinople mentioned in Theodoret, whereof M. jewel hath snatched a piece, and in that piece hath said more to, than was in his author, are these. Whereas you (say those bishops to Damasus the Pope) declaring your brotherly love toward us, 
T●eodoret. lib. 5. ca 9  assembling a council in Rome by the pleasure of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have also summoned us as your proper membres, by the letters of the most godly Emperor, to the intent that whereas before we only have abiden the smart (of the persecution under Valens the Arrian) now in the godly Consent of th' Emperors, (Thedosius the first and Gratian) you might not raingne or rejoiced without us, but according to the saying of the apostle we might reign and rejoice with you, 
2. Cor. 1. 2. Tim. 2.  we desired verily, if it had been possible, all of us at once to have left our Churches, and to gratify this profitable request. 
Psal. 54.  For who will give us wings like pigeons (as the Prophet speaketh) that we might fly and rest with you? But seeing by these means our Churches should be left naked, matters being but newly set in order, and because the thing seemed to many impossible, for we had assembled ourselves but lately at Constantinople by the late letters of your honour sent after the Council holden in Aquileia to the most godly Emperor Theodosius etc. For these and many other causes which stayed our coming, we have done yet that was next to be done, both for the effect of this purpose, and for declaration off your love toward us. That is, we have sent our most reverent and holy brethers and fellow priests, Cyriacus, Eusebius and Priscanus bishops, by whom you may know our mind and accord in all things.  
After this they make a profession of their faith in those letters, they declare what was decreed and determined in the Council holden at Constantinople, they signify of Nectarius ordered bishop off Constantinople, off Flavianus made bishop of Antioch in Syria, off Cyrillus made bishop in Hierualem, and such like matters. After all which they desire the assent of Damasus thereto. Now touching this present matter, the bishops here do witness, that to that Council off Rome the Pope called them, by the letters of the Emperor, not as a warrant (they have no such word) but rather as a means, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. chalced. Actione. 3.  For they witness he called them as his proper membres, in like manner truly as the bishops of the great General Council in Chalcedon in their letters to Leo the Pope do agnize, that he was over them as the Head over the Membres, by his legates. whereby it appeareth he called them by his own authority as he being their Head, and they his membres. Therefore also they excused so diligently the cause of their not coming to the Council, therefore they sent him a profession of their faith, and certified him of all other particular things done in that Council, unto the which by his own letters, they confess also they had been lately before summoned. The sending forth of the emperors letters to summon them proveth no more M. jewels negative illation, and not by his own authority, than the late edict off Charles the French king made in Paris in the year of our lord 1562. in the month of january, whereby he commanded the bishops off France to repair to Trent to the General Council there, may infer also, that the same Council was summoned Not by the Pope's own authority, but by the warrant of the French kings letters. For as Damasus the Pope summoned the bishops of the East then to the Roman Council, by the means of the emperors letters: so Pius the fourth summoned the bishops of France to the late Council of Trent by the means off Charles the French king at this present. And as the French kings letters now make no argument against the authority of Pius the fourth over the late Council off Trent: no more did the emperors letters then make any argument against the Pope's authority at that time over the Roman Council. Especially for that, not the Emperor himself, but the Pope by his letters summoned those bishops to the Council.  
jewel. And likewise in th●ir epistle to the Emperor Theodosius, they writ thus. 
The 474 Untruth for no Theo●osius w●s the Emperor. Intera●t● Conc. Const .5.  Your Majesty hath honoured the Church by the letters, wherewith ye summoned us together.  
For this place M. jewel hath quoted unto us the Acts of the fift Council of Constantinople. But in that Council not Theodosius or any of that name was Emperor but justinian, well near a hundred years after both the Theodosiuses. Theodosius the first was Emperor in deed in the first Council of Constantinople, but in all the Acts of that Council, there appeareth not in the volume off the Councils any such letters of the bishops to the Emperor, or any such words as are here alleged any other where. Under Theodosius the second no Council was holden at Constantinople, but only at Ephesus, beside a provincial Council, which Flavianus held there against Eutyches, off the which no Acts are extant. And thus M. jewel must correct his book, or else it will be thought he hath forged the matter himself, except he have some privy store off Councils in his poor library, which all the world beside knoweth not of.  
Touching the place itself where ever it be found, the words import no more than that the Emperor Theodosius summoned the Council, which, as I said before, doth no more disprove the authority off the Pope in Approving and Confirming General Councils (especially in such sort as the Ecclesiastical Canon mentioned by Socrates doth report, saying that without the authority off the bishop off Rome no Council ought to be holden) then doth the late summoning of the French bishops by Charles their king to the General Council off Trent, Disprove or destroy the Sovereign authority of the Bishop off Rome that then was over the General Council then holden and celebrated. For notwithstanding they were summoned by their king, yet were they before summoned and also principally by the authority and will of the Pope that then was Pius the fourth of blessed memory.  
The particular proofs of M. jewel now failing he gathereth general conjectures upon the Pope's weakness in those days of the primitive Church. And for proof hereof he allegeth S. Gregory. Accounting him now in this place for a bishop of Rome of the primitive Church, though he were well near 600. years after Christ, 
pag. 420.  and though he call him in an other place of this Reply, a late and obscure Doctor.  
jewel. Gregorius being bishop of Rome, could not cause the bishop of Salona being but one man to come before him. 
li. 4. ep. 34 The .475 Untruth. For herein is declared his authority no weakness.  Thus he writeth by way of complaint unto the Empress Constantia. He despised me, and set me at nought, and would not come unto me, according to my lords the emperors commandment.  
Gentle Reader if it had liked M. jewel to have given the leave to read the whole place of S. Gregory and not to have nipped of the middle of the sentence, concealing also the whole circumstance both before and after, thou shouldest have seen a very weak proof in this place of the Pope's weakness, and a great argument of his authority. His whole complaint to the Empress Constantia is this. Salonitanae civitatis episcopus etc. 
Gregorius i. 4. ep. 34  The Bishop of Salona hath been Ordered without my knowledge or my deputies. And that thing is done, which never happened in the time of any my predecessors. I having understanding hereof sent forthwith to the offender, which without order had been so ordered, that he should not in any wise presume to say Mass, unless I had first understood by my Lords the Emperors, that they had so commanded him. And this I commanded upon pain of excommunication. But he despising me and setting me at nought 
In audacity quorund● seculari●● hominum.  being upholded by certain secular men, which are said to have great flyses out of his Church, presumeth yet to say Mass, and would not come unto me according to my Lords the emperors commandment. Notwithstanding I obeying to their commandment, have so released that Maximus, so unlawfully made bishop, without my knowledge or my deputies, the fault of his unlavefull ordinatione, so sincerely as if he had been by my authority ordained. But his other offences and bodily mish●fes, which I have understood, of him, as that he was by simony choson, and that he presumed to say Mass being excommunicated, I can not for God's quarrel leave untried. But I do wish and pray our Lord, that none of th●se things be found true in him of the which he is accused, and that without the peril of my soul, his cause may be ended. Now whereas my gracious Soveraines have sent commandment, that before the trial of these matters, I should receive him honourably coming hither, truly it is a heavy case that a man so infamous, and accused of such great crimes, should be honoured before his trial and purgation. And if the questions of the bishops committed to my charge be in the disposition of my good lords the Emperors by the suit of other men, I unhappy man what make I here in this Church? Verily that my own bishops do thus despise me, and do find refuges against me at the hands of secular judges, I thank almighty God, my sins are the cause thereof. Howbeit to be short, this much I signify to your highness. I will tarry for him fo● a time, if he make long delays to come at me, 
In eo E●erce redi●t icti●nem Canonican null● modo Cessabo.  I will not fail to execute upon him extremity of law. This is the whole complaint of holy S. Gregory to the Empress Constantia, and thus it endeth. Such was the Pope's weakness, that notwithstanding he complaineth that he was despised of his own bishop, a bishop of Salone in Illyricum, and upholden by certain secular men which obtained the emperors letters for him to the Pope, notwithstanding the commandment of the Emperor, his weakness was such, that he avouched stoutly, that he will not fail to execute the law upon him. Thus by pieced and patched sentences out of the old Fathers, M. jewel would p●o●● the thing which the whole place considered utterly overthroweth. Thus he deludeth his Reader and maketh him believe he hath store of authorities and doctors, because he can allege apace, and lie apace, and corrupt cleanly. For behold here followeth immediately an other.  
jewel. 
Leo epi. 23 Liberat. Cap. 12. T●e 476 and 477. untruth committed in allegation of Liberatus Stapleton  Therefore Leo finding this weakness in himself, wrote unto the clergy and people of Constantinople, and willed th●m to crave a genial Council at the emperors hand Ex pos●ite ut petitio●i n●strae ●ua plena●i 〈◊〉 Syno●●m ●ostula●us, ●lemen●is●imus Imperator dignetur answer. M●ke your request, that the emperors Majesty would vouchsafe, to grant my humble petition, wherein I besought him to Summon a General Council. Liberatus saith that Leo the Bishop of Rome, with other more bishops of Italy f●ll upon there knees, and desired the Emperor Val●ntinian, and the Emp●resse Eudoxia to appoint a Council, and yet could not obtain it.  
In this alleagation out of Liberatus two Untruths are committed by M. jewel. For neither Leo the Pope s●ll on his knees to the Emperor Valentinian, neither did they desire him to appoint a Council, but to write to Theodosius the Emperor of the East, about it. The wo●des of Liberatus are these: 
Liberat. Cap. 12.  Fortissimus Leo audiens l●gatorum svorum suggestionem & Theodoreti querelas suscipiens, literis Theodosium Impe●atorem & Pulcheriam Augustam rogat, ut fieret intra Italiam g●n●rale Con●lium, ut aboleretur error fidei per violentiam Dioscori factus. Valëtinianum autem imperatorem & Eudoxiam vxor●m cius, ad memoriam beati Petri, cum multis episcoporum genibus provolutis, Romanus Pontifex deprecatus est Imperatorem ut Theodosium hortaretur, aliam fieri Synodum, ad retractandum illa quae a Dioscoro male acta atque perpetrata fuerant in damnationem Flaviani Episcopi, & orthodoxrun depositione. Leo the stout hearing the repotte of his legates, and receiving the complaints of Theodoretus (the learned B. of Cyrus) desireth by his letters Theodosius the Emperor and Pulcheria the Empress, that a general Council might be held within Italy, to undo the heresy which Dioscorus by violence had wrought: Also the Bishop of Rome beseeched Valentiniam the Emperor and Eudoxia his wife, at Saint Peter's Church, with many of the bishops kneeling on their knees, to require the Emperor Theodosius, that an other Synod might be called to revoke those things which Dioscorus (the heretic bishop of Alexandria) had concluded in the condemnation of Flavianus the Catholic bishop of Constantinople, and in the deposing of the Catholics. Thus far the words of Liberatus. Where he sayeth not that Leo the Pope fell on his knees to the Emperor as Master jewel fableth, but that Leo entreated him with many of the bishops falling on their knees. Again they entreat not Valentinian to appoint a Council, but to exhort and persuade the Emperor Theodosius thereunto. Thus Master jewel followeth his natural humour ever to report things untruely, and to make worse of the matter, than his Author will suffer him. Touching the matter itself, we shall anon speak at large. Let us first consider the remnant of M. jewels gheasses against the authority of the Pope, in approving summoning and authorizing Councils most clearly witnessed by the ecclesiastical Story.  
jewel. afterward he desired the Emperor Theodosius that he would call a Council to some place in Italy. And the Emperor contrary to the bishop of Rome's petition, 
Leo epis. 11  appointed it to be holden at Ephesus.  
Stapleton. 
Leo. epi. 51 43. et 46 Non iudidicio sed la trocinio. Liberatus ●●p. 12.  So did the same Emperor Theodosius maintain the heretic Dioscorus in that conspiracy (not Council) at Ephesus (as Leo calleth it) and upholded (as Liberatus writeth) the condemnation of Flavianus: Theodo●etus and other Catholic bishops not suffering (as the Pope required) an other Council to be called for the dissolution thereof. Thus M. jewel is driven again to take part with heretics, and such as uphold them.  
jewel. 
Leo epist. 13.50.44.58. The 478 Untruth For there was no such decay of the pope's universal power.  After that he made the same request to the Emperor Martianus. And the Emperor likewise contrary to the bishops humble request commanded the Council to be kept at Chalcedon. And whereas Leo had besought both these Emperors that it might please them to take a longer day for the Council, for that the time of the Summon seemed very short, and the ways were laid with emyes, and therefore dangerous for the Bishops to travail, yet would never of them alter one day, but charged each man to appear as they were summoned. And Leo the B. of Rome withal his universal power, was feign to yield.  
Stapleton. No no M. jewel: The universal power of the bishop of Rome stood upright notwihstandinge all that you have brought to the contrary. And for trial hereof, your own authorities M. jewel, the Epistles of Leo shall evidently speak. For as they report in deed that by the advise of the Emperor contrary to the Pope's request the general Council was held at Chalcedon and not in Italy, so they also expressly report that all was done, without prejudice of the Pope's authority therein. The words of Leo the bishop of Rome written to the whole Synod of Chalcedon are these. 
Leo epist. 47.  I had wished in deed most dearly beloved that all the Priests of God did agree in one profession off the Catholic faith, and that none would so be corrupted either by favour and by fear of the secular power, that he should thereby serve from the truth: But because many things are often done of the which we after repent, and the Mercy of God passeth the offences of men, who forbeareth to revenge that we may have leisure to amend, the religious advise of our most gracious Emperor is to be embraced, moving your holy brotherhood to meat and assemble yourselves together for the overthrowing of Satan's sleights, and reforming of unite in the Church, 
* Beatissimi Petri Apostoli sedis iure atque honor● se●uat●.  the honour and right off the See of S. Peter the most blessed Apostle preserved, inviting also us by his letters to assist in person at this reverent Council, which yet neither the necessity of this time, neither any custom could permit. Howbeit in our brethren Paschasius and Lucentius Bishops, Bon●facius and Basilius Priests, your brotherhood hath me Precedent in your Synod: Neither may you think me absent, which in my legates am Present, and in the setting forth of the Catholic faith, 
〈◊〉 i● v●st●a ●●●te●nitis ex istinet p●aesidere.  have not this long time been absent. Thus far Leo. Whose whole words as they lie in his Epistle I have alleged, to the intent you may see M. jewel that notwithstanding Martianus had appointed the Council to be kept at Chalcedon, yet it was done Apostolicae sedis iure atque honore seruato, without any prejudice to the right and honour of the Apostolic See. Which right the ecclesiastical history confesseth to be, 
Li 4. Ca 9 Hist●r triparti●ae.  that without it no Council could be helden or celebrated, and that long before this Leo in the time of julius. And therefore Leo giveth his express consent to the emperors calling and hastening unto the Council (which he would gladly for a time have differed) writing unto him in these words. I required in deed of your most glorious clemency, 
Leo ad Mar●i●●●̄ Augustiepi●t. 43.  that the Synod which you thought necessary to be assembled, as we also required, for restoring of unite in the East Church, might be for a time differed, that the minds of men being more settled, those bishops which for fear off enemies are stayed at home, might also meet. But because you do zealously prefer gods cause, before the affairs off men, and are wisely and godly persuaded that it shall further the wealth of your empire to have the priests off God in unite, and the gospel preached without dissension, Ego etiam vestris dispositionibus non renitor. I also do not witstande your order herein, wis●ing that the Catholic faith, which can possibly be but one, may be strengthened in the hearts of all men. Thus far Pope Leo to the Emperor Martianus, wherein we see he was not forced of the Emperor against his will, but b● good considerations was moved to consent and agree to that, which the Emperor of zeloe and piety thought best to be done. But because M. jewel imagineth here a general shipwreck of the Pope's universal power, for so he calleth the authority off Christ's chief vicar over all Christian men, I will give to the Reader a note or two out of the epistles of Leo that may sufficiently declare the supreme authority of the Pope over that general Council of Chalcedon. First that his legates were precedent thereat, it is evident by the words of Leo before alleged out of his letters to the whole Council, 
Leo. epist. 47.  and also by the tenor of his legates subscription to the Council, as we have before alleged. secondarily because in that Council, many bishops of the East, which had yielded before to Dioscorus the heretic, were partly to be reconciled, partl●e punished, the ordering hereof was all in the hands of the Pope's legates, as Leo in his letters both to the Emperor Martinus and to Anatholius bishop of Constantinople doth express. His words to the Emperor are these. To the intent that they which will amend, may neither be overmuch delayed, neither over easily and without discretion remitted: 
Leo epist. 44. ad Martianun. Augustum  it is enjoined to the legates of the See Apostolic, taking also with them the advise of the bishop off Constantinople, to see that neither the contagious parties be admitted, nor the whole and sound repelled. In his letters to Anatholius bishop of Constantinople appointing him his legate with Lucentius and Basilius whom he sent at that time to the council, he writeth thus. 
Leo epist. 46. ad Anatholium.  As touching those which have offended more grievously in this matter (he meaneth in the schismatical conventicle of Ephesus) and therefore chal●ng●d to themselves a superior place in that unhappy Synod, oppressing by their ambitious pride the humility of th●ir simple b●ethern: if perhaps th●y do repent and do confess their own wickedness, if th●ir satisfaction do s●me according, let it be reserved to s●me riper Councils of th● 〈◊〉 Apostolic, to th'intent that all things b●ing ●●i●d and examined, judgement may be given what ought to b● determined upon their confessions. And a little after. If it b●n defull in some c●s● to have a fa●d●r deliberation, l●t me besped●ly in●o●●●d thereof, t●at the con●i●ion and cas● b●ing ●xamin●d, we may d●●●rmine, what is to be d●ne. T●us fa●re Leo. In all which words we s●e M. Iowell a supreme authority of the Pope and his legates over the whole Council, in pardoning and punishing such bishops as had before offended, notwithstanding the place and time of the Council was after the emperors mind and pleasure. Thirdly whereas Martianus being Emperor of the East, required the Council to be helden in the East parts, not in Italy, that all that was done by the authority and consent off the Pope, not by any such rigorous force and absolute commandment of the Emperor as M. jewel untruly reporteth, it shall appear by these letters of the Emperor himself unto Leo. Martianus at the beginning of his Empire writeth to Pope lo in this sort. Being called by the providence of almighty God to the empire, 
Tom. 1. Conc. in proleg. Chalcedon. Syn.  etc. We for the reverent and Catholic religion of the Christian faith, by the help and maintenance whereof, we do trust the power of our Empire to be strengthened, have thought good in the beginning hereof, to speak by our letters to your holiness, which occupieth the principalite in the bishopric charge of gods faith, 
Tuam sanctitatem principatum in episcopatu divinae fidei possidentem. per celebrandam synodum te authore.  provoking and requiring your holiness to remember the good estate off our Empire in your prayers, and that also for the extirping of all wicked error, we may fully purpose and determine, to restore unite and concord among all Catholic bishops, By celebrating a Council, by your authority. Thus much the Emperor Martianus to Leo the Pope for the calling and summoning of a Council. Wherein you see, how far he is from any forcible mean, and how little he useth therein his own authority, but referreth the matter expressly to the Pope, whom also he confesseth to bear the principality and chiefty in the bishoply office, that is, among all bishops. Now touching the place where the Council might be holden, in an other letter to the Pope, thus the Emperor Martianus writeth. 
Alia epsi: Martiani Ibidem.  It remaineth, that if it shall please your holiness to come in to these parts, and to celebrat the Council: you will vachesafe so te do. Truly herein your holiness shall satisfy our desire, and shall determine profitably for the furtherance of godly religion. But if this be burdenous for you to come hither, let your holiness signify the same unto us by your letters, to the intent we may direct our commandment to all the East, in to Thracia and to Illyricum to summon all the most holy bishops into some determinat place, where it shall please us, 
Sicut sanctitas tua secundum ecclesiasticas regulas dis●niuerit.  that they may so by their disposition set such things as concern the furtherance of Christian Religion and the Catholic faith, even as your holiness shall determine according to Ecclesiastical Canons. In like manner the Empress Pulcheria writeth to Leo the Pope about the calling and summoning off this Council off Chalcedon: Propterea tua reverentia quocunque modo prospexit, 
Epist. Palcherie ad Leonem ibid.  significare dignetur. Therefore let your Reverentnes voutchesafe to signify unto us, after what manner so ever it shall think good, that we may summon the bishops to a Council, ut de episcopis qui ante hoc segregati sunt, sicut fides & Christiana pietas exigit, te authore deceruant, to determine by your authority of such bishops as have before this time been separated, even as the faith and Christian piety requireth. Thus much wrote the Emperors to Leo, and thus wrote Leo to them. Here was no decay or shipwreck of the Pope's universal power, but here was a most clear and evident demonstration of his supreme authority in approving, and ordering a general Council, practised by his legates, confessed by the Emperors, and not dissembled by learned Leo himself. More yet of the Pope's authority in this general Council of Chalcedon, we shall have occasion hereafter to speak in the 118. Untruth. 
In Epist. ad Episcopos Dardaniae. The 474 Untruth slanderous against Pope Gelasius.  Now let us see what M. jewel will conclude of all the allegations out of Liberatus and the epistles of Leo. He saith.  
Hereby we may soon conjecture, how true it is, either that Pope Gelasius writeth, That only the Apostolic See of Rome decreed by her authority, that the Council should be summoned, or else that M. harding would have us believe, That all Councils were summoned by the Pope.  
Hereby we may soon conjecture how truly and faithfully M. jewel meaned when he offered to yield and subscribe to any old father or Council of the first 600. years, which now so little esteemeth the authority of Gelasius a learned Father of less than 500 years after Christ, that he taketh upon him to comptrolle him and to prove him a liar. So that now the question is no more between us whether the learned Fathers do write so, teach so, or witness so: but whether their writings, their doctrine, their witnesses be true, or no. And whom shall we believe, if we believe not such ancient writers, so many hundred years before us, so long taken for learned Fathers, bishops of Christ's Church in their life time? Shall we leave Gelasius, and believe jewel? This impudent arrogancy must needs proceed of Lucifer the first creature that sinned in pride. If this be admitted, what do we profess a Christian faith any longer? What do we talk of Fathers and Councils, if when Fathers and Councils are brought, we must yet prove farther that the Fathers speak truly, and that the Councils say well. This is not to be tried by the Fathers: but it is to try and examine the Fathers themselves. And then they are not our Fathers, but our scholars. This is the right way to paganism and infidelity, and to the utter abolishment off all Christianite. To such issue these new altercations have brought matters. if we be Christian men, let us abhor these enormites': If we be no Christian men, what talk we of Christ and the gospel? To this digression the impudence off M. jewel hath forced me. Touching the saying of Gelasius, which M. jewel malapertly comptrolleth, first Gelasius talketh not of summoning but of holding and making the Council. His words are. Authoritate, 
In epist. ad ●pisc. Dar●●. T●m. 1. Con.  ut Synodus Ghalcedonensis fieret, sola decernit. Only the See Apostolic by her Authority decreed, that the Council of Chalcedon should be holden. And this to be true, it appeareth evidently by the letters of the Emperor Martianus and the Empress Pulcheria to Leo the Pope, and by the letters of Leo to the Council itself, as we have before declared. Again this Gelasius wrote those words little more than fifty years after the Council of Chalcedon was finished. It is credible he knew as well what was done there, as M. jewel doth. Thirdly what doth all this conclude against the allegations of D. harding? What maketh it against the express and most manifest testimony of the Ecclesiastical Story witnessing expressly, that without the authority of the bishop of Rome no Counsels could be held, and that by the virtue of the Ecclesiastical Canon. What is all this to the Councils of the Arrians, disproved and disannulled for lack of the bishop of Rome's authority? Forsooth M. jewel concludeth that Hereby it may appear that all councils were summoned by the Pope. D. harding said not so much. But that all Councils must be approved by the Pope, even as the ecclesiastical history witnesseth. And that certain namely those of the Arrians were not accounted for lawful Councils, because they were not summoned nor approved by the Pope. Against this Master jewel hath nothing concluded, unless he will reason thus.  
The Pope Leo approved and summoned the Council of Chalcedon, and granted to the emperors pleasure touching the place.  
Ergo, the Pope hath no authority to summon or approve Concell●s.  
Or thus.  
Gelasius said truly that only by the authority of the Pop● th● council of Chalcedon was held.  
Ergo the Pope hath not Authority to approve the Councils.  
These are weak reasons, God wotteth. And yet so he must reason, if of the premises he will conclude to the purpose. And if it be not to the purpose what maketh it here?  
M. jewel goeth forth and multiplieth Untruths. He sayeth.  
jewel. 
The 480 Untruth extreme facing.  Neither was the Bishop of Rome, nor his legate in his absence ever more the Precedent or Chief of the Council.  
Stapleton. The contrary before hath expressly been showed out off the Epistles of Leo, and the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon touching the Council there kept. And out of the Epistles of Cyrillus touching the Council of Ephesus.  
jewel. 
The 481. manifest Untruth.  For it is known that in the Counell of Nice Eustathius the Patriarch of Antioch was the Precedent, and the Bishop off Rome's legates Vitus and Vincentius sat in the fourth Room beneath.  
Stapleton. This is known to be a manifest Untruth. Osius, Vitus and Vincentius were the first of all that subscribed, according to the Order mentioned in the volumes of the Councils. 
Tom. 1. pagin. 257.   
jewel. 
The .482 Untruth For not he alone. Actor. 1.  In the Council of Constantinople Menna was the chief.  
This Menna was not the precedent of the Council alone. Sabinus, Epiphanius, Asterius, Leo, Rusticus bishops, Theophanes and Pelagius Deacons, sent from the Apostolic See of Rome, considebant illi coadiutores, did sit in the like and equal authority with him, as the Acts of the Council do expressly declare.  
jewel. 
Dist. 26. Sexta sy●odus. The .483 Untruth For this osius was the pope's legate..  In the Council of Sardica, Osius and Corduba in Spain.  
This Osius of Corduba, with Vincentius of Capua, januarius of Beneventum, and Calepodius of Naples bishops, were the legates of the See Apostolic, and were all precedents in that Council.  
jewel. In the Council of Aquileia, S. Ambrose of Milan,  
In the Council of Carthage, Aurelius the B. there.  
Stapleton. These were provincial Councils, not general. And yet both the Africanes sent the Acts of their councils to Innocentius to be confirmed as appeareth in S. Augustin, and Celestinus witnesseth that they were confirmed by the See Apostolic. As for the Council of Aquileia we have it not perfectly set forth, as by the end of it is easy to be seem. 

August epist. 90. Caelest. pp. in epist gall. cap. 3. Tom. 1. Concil.  
The 404 Untruth for only by way of authority.    
In the Council of Chalcedon Leo the bishop off Rome's Legate had chief room, but by way of entreaty only, and by the emperors special grant, and not of dew right, or universal authority.  
Behold the lying impudency of M. jewel. before he said. Neither was the Bishop of Rome, nor his legate in his absence, ●uermore the precedent or Chief of the Council. Now he confesseth that in the Council of Chalcedon Leo the bishop of Rome's legate had the chief Room. Wherein he proveth himself in the former to have made a manifest lie. But now he spiceth the matter with an other Notorious and lewd lie only avouched, but no way proved, that the Pope's Legate had there th● Chief Rome by way of entreaty only etc. It should have behoved M. jewel to have proved this. verily he hath been so often taken in lying, that for any credit to be given him in such matters, he may now stand for banckeroute. Certainly Leo notwithstanding Martianus summoned the Council of Chalcedon, yet he saith that was done Apostolicae Sedis iure atque honore seruato, 
Leo epist. 47.  the Right and the honour off the Apostolic See reserved. And in the same Council it is openly avouched without any Contradiction, notwithstanding M. jewels Nay here, 
Concil. Chalcedon Actio. 11.  that Missi Apostolici semper in Synodis prius loqui & confirmare soliti sunt, the legates of the See Apostolic were wont in Counsels always to speak first, and to confirm first. This lo was the right of the See Apostolic, this was not by way of Entreaty. And therefore the Emperor himself Martianus writing to Pope Leo about the assembling of this council affirmeth eius sanctitatem principatum in episcopatu divinae fidei possidere that his holiness occupieth the 
Tom. 1. Con. in prolegon. Chalced, Conc.  Chiefty or principal room in the bishoply charge of God's faith, and inviteth him therefore ad celebrandam Synodum eo Authore, that a council may be celebrated by his authority. In like manner writeth Pulcheria the Empress unto Leo the Pope of Rome about the same time as it hath before been declared. Here is an authority confessed not only of Leo the Pope, and the Council, but of the Emperor himself in gowerning and directing the Council. Here is no entreaty or special grant made or required, M. jewel would feign it were so, but with all his shifts he shall never be all to prove it so.  
But, saith M. Harding, the bishop of Rome allowed all Counsels. This is not denied.  
If it be not denied, why have you so long strived against it?  
So did others, not only patriarchs or bishops but also Civil princes.  
Gentle Reader. Eye M. jewel well. Unless thou take good heed, he will steal from thee. He saith not only the bishop of Rome allowed all Councils, but also (saith M. Iowell) So did others. Then he must prove that other allowed all Counsels, and that with such and like authority, as the Pope did. Now the authority of the Pope was such, that without it (as the ecclesiastical story reporteth) No councils might be held. Then M. jewel must prove that not only patriarchs and other bishops, but also Civil Princes, had such authority in approving Councils, that without their authority they mignt not be held. Such authority M. jewel must prove. Else, his so did others, will not follow. Now let us see how he proveth it.  
In the Council of Chalcedon it is written thus. Theodosius the Emperor of godly memory hath confirmed all things by a general law●, that were determined in the universal Council. So likewise the Emperor Martianus. by the holy edict of our Maiest● we confirm that Reverend Council. So Eusebius witnesseth that the Emperperour Constantius confirmed the determinations of the Council of Nice. So the bishops in the Council of Constantinople wrote to the Emperor Theodosius. we desire by your favour by your highness letters to ratify and confirm the decree of the Council.  
You might have added here M. jewel, so in the late general Council of Trent, the Orators of the Emperor and every Catholic prince there present, confirmed the decrees of the Council. And yet neither the other examples nor this late example is any thing like to the confirming of the bishop of Rome, The bishop of Rome's confirmation is so necessary that without it, (as the Canons do command) no Council can be kept. No bishop nor prince hath such a confirmation. As for example, Theodosius which you alleged first, confirmed the Council of Ephesus. And yet that Council was after and ever sense accounted for no lawful Council because the legates of Pope Leo were not admitted, but by violence of the heretic dioscorus injured. 
Vide act. 1. Concil. Chal.  Therefore as all your other examples do prove a godly zeal in these good Catholic Emperors, and do show how necessary it is that the secular power do aid the spiritual, yet no Emperor or lay prince ever confirmed any Council, as the judge and precedent hereof. To be short. The bishop of Rome hath in all Councils a negative voice, as without whose, none can be approved: for so doth the Canon, mentioned in the Ecclesiastical history, expressly witness. Such a negative voice, such an absolute and supreme authority in approving Councils no Prince nor patriarch hath, but only the bishop of Rome successor to Peter chief of the Apostles.  
For why? The Emperor or lay Prince, as he hath no absolute authority to judge in matter of ●he faith, so hath he none to approve Councils, when matters of the faith only are handled. Therefore Gregory Nazianzen being a bishop, calleth the Emperor, Ouem sui gregis, a sheep of his flock. 
In orat. ad subditos. Epist. ●2. ad 〈…〉. lib 4. cap. 11. para. 4  So S. Ambrose saith. What is more honourable for the Emperor, then to be called the son of the Church, for a good Emperor is within the Church, not above the Church. So john Calvin in his Institions directly against M. jewel, and according to the mind of S. Ambrose saith. The Magistrate if he be godly, will not exempt himself from the common subjection of the Children of God. Wherefore it is not the least part to submit himself to the Church judging by the word of God. And therefore Constantin the great in the first Council of Nice, as Sozomenus recordeth, entered in to the council house after all the bissops, 
lib. ●. cap. 5. hist. tripar.  had his seat and place beneath them all, neither would sit Down before the bishops had commanded him. And in that Council, he protested plainly that it was not his part to judge over the bishops. Whose example the virtuous Emperor Martianus expressly following in the Council of Chalcedon, in his oration made to the whole Synod speaketh thus. Nos ad confirmandam fidem, non ad ostendendam virtutem exemplo Constantini Imperatoris adesse Synodo cogitavimus. 
Chalcedon Conc. Act. 1.  We after the example of Constantine have thought good to be present at this Council, not to show our power therein, but to confirm the faith. 
Ibidem.  And a little after he saith, Our endeavour must be to apply the people to the one and right Church, being first persuaded the true and holy doctrine. And therefore let your Re●uerentnesse expound and declare the true and Catholic faith according to the doctrine of the Fathers, in all unite and concord. Thus this virtuous Martianus following the steps of Constantinus, though he confirmed the faith of the council, yet he judged not in the Council, he committed the trial and judgement of doctrine to the bishops, he made his people to obey it. Thus did Emperors and Civil princes behave themselves in Councils, such as were Catholics, and defenders of the Catholic faith. This helpeth not hindereth, this strengtheneth not overthroweth the spiritual jurisdiction. 
Vide inter epist. Ciril li tom. 4. epist. 17.  And thus much of the Civil princes, and namely of Martianus and Constantinus alleged by M. jewel. As for Theodosius the second, whom he allegeth also, in the first Council of Ephesus holden under him, he behaved himself as other Catholic Emperors did before him, submitting all matters to the determination of the Council, as in Cyrillus above alleged it appeareth. But afterward as he took upon him more then becomed his estate: so he maintained the blasphemous heresy of Eutyches, 
Vide Chalced. Concil. Act. 1.  so he defended the schismatical synod of Dioscorus the heretic, so he consented to the death of the blessed bishop of Constantinople Flavianus called therefore a Martyr in the Chalcedon Council, so most injuriously in that conventicle of Ephesus, he would not suffer Flavianus, Eusebius, and other Catholic bishops which had deposed the heretic Eutyches, to sit in judgement, but to stand as parties accused, to answer to the wicked heretic Eutyches. 
Act. 11. Leo epist. 24. & 26 & 26. Leo. epist. 44.  But as that conventicle of Ephesus which that Emperor so much maintained, was and is to this day condemned for heretical, as Martianus sucessour to this Theodosius the second brought to Constantinople the relics of the Martyr Flavianus, as the heresy of Eutyches by that Emperor defended was by the general Council of Chalcedon, and by the consent of Christendom hitherto, condemned and detested: so the doings of that Emperor are not prejudicial to the Catholic faith, either in not admitting the Pope's legates at the conventicle of Ephesus, either in not suffering a Council to be called for redress of the Eutychian heresy at the Pope's most earnest suit and request. Finally as M. jewel findeth most help for his cause, in heretics and maintainers off heretics, in Arrians, Donatists and Eutychians: so the cause which the Catholics defend, is evidently furthered by the behaviour and doings of Catholic bishops, Athanasius, Chrisostom, Theodoretus and other, and by Catholic Princes Constantinus and Martianus.  
jewel. Now seeing it is lawful for Princes and Civil governors to confirm the decrees and determinations of Counsels, how can we doubt, but it was lawful for bishops also to do the same? Therefore Theodoretus saith. The Conclusions of the Council of Nice were sent abroad to the other bishops that were away.  
So were the Conclusions of the Councils of Trent sent to all Catholic Churches in Europe. This is but mere deluding and mocking of the Reader.  
jewel. 
Lib. 2.  And Victorius saith. That many thousands of bishops allowed that same Council and agreed unto it.  
Stapleton And we say that infinite Millions of bishops have allowed not only the Council of Nice, but all general Councils beside, yea we say farther that whosoever alloweth them not, is an heretic. What will this trifler conclude of all this?  
jewel. Above all others, the Subscription and Confirmation of the four principal patriarchs was specially required, for that both their charge and also their Countenance and Credit was greater than others. among wh●ch four, the bishop of Rome was ever the first, and therefore his consent seemed to bear greatest weight.  
Stapleton In these words M. jewel hath fully concluded against himself. For he saith. The bishop of Rome was ever the first of the four patriarchs. Of the which grant of M. jewel thus I reason. The patriarchs had in their jurisdiction all the Church of Christ, and all bishops of the Church. But the bishop of Rome was ever the first of all the Prtriarches.  
Ergo, the bishop of Rome was ever the first of all other bishops. The first proposition is evident by the distribution of provinces made in the Nicene Council, and by the confession of M. jewel out of the letter of Damasus to the bishops of Illyricum, 
Can. 5.  who were as M. jewel proveth a part of the bishop of Rome's province, being in orb Romano. in the Roman jurisdiction as M. jewel turneth it. 
pag. 283.  And so was all the west part of the world: France, Spain, Africa, Britanny and Italy, as well as Illyricum. The second proposition is here by M. jewel in express words confessed and avouched. Then the Conclusion followeth directly. Then if the Pope hath ever been first of all bishops, he hath ever had the primacy over all bishops. If ever, then now at this day also. If over all bishops, then over all the rest of the Church also. For as the Prince being head of the Nobles is head over all the communaultye: so the bishop of Rome being first of all patriarchs, is first of all bishops, and first of all Christian people underneath bishops. Being first, he hath the Primacy, he is Head and chief of all. 
Craft in placing of witnesses.  This is so true that M. jewel not only avouchet it, but also proveth it. For this it followeth in his text.  
jewel. 

The 487. Vnthruthe For it was a full confirmation Leo. epist. 60.   And for that cause the Emperor Martianus required Leo the bishop of Rome to writ unto the Council of Chalcedon, and to declare that he gave ●is Consent to the Rule off Faith that there was determined.  
Stapleton. 
Quibus, quae illic fidei sunt regula definita, firmarem.  For that cause, saith M. jewel, that is, because he was ever the first of the four patriarchs, the Bishop of Rome is required of the Emperor, to give his consent saith Master jewel. to confirm, say the words of Leo his Epistle to the council of Chalcedon. Lo the Pope is so truly the first of all other, that in respect of that primacy, he is required to confirm the determinations of all other. The other patriarchs had before subscribed to the decrees of the Council. Maximus of Antioch, Iwenalis' of Jerusalem, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Yet the bishop of Rome must send his letters to confirm their doings. God's name be blessed. The force of Truth is such, that even at the mouth of the enemy thereof it breaketh out. This I trow, helpeth M. jewel but a little. Let us see how he proceedeth.  
jewel. 
The 488. Untruth. For not in like sort.  And in like sort the Emperor Theodosius required all bishops to subscribe and to give their assent to the Council off Nice.  
Stapleton. Not in like sort M: jewel. The Council of Nice was ended and fully confirmed more than a hundred years before this Theodosius. And he required them to assent to the Council of Nice, not so much for a confirmation thereof, as for the better establishing of the Eutychian heresy, which because it was not expressly condemned or moved in that Council of Nice, this Emperor and Dioscorus the chief doer in this matter, cried for a confirmation of the Council of Nice, and commanded other matters not there discussed, to be at the judgement of that conventicle of Ephesus guided and ruled all by the force and violence of Dioscorus the heretic. All which he did to disannul thereby the Synod of Flavianus held a little before in Constantinople against the heresy off Eutyches. For this cause the Emperor Theodosius so long after the Nicene Council caused the bishops a fresh to subscribe to the same. This was not like to the Confirmation off the Chalcedon Council required by the Emperor Martianus of Leo the bishop of Rome. For his Confirmation was of such force and Authority that for want of that, the Conventicle of Ephesus under Dioscorus the heretic, was utterly disannulled and condemned. Therefore in the Council off Chalcedon, Lucentius one of the Pope's legates chargeth expressly Dioscorus, 
Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 1. non long a principio.  quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine Authoritate sedis Apostolicae, quod nunquam rite factum est nec fieri licuit. That he presumed to hold a Council (at Ephesus) without the authority of the See Apostolic, which at no time was ever done, or lawful to do. Therefore also when the Acts off this Ephesine conventicle were read in the Council of Chalcedon, being mentioned in the reading thereof that julianus Leo the Pope's legate was present thereat, (for so the heretic Dioscorus feigned then for the better cloaking of his wicked attempts in restoring the heretic Eutyches) the bishops of the East cried out: Eiectus est, Nullus suscepit nomen Leonis. The pope's legate was thrust out. The name of Leo was not admitted. And a little after, when it was read out of the Acts of the Ephesine conventicle, that the letters of Pope Leo directed thither were read in the Synod, the bishops of the East cried out again. Non est nobis lecta epistola, si enim lecta fuisset per omnia, & contineretur per omnia. The Pope's letters were not read unto us For if they had been readen thoroughly, they had been thoroughly kept. And hereupon Dioscorus the patriarch of Aleandria, Iwenalis' the patriarch of Jerusalem, and Thalassius the archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, were particularly examined in the Council of Chalcedon, why and upon what occasion they had not read, the Pope's letters sent unto them. And every one excused themselves thereof as well as they could. Of such force and of such Authority was the bishop of Rome above other bishops and patriarchs in those days.  
jewel. For it is a rule agreeable unto law a reason. The thing that toucheth all, aught to be allowed by all.  
Stapleton It ought to be allowed of all, by way of obedience, not by way of authority. Else by this Rule of M. jewels, no superior can make a law to bind the inferior, without the authority of his Inferior. The Prince shall not rule his subject, nor the bishop his clergy, unless the subject confirm the law of the Prince, and the clergy allow the decree of the bishop. By such Rules rebels and heretics do claim against the Magistrate and Pastor.  
jewel. 
The 489 Vnthruthe for this, Therefore, followeth not as it appeareth in the true interpretation of M. jewels Regula juris.  And therefore julius being bishop of Rome pronounced that all the Acts of the Council of Antioch were void and of no force, for that he being one of the four patriarchs was not called thither as well as others.  
Lo now at length M. jewel having hitherto shot at rovers and ranged at riot, aimeth now at the Mark itself, and draweth to the matter. This example of this Council of Antioch was alleged of D. harding for the Pope's authority, as being void and of no force, because neither the Pope was at it, neither his legate. This story M. jewel said before that D. Harding had untruly alleged. And taking upon him to prove it, suddenly he turned away from the matter proposed, and hath talked at Random as you have heard. First how Emperors have summoned Councils. Then the Pope's weakness in that behalf. After, that no legate off the Pope was ever precedent in any Council. Fourth by that all princes and bishops allowed Counsels as well as the Pope. And now last of all that patriarchs had most to do in this matter. And that because off Regula juris, a rule off the law which he alleged. And this having long sought where and how to pitch, having dazed his Reader, with a long variable tale from the purpose, suddenly he concludeth: And therefore julius: etc. But what? Is therefore the story untruly alleged of D. Harding? Is it therefore proved that the Pope had no authority to Summon Councils? Is this M. jewels Reason? The Confirmation of the patriarchs is specially required to allow Counsels, The Pope is the first off the foure-Patriarches, Ergo the Pope hath no authority to summon Councils? Or. Ergo D. Harding hath falsified the story off the Council off Antioch? For this is the Conclusion which M. jewel took upon him to prove. This is the untruth, which he noted. And yet now, M. jewel after long roning and wandering utterly forgetting what he should do and where about he went, telleth us that the story is true, and all is well alleged: but an other fault there is. And that is this. In deed the Council off Antioch was void and of no force for lack of the Pope's authority, M. jewel confesseth. But that was, not as he was Pope, but as he was one of the patriarchs. This is a pretty convayance in deed. But M. jewel should prove it to be so. Verily he hath such a custom to lie, that his bare word hath but small credit. Then let us consider his proofs. He saith.  
jewel. For it appeareth by Eusebius, Theodoretus, and others, that to all general Councils all primates and metropolitans were specially summoned.  
Stapleton. This is true that all were summoned. But is it true, that though any one were absent, the whole Council should be void as it is proved of the bishop of Rome? This is not true, and this M. jewel is never able to prove. Again this Council off Antioch was no general Council, but a Council off the East Church only. thirdly this difference and prerogative off the bishop off Rome in approving Councils above other patriaches appeareth most evidently in this very example off the Council off Antioch. For not only julius the bishop off Rome, but Maximus the bishop off Jerusalem, another off the patriarchs, was absent from that Council of Antioch. And yet the ecclesiastical history making mention thereof, giveth no token of disannulling the Council by reason of his absence, as undoubtedly it would, had his presence been of such necessity. But the same history making mention of the bishop of Rome's absence, giveth out forthwith a reason, why the Council should be void saying. Whereas yet the Ecclesiastical rule doth Command, that without the bishop of Rome's authority no councils ought to be held. Such an Ecclesiastical rule disallowing Councils for want of the authority of any other Patriache or metropolitan can not be showed. And therefore the second Council at Ephesus was disannulled, because the Pope's legate was repelled, though all the patriarchs beside were present. Dioscorus of Alexandria, Iwenalis' of Jerusalem, Flavianus of Constantinople, And thus though all the patriarchs were summoned, yet the absence of no one patriarch, but of the bishop of Rome only, did disannul any Council. This is the thing that proveth a superiority in the bishop of Rome above all other bishops. This M. jewel should have disproved. But with all that he had said, he is not able. Wherefore his Conclusion following must needs hang very loosely, where he saith.  
jewel. 
The 490 Untruth for this is not t●e Canon.  And this seemeth to be the Canon that julius alleged, that it was not lawful to make rules and orders for the whole Church, without the Consent of the bishop of Rome. being one of the fourte chief patriarchs and having in his province one great portion of the Church.  
All this long talk is driven but to a guess. This seemeth to be the Canon, saith M. jewel. But how little it seemeth, or can seem to be so, it hath already sufficiently been declared. And therefore M. jewel perceiving very well that all which hither to hath been said, proveth nothing, spitting in his hands and taking better holdefast, goeth to the matter yet once again, and laboureth it more. So deeply did this ancient Canon mentioned by the ecclesiastical history lie at his heart That no Councils ought to be held without the authority of the bishop of Rome. Therefore he cometh in with a rearward and reneweth the battle, with these words.  
jewel. 
jewel. Leo. epist. 61. Leo. epist. 59 The 491. Untruth false translation.  And therefore Leo Bishop of Rome testifieth his consent to the Council of Chalcedon with these words. Your brotherhood knoweth that I have embraced with my whole heart the determination of that holy council. And likewise unto the Emperor Martianus he writeth thus. Constitutionious Synodalibus libens adieci sententiam meam unto these constitutions of the Council, I have gladly given my assent.  
Stapleton. It was more than an assent M. jewel. You have not truly translated the words, Thus Leo saith. Unto the constitutions of the Council, which have pleased me both for the confirmation of the Catholic faith, and for the condemnation of the heretics, I have added my verdict, And this verdict or sentence was not a bare consent but a Confirmation of the Council. For so he writeth expressly in his letters sent at the same time and about the same matter to Pulcheria the Empress, saying. Whereas the most godly Emperor hath willed me to direct my letters to the bishops present at the Council of Chalcedon, quibus qu●e illic de fidei sunt regula definita firmarem, 
Leo. epist. 69.  by the which I should confirm such things as have been there defined touching the Rule of faith, I have gladly fulfilled his request. And he addeth the reason immediately: Ne fallax cuiusquam simulatio sententiam meam haberi vellet incertam. To th'intent that no man by any deceitful dissembling may take my sentence or verdict herein uncertain. Thus though the whole Council had before most certainly confirmed the Catholic doctrine, against the heretic Eutiches, yet the cofirmation of the bishop of Rome in express letters was required, and that to th'end no man might any more dissemble or wrangle, as though the See Apostolic had not plainly uttered her mind therein. Yet saith M. jewel.  
jewel. 
The 492 Untruth for not ratified by him and others.  The end hereof was not to show his Sovereign powers above all others, but that the decrees so ratified by him and others, might be had in more estimation  
Stapleton. Why say you M. jewel, by him and others? No man's ratification or Confirmation was required but the Popes. And that was expressly required, though his legates were present at the Council, and hath subscribed, judged and determined in his name. Why add you then and others? The place which you allege for this purpose speaketh only of the Bishop of Rome and not of Others. For thus you follow the matter.  
jewel. So Leo himself writeth. 
Le● epist. 59  Your highness thinketh this evil will the rather be suppressed, iff it be declared throughout all Churches, the decides of the h●ly Council be well liked of the Apostolic See.  
Stapleton Here is a ratification of the Apostolic See, but not off Others. And therefore this in deed doth show a Sovereign power of the See Apostolic above all other. Else the whole Council having now determined the matter, the six hundred and thirty bishops having subscribed, the Pope's legates also present in that Council, having defined and judged with the rest, what needed there now a Solemn Ratification by the Pope's own letters to Confirm the Council, but in deed a Sovereign power of the See Apostolic above all other particular Bishops, Therefore the Emperor was persuaded, that the heresy would the rather be suppressed, if all the Churches of Christendom might understand that the determination of the Council had been allowed, ratified and Confirmed, by the express letters of the See Apostolic. Therefore Rome especially is called both of the Grecians and of the Latins, Sedes Apostolica. 
Athanasius ad solit. vitam agentes. Aug. contra. 2. ep. Pela. ca 2. & 3. lib. 2.  The Apostolic See. As where especially the Apostolic prerogative hath succeeded. Therefore also the African bishops having discussed the heresy of Pelagius and Caelestinus, sent their definition therein to the See Apostolic, to be confirmed. So was the Nicene Council confirmed of Silvester, and the Council of Constantinople of Damasus, the Council of Ephesus of Caelestinus, as it is in the text off D. Harding noted. To the which authorities M. jewel never cometh near by a great way, but rangeth about other matters not replying to D. Harding (as the title of his book protesteth) but apposing of his own objections, such as h●m liketh. And therefore he falleth again to opposing and saith.  
jewel. 
The 493 Untruth. For that will neu●r be proved  But that the whole ratification of Councell● depended not only of the bishop of Rome, but also of others no less the● of him, it is easy to be proved.  
Being a matter so easy, I trust you will prove it substantially. Let us see.  
jewel. 
The 494 Untruth false translation. S●zom. lib. 6. cap. 23·  The bishop in the Roman counsel in the time of Damasus condemned the Council of the Arians h●lden at Ariminum for that, neither the Bishop of Rome, whose mind should h●ue been known before all others, nor Vincentius, nor any of the rest had agreed unto it.  
Stapleton. There is no place passeth M. jewels hands without a venewe, when he allegeth authorities against the Bishop off Rome. For as before he turned Consent, for Confirmation or authority, and shifted in Others with the Bishop of Rome, more than his allegation told him: so here the greatest and ●hiefe part of the sentence he hath quite altered, wherein th● bishop of Rome's authority did most evidently appear. For these words, whose mind should have been known before all others (whereby Master jewel, would link the consent of others with the pope's mind, as though both were of like and equal authority) those words I say are falsified and wrested from the true original both of the Greek and of the Latin. The greek both of Sozomenus (whom M. jewel allegeth) and of Theodoretus is thus. 
Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 22.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The latin translation of that place readeth thus. Cuius ante omnia decebat eos expectare decretum. Whose decree they ought to have tarried for, before all things. These be the words of the letters recorded both by Sozomenus, and by Theodoretus.. These words declare that the Council of A●iminum was condemned not so much because Vincentius, and the other were absent, as because they had not looked for the Bishop of Rome's decree, and that before all things, before they had concluded any thing. This was the cause why the Council of Ariminum was condemned. This lack of the Pope's decree to confirm their doings, though they were in that Council four hundred bishops (as Nicephorus recordeth) utterly disannulled that Council, 
Niceph. lib. 9 Cap. 9  made it void and of no force. And thus far is M. jewel furthered by his own allegation. Let us consider the remnant.  
jewel. Likewise the Council of Carthage and of Aphrica, 
The .495 Untruth facing and impudent  are allowed for good, notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome would not allow them.  
Stapleton. 
Lib●o. 2. ad Boni●a●●ū. Cap. 4.  Yet Saint. Augustine saith of Innocentius the Pope that De utroque Concilio & de Carthaginensi scilicet & Milenitano scripta susceperat, he received letters from both these Councils, to wit, both from the Council of Carthage, and from the Council of Milenit in Aphrica. And Caelestinus the first saith. 
Epist 1 ad Episc. Gal. Cap. 3.  Aphricanorum Conciliorum Sententias suas fecerunt Apostolici Antistites cum probarent. The Bishops of the See Apostolic by approving the determinations of the African Councils, made them their own. And among the Epistler of saint Augustine, the epistles of both those Councils to the Pope, for Confirmation of those Councils, and the Answers of the Pope Innocentius, to both those Councils, 
Int●r epist. A●gust. Epist. 90.91.92.93 95.96.  are yet extant and to be read of all that are learned to no small evidence of the Pope's authority over the hishoppes of Africa at that time, what so ever Master jewel hath gathered and surmised to the contrary. Yea the very Canon that Master jewel and his fellows do make so much of, of not appealing out of afric to Rome, 
It is t●e xvij. Canon.  is in this very Council of Millenitum. Whereby we may understand, that Appeals were not restrained without the Consent of the Bishop off Rome, and also that (this notwithstanding) they did not at that time utterly abandonne the bishop of Rome's authority (as Master jewel imagineth) but in all other things, that only excepted, acknoledged and confessed the same. For so they referred the Acts of their Council to Pope Innocentius. 
August. epist. 92. Epist. 95.  So they wrote again to the same Pope, moving him to cite Pelagius the heretic out of the East to Rome. So saint Augustine confesseth that Innocentius the Pope had by his Apostolical authority confirmed their decrees. 
Epist. 106  
Epist. 105.  So after that Council and that decree made, Rome was called by Saint Augustine Caput Orbis, the head of the World. So to Bonifacius the Pope after that decree and Council of Millenitum, Saint Augustin writing, 
Contra Epist. Pelagij lib. 1. cap. 1  confesseth him in Epis●opatus fastigio celfiore fastìgio specula pastoralis praeeminere. To have a pre-eminence in the bishoply office, as sitting in a higher room of the pastoral watch tower. 

Cap. 3. & 4.  
Sanctus Papa Zosimus   Last of all so both by Innocentius and by his successor Holy Pope Zosimus, as S. Augustin calleth him, Caelestinus and Pelagius were condemned at the request and suit of the African bishops. And thus far is M. jewel helped by the African Counsels.  
jewel. 
Leo epist. 13. The 496. facing Untruth as shall appear.  The Council of Chalcedon decreed that the bishop of Constantinople should be in Dignity next unto the bishop of Rome, and should consecrate the metropolitans of Asia, Pontus, and Thracia. This decree Leo the Bishop of Rome very much misliked and would never assent unto it, yet that notwithstanding it is in force and continueth still.  
If it continue still (as you say M. jewel) then of likelihood the Turk who beareth now all the Rule at Constantinople, and hath done these many years, keepeth that primacy over Asia, Pontus and Thracia, which Leo would not grant. Thus you care not how absurdly you speak, so you may exaggerate the matter, to deface the Pope's primacy. But how will you prove either that Leo never assented unto itt, 
Concil. C●al. Act. 16.  as we grant he did not at the beginning, nor his legate would for him, as it appeareth at large in the Chalcedon Council, or that it continued so afterward notwithstanding the Pope's contradiction. You would prove it out off Liberatus: whom immediately you allege, saying.  
jewel. Liberatus thereof writeth thus. Cum Anatholius Consenti●nte Concilio primatum obtinuisset, legati vero Romani piscopi contradicerent, 
Liberatus cap. 13. T●e 497 Untruth notable, by n●pping quite aw●ye the la●t word of Liberatus Q●●●a●m●do.  a judicibus & episcopis omnibus illa contradictio suscepta non est, Et licet sedes Apostolica nunc vs●ue contradicat, quod a Synodo firmatum est, Imperatoris patrocini● permanet. When Anatholius by the Consent off the Council had obtained the Primacy, and the bishop of Rome's legates stood against it, their gaynesaying of the judges and bishops there was not received. And albeit the Apostolic See of Rome even hitherto stand against it, yet the decree of the Council by the maintenance off the Emperor standeth still in force.  
This is yet the homlyest shift of all. O.M. jewel. will you ever be like yourself? Will you never deal truly? Is the Pope's authority so well estableshed by the consent off all writers of the first 600. years, that you can allege nothing against it, but either you must alter the words of the Author with false translation, or add more in your english than you find in the Author, or last of all (as you do now) cut clean away some word of the Author? For in this sentence of Liberatus why leave you out the yery last word of all both in your latin and in your english? Where is the word Quodammodo, after a certain sort? Why did you clean cut away that word? It imported somewhat of like, and tempered the whole matter so far, that M. jewel thought good utterly to leave it out. For Liberatus saith that the same preferrment of the bishop of Constantinople before the other patriarchs, as to be second in authority after the bishop of Rome, though the see Apostolic did until that day resist it, did yet continue still to his time, Imperatoris patrocinio quodammodo, by the maintenance of the Emperor after a sort. 
Cap. 13.  As much to say. Not by just right and competent authority, in quiet and lawful possession, but as a matter born out by the Emperor it contimued so after a sort. And no marvel, iff the Emperors shortly after the Council of Chalcedon remaining only in the East, and the Empire of the West decaying, through the invasions of the Goths, Huns and Wandalles, even from the time off this Pope Leo until the Empire off justinian under whom this Liberatus lived, no marvel I say if all that time the superiority of Constantinople, where the Emperor of the East for the most part continued, was by the Emperor maintained and boren out after a sort, contrary to the pleasure of the See Apostolic. Which herein defended only the Council of Nice (as the Pope's legates in Chalcedon openly protested) where the next prerogative to the Pope of Rome was granted to the patriarch of Alexandria, and challenged nothing to the prerogative of his own See, which notwithstanding the second place given to Constantinople, remained always the Chief and head See. For it was pronounced in the Council of Chalcedon, when the prerogative of Constantinople, was granted: Omnem quidem primatum, & honorem precipuum, scundum Canon's, antiquae Romae deo Amantissimo Archiepiscopo conseruari. That all primacy and the Chief honour was reserved to the well-beloved of God the archbishop of old Rome, according to the Canons. This therefore was a matter born out by the Emperor, not allowed by ecclesiastical authority. This was not only contrary to the pleasure of the See Apostolic, but also to the decrees of the Nicene Council, which the See Apostolic herein defended not only then by Leo, but afterward by Gelasius, and other bishops of Rome. Again to this prerogative of the bishop of Constantinople, 
Conc. tòm. 1. In tomo de vinculo Anathema 'tis.  not only the legates of the bishop of Rome resisted, but also more than four hundred bishops then present. For whereas there were at that Council (as it appeareth in the Acts thereof) six hundred and thirty bishops, which subscribed to the other decrees of the Council, yet to this decree of the prerogative of Constantinople, there subscribed but two hundred and twelve, scant the third part of the Council. 
Vide Act. Con. Chal. 3. & 16.  Therefore neither it is put at this present among the decrees of the Council, neither was it allowed long after for any Ecclesiastical decree, but only (as Liberatus saith) boren out and maintained by the Emperor after a sort. And therefore in the sixth general Council held many years after in Constantinople, petition was made, 
Dist. 22. Renovamtes  that the See of Constantinople might be the second in privileges after Rome, and before the See of Alexandria. This petition made in that general Council more than two hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon had not needed, 
Conc. Chal. An. 450. Con 6. An. 681.  if in all that time that privilege of Constantinople had been in quiet and lawful possession. But because it was but maintained after a sort by the Emperors, as Liberatus sayeth, who continuing all that time in Constantinople, would magnify their own City, because also it was not by the just authority of the bishop of Rome granted, therefore it was then again required, and requested to be in that Council enacted an confirmed. Hereunto might be added the sentence and verdict of learned Leo against Anatholius for so usurping that prerogative to the injury of the bishops of Alexandria and of Antioch, the schismatical presumption of Acacius, and Anthemius, both Entychian● shortly after that time, 

Leo ep 53.54. & 55.  
Liberatus ca 17. & 21.  
Lib. 7. cap. 194. jewel.   and last of all the Antichristian presumption of john of Constantinople in S. Gregoríes' time, coveting to be the universal bishop of all the Church. But these few may suffice to declare how little this allegat on of Liberatus helpeth M. jewel. Especially if it had plaesed him to have given thee leave (gentle Reader) to peruse his whole words, and had not so pared quite of the last word of the place. Quodammodo, after a sort, which in deed being added did utterly mar all M. jewels matter: and therefore was by him featly in deed and rhetorically dissembled, but guilefully and wickedly depraved. By such evil dealing an evil cause must be maintained, what say you farther M. jewel.  
jewel. 
The 498 Untruth. For S. Hierom. sa●eing was of no matters of faith. Ad Euagrium.  Which thing seemeth agreeable to that S Hierom writeth. The authority of the world is greater than the authority of one City. Meaning thereby the City of ●ome.  
This saying of S. Hierom agreeth very little with a decree maintained by the Emperor against the See apostolic. S. Hierom in that place talketh not of authority in doctrine and in matters of faith, common to all the Church, but of certain particular customs proper to any particular Church. Wherein the custom of one City no not of Rome itself can prescribe against the general custom of the world. And therefore S. Gregory informing S. Augustin our Apostle touching certain his demands, and namely of the variable customs of divers Churches under one faith, doth not prescribe unto him precisely the custom of the City of Rome to be followed in all things, but It pleaseth (saith he) that if you have found any thing (be it either in the Church off Rome, 
Beda lib. 1. cap. 27.  off France, or of any other) which may more please God, that ye choose the same. And plant it in the English Church Yet in matters concerning faith both the same Gregory acknowledged, and practised a Supremacy of the Church of Rome over all other Churches, as hath before been declared, and S. Hieron himself, writing to Damasus a bishop of Rome for his sentence in a matter of doctrine, saith expressly unto him. Qui tecum non colligit, spargit. He that gathered not with thee, he scattereth. And again. Extra hanc domum quicunque agnum comederit, 
Greg. li. 4 epist. 2. In epist. ad Damas. Tom. 2·  prophanus est: Whosoever eateth the lamb without this house (he meaneth the Church of Rome) he is an alienat. And thus S. Hierom agreeth well with Liberatus, not for M. jewel, but directly against M. jewel. Such profess M. jewel hath picked out to weaken the authority of the See Apostolic the Church of Rome. Now he Concludeth.  
jewel. 
The 499 Untruth. containing a number of untruths.  It may appear by that I have thus shortly touched, that the Bishop of Rome had authority neither to Summon Councils, or to be precedent and chief in Councils, nor to ratify and confirm the decrees of Councils, more than any of the four patriarchs. And last of all that Councils may stand in force although the Pope mislike them and allow them not.  
Stapleton It may appear by that I have answered and farther said to the Contrary, that the bishop of Rome had authority within the first 600. years, partly to Summon Councils, always to be precedent and chief in all general councils, and especially to ratify and Confirm the decrees of Councils. Last of all that no Council could stand in force, if the Pope misliked it and allowed it not.  
It may appear also by that I have said, that the Canon reported in the ecclesiastical History, is truly and faithfully reported of Socrates, truly and faithfully alleged of D. Harding, untruly and shamefully impugned of M. jewel. The Canon I say which commandeth that no Council be held without the authority of the bishop of Rome.  
It may appear again how many notorious, impudent and outrageous Untruths M. jewel hath committed in this paragraphe of the Confirmation of Councils, as being not able to allege one true authority against it.  
jewel. 
The 500· Untruth. For it will well follow as it shall now appear.  I think it will be hard hereof to gather M. Harding'S Conclusion. That the bishop of Rome was Head of the Universal Church.  
I doubt not but it will be easy to gather his Conclusion. The Pope was precedent in all general councils, confirmed and ratified all general Councils, and by his authority hath disproved Councils. But in general Councils the Universal Church is represented, as in a parliament the whole Realm, Ergo the Bishop of Rome was at that time the Head of the Universal Church. And thus M. jewel must subscribe. Except he will always quarrel and wrangle about terms, the thing being clear and evident.  
Harding. Athanasius of Alexandria, and Paulus of Constantinople deprived and thrust out of their bishoprics by the Violence of the Arrians, assisted with the Emperor Constantius, appealed to Rome to julius the Pope and bishop there, and by his authority were restored to their rooms again. So Leo assoiled Flavianus the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated by Dioscorus.  
jewel. 
The .501. Untruth slanderous.  The 113. Untruth. For the Emperor restored Athanasius and not the Pope.  
Stapleton. This Untruth may soon be justified, not only by the express words of the Ecclesiastical story, but even by the very confession of M. jewel himself in his text. For having, in many and idle words far from the purpose, used a long flourish before the fight, and as a stream blown up with wind and weather, carrieth with it much froth and filth by the very rage and drift of the water: 
jewel. pag. 6.  so M. jewel in this place, fulowing and wandering over the banks with Copia Verborum, by the Violence and force of his talk, carrying a great deal off error and Untruth along before him, at the length cometh in with a But. And saith.  
jewel. 
The .502. untruth. contrary to him self.  But Master harding will say. The words be plain that julius restored Athanasius. It is true, and not denied.  
Stapleton. Lo what a good will is. It is true, saith M. jewel and not denied. If it be true, that julius restored Athanasius, the same julius being the Pope of Rome, why have you put it for an Untruth, saying: The Emperor restored Athanasius and not th● Pope. If it be not denied, why do you deny it yourself? Can it be true, and yet not true? Do you deny it, and yet is it not denied? Then with you, true and not true, denying and not denying, yea and nay is all one.  
jewel. 
The .503. Untruth For this is not the only meaning.  But the meaning of these words is, that julius pronounced him clear in that he was accused off, and therefore worthy to be restored.  
Lo once again how M. jewel striveth and winceth against the Truth. He said even now. That it was true that julius the Pope restored Athanasius. Now he sayeth that he pronounced him clear, and therefore worthy to be restored. The like impudent shift these men do use in the express words off holy Scripture: For where Christ saith to his Ministers here in earth. Whatsoever you forgive in earth. it shall be forgiven in heaven. These men say, that God's Minister the Priest doth not forgive sins, but declareth them to be forgiven, and pronounceth the party penitent to be clear, and worthy to be forgiven. By which meaning Christ should have said. Whatsoever you forgive in earth, it is already forgiven in heaven. And not. It shall be forgiven in heaven. But now. The Sentence of Peter goeth before the Sentence of heaven saith S. Ambrose. And that which the Priest assoileth in earth, 
Contr. Novatia. li. 1.  shall be assoiled in heaven. If the Priest did but declare him to be assoiled, then should he be before already assoiled. In like manner M. jewel here in this place. Whereas the Ecclesiastical History saith expressly that julius the Pope restored Athanasius: M. jewel saith, he pronounced him worthy to be restored. But how will M. jewel prove that julius the Pope pronounced Athanasius worthy to b● restored. How will he prove that to be the meaning of the Ecclesiastical history? He saith.  
jewel. 
The 504. Untruth For D. harding well know●th the contrary.  For it is certain, and M. Harding well knoweth that Athanasius upon Pope julius letters was not restored.  
Be bold and blush not Master jewel. You that are so impudent against the express words of the Ecclesiastical history, you may be bold upon D. harding, and upon his knowledge. But it is certain and M. jewel himself well knoweth that Athanasius upon Pope julius letters was restored. The words of the Ecclesiastical History are these. The Bishop of Rome (julius) hearing the Accusations and complaints of Athanasius and Paulus, 
Hist. ●ripa. li. 4. ca 15  and finding them all to agree to the Nicene Council, received them into Communion, as having charge of them all, through the dignity and prerogative of his own See, and restored to every one their Churches. 
Curam omnium gerens propter propiae Sedis dignitatem.  And a little after. Athanasius and Paulus sending the Pope's letters to the Bishops of the East, recovered each one again their bishoprics. Lo the ecclesiastical history saith, that the Pope restored to Athanasius and Paulus their Churches, and that, as having charge of them all through the dignity and prerogative of his own See. And again the history saith. That Athanasius and Paulus recovered their bishoprics by sending to their adversaries the bishops of the East, the Pope's letters. Thus it is certain, and thus M. jewel himself knoweth that Athanasius was restored upon Pope julius letters. In like manner Theododoretus being deprived in the Ephesine Council, repenting and appealing afterward, 
Conci. Chal●edon. Act. 1.  was by Leo the Pope of Rome restored, and in the Conc●ll of Chalcedon was admitted by virtue of that restitution to sit among the other bishops. For the judges there said. Let the Reverend B. Theodoret entre and be a part of the Synod, because Leo the most holy B. of Rome, hath restored unto him his bishopric, and the Emperor hath decreed that he shall be present. And so he was placed among the other bishops, and allowed for a Catholic bishop, by the acclamation of the East bishops and consent off the Council, notwitstandinge the cries and acclamations of the Aegyption bishops, cleaving to Dioscorus the Eutychian their patriarch to the contrary. Thus was Theodoretus, thus was Athanasius and Paulus two patriarchs of the East, the one of Constantinople, the other of Alexandria restored by the letters of the Pope to their bishoprics, not only pronounced worthy to be restored. Yet M. jewel will prove it by a like. He saith.  
jewel. 
The 405 Untruth in falsifiing the text of Cassiodorus. Lib. 4. cap. 34.  The like is also written of others. Cassiodorus saith. Maximus also restored unto Athanasius, both his Communion, and also his dignity. That is to sa●e, pronounced him worthy to be restored. For Maximus was not the bishop of Rome.  
Stapleton. 
Histo. trip. lib. 4. cap. 34.  First you have printed these words, That is to say etc. in a distinct letter, as if they were the words off Cassiodorus. Now they are your gloze, beside the text of Cassiodorus. And so you have once deceived your Reader. Again Cassiodorus doth not use the word Restituit restore, but praebebat did give. Such an impossible thing it is for M. jewel to keep truly the words of his Author. Again this restoring of dignity and Communion of Maximus to Athanasius, was not like to the Restoring of Pope julius. The Pope by his letters and by the prerogative of his own See (sayeth the History) Restored Athanasius. Athanasius being after expelled again and by the Council of Sardica restored: before he came to his own bishopric of Alexandria, passed by Jerusalem, where this Maximus was bishop, who also before had consented to his deposition. This Maximus giving his Consent to the determination of the Council communicated with Athanasius and by that Communicating declared to all the province under him, that Athanasius was restored. This therefore was no like matter to the Restitution made by Pope julius. Again a similitude, or likeness proveth not, but serveth only to declare, to exemplify, to make more clear and open a matter off itself obscure and dark. And thus the meaning off M. jewel contrary to the express words off the History remaineth unproved. Thus also the Untruth is clearly justified. Which is: That Pope julius Restored Athanasius and Paulus to their bishoprics.  
Now to touch somewhat that which M. jewel discourseth to the contrary, to prove that the Emperor restored Athanasius and not the Pope, 
Athanasius thrice restore●. Hist. trip. li. 3. cap. 8. Cap. 12.  it shall appear he deceiveth and abuseth the unlearned Reader shamefully in the whole matter. For Athanasius as he was divers times driven from his bishopric, so was he by diverse means restored. First he was banished by Constantin the great being falsely accused off the Arrians: and was by the decree of the same Constantin in his death bed, restored to his bishopric again.  
The second cause off his banishment was thus. The Arrian bishops off the East accused Athanasius to julius the Pope of Rome. 
Lib. 4. cap. 6.  julius cited Athanasius. And he upon the Citation appeared. The Arrians in the mean while placed an Arrian bishop in his room. 
Cap. 9  And calling a Conventicle at Antioch, deprived Athanasius and divers other Catholic Bishops: 
Cap. 12.  After which deprivation they sent to Pope julius to have him Confirm their doings. julius the Pope examining the matter and finding Athanasius, Paulus, and the other bishops innocent, restored them all to their bishoprics again by his letters. 
Cap. 15.  Being thus restored, first Paulus of Constantinople was banished again by the Arrian Emperor Constantius. 
Cap. 18. Cap. 19  Soon after also, the Arrians peeking a new quarrel to Athanasius, and accusing him to Constantius the Arrian Emperor, about the Distribution of certain corn in in Alexandria, Athanasius fearing the emperors displeasure fled of his own accord: And with Paulus the bishop of constantinople, came to Constans the Catholic Emperor of the West, and brother to Constantius the Arrian Emperor in the East. 
cap. 20.  By whose letters to his brother they were at that time restored, and brought in favour again with the Emperor Constantius, by whose displeasure they had been before banished. And thus Athanasius was restored three sundry times upon three soundre occasions.  
First of the Emperor him self, which had upon miss information banished him. secondarily, being accused to the Pope and by pretence of a Synod deposed, was of the Pope, by a superior order, restored. Thirdly fleeing upon displeasure of the prince, was by getting again his princes favour restored.  
Thus, if it had liked M. jewel to deal uprightly, if it had pleased him rather to instruct his Reader then to deceive him, if he had loved the truth, 
M. jewels Craft in destroying a Truth by telling a Truth.  and not sought escapes against the truth, he would have opened the matter, as it lieth in the story, and not blaze out one truth to conceal an other truth. For now you see (gentle Readers) that as Athanasius being banished twice by displeasure of the Emperors, was by the Emperors restored: so being also deprived of bishops, he was by the chiefest bishop of Christ's Church, the Bishop of Rome, in like manner, restored. And thus both are true, in divers cases. One truth must not overthrow an other.  
Now that it may more particularly appear what a deal of error and Untruth M. jewel carrieth a long before him by the violence and force of his talk in this matter, let us consider his own words. After he had with many idle words proved that the Emperor restored Athanasius (which you see, being true, doth nothing impair the other truth that the Pope also restored him) he allegeth Theodoretus for to amplify the matter more, and saith.  
jewel. 
The 506 Untruth in false applying of Theodoretus. Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 17.  And Theodoretus touching the same writeth thus. Procerum Senatorumque coniuges etc. The lords and Counsellors wives besought their husbands to entreat the emperors Majesty that he would restore Athanasius to his s●o●ke: and said further, unless they would so do, they would forsake them and go to him.  
It is a world to see the impudency of M. jewel. It seemeth, he never cared, what learned men judged of his doings, but that he hath laboured only to heap up authorities, without discretion. This place of Theodoretus is not of Athanasius, but of Liberius the bishop of Rome, whom the Arrian Emperor Constantius had banished for maintaining the Catholic religion. And those Lords and counsellors wives were the Matrons of Rome, requesting their husbands to say to the Emperor for the return of their bishop Liberius the Pope of Rome, not of Athanasius the bishop of Alexandria. The learned do know this well. And M. jewel himself can not be ignorant thereof. The story may be read both in Theodoretus (as M. jewel hath noted it) and in the tripartite history of Cassidorus. 
Lib. 2. cap. 17. lib. 5. cap. 18.  Now M. jewel, not only applieth this to Athanasius, which yet neither can by any means truly be done; but also putteth in the text of Theodoretus, the very name of Athanasius in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the pastor Liberius. Thus he allegeth he careth not what nor how, to make a show of learning. If followeth in him.  
jewel. So likewise the bishops, that the Arrians had deposed, with Flavianus, 
The .507 Untruth in putting Arrians for Eutychians  were restored again by the Emperor and not by the Pope.  
Here is an other gross error of M. jewel. They were no Arrians but Eutychians which deposed Flavianus, and of whom Leo writeth. Trust not your note books to much M. jewel. Take some pains to look to the originals. Touching the matter, how prove you they were restored by the Emperor and not by the Pope? You say.  
jewel. 
Leo epist. 39  For Pope Leo himself writeth thus unto the Empress Pulcheria. Your Majesty have restored h●me again the Catholic bishops which by wron●efull sentence were thrust from their Churches.  
Stapleton. 
M. Iewel● Craft in destroyeing one truth by an other.  This proveth in deed, that the Emperou●● restored them. But this proveth not that the Pope restored them not. Will you never leave M. jewel, to disprove one truth by an other truth? Under Theodosius the second, the Eutychians, bearing rule, had expelled many Catholic bishops. Martianus a good Catholic Emperor succeeding to this Theodosius, removed the heretics, and restored the Catholics. For this he is praised of Leo the Pope. Doth this dyminish the Pope's authority? No more truly M. jewel then the late doings of Queen mary in restoring the Catholic emprisoined bishops to their rooms and bishoprics, did make against the Supremacy of the Pope. But that Pope Leo bore a stroke in this matter, more than the Emperor, it appeareth well in the very same epistle of Leo which yourself allege, M. jewel. Thus Leo writeth in the same Epistle. Quosdam saene Episcopos, etc. We understand by the relation of our legates, and of our brother and felowebishop Anatholius, of whom you have vouchsafed to make a good report, that certain of those bishops which have given their consent to the wiched deeds (of the Eytychians) do require a Reconciliation, and do desire the communion of Catholics. Whose desires, we mind so far to accomplish, that such as are amended, and by their own subscriptions, do condemn their wicked attemp●●, be admitted in to favour, the charge thereof being committed to our legates and to the foresaid bishop Anatholius. Thus we see as the Emperor restored the Catholics, so the Pope reconciled the schismatics. And as the Emperor by his secular power restored the bishops to their livelihood: so the Pope by his spiritual jurisdiction restored the penitent offenders to the unite of the Church. These are both confessed truths. The one destroyeth not the other.  
To proceed, M. jewel excepting against Pope N●colas because he was out of the compass of his first 100L. years, he avoucheth certain general Untruths without any reason or proof in the world, and saith.  
jewel. 

The 508 Untruth for theodore abated before t●e vj. C. years after.  
Ch●ist. Eutropius Lib. 13.   It is well known that as the Pope's power increased, so the Empire abated.  
This is a manifest Untruth joined with a slander. The Empire most decayed under Honorius, as all Histories do testify. For under him, the West part of the Empire was utterly cut of until the time of Charlemagne. This was about the year of our Lord 400. well near two hundred years before the end of the first 600. years after Christ, at what time M. jewel imagineth the Pope's power to have begun. The Huns, the Wandales, the Alani, the Goths, the Longabardes all before that time had invaded, spoiled, and possessed all the West part of the Empire, Italy, France, Spain, and Africa. The empire after remained only in the East. The Empire therefore wa● long abated, before the Pope's power increased, if at the lest (according to M. jewels mind) the Pope's power began o●ly after the first 600. years. But will you see how substantially M. jewel proveth that as the Pope's power increased, ●o the Empire abated? He saith.  
jewel. 
Plat●us in Ad●iano. 2.  Therefore was Platine forced to say. Now the emperors h●ue 〈◊〉 their Civil pow●r, and there Popes have lost the holiness.  
Stapleton. Platim wrote this, scant a hundred years past. And he wrote it in the life of Adrian the second a learned and virtuous Pope as platin● deseribeth him. The Emperor also at that tim● Joys the second was a Prince of great virtue and power. So that Platina must of necessity speak of his own time. Th●● M. jewels argument is this.  
Platina a hundred years past complaineth of the weakness of 〈◊〉 Empire, of the want of holiness in the Pope.  
Ergo a thousand years a go, as the Pope's power increased, so 〈◊〉 Empire abated. By such arguments and reasons M. jewel hath been persuaded to forsake the faith he was baptized and brought up in.  
jewel. In old times the Emperor confirmed the Pope. 
The 509. Untruth. For the Emperor never confirmeth the Pope.  Now the Pope confirmeth the Emperor.  
This is an other Untruth boldly avouched, but no whit proved. M. jewel is never able to show that any Catholic Emperor ever confirmed the Pope in such sort as without that confirmation, he might not be Pope. That the Pope at this day confirmeth the Emperor, it hath so continued almost these 80●. years ever sense the time of Charlemagne the first Emperor of the West Church, after the decay thereof, 
●laudu● decad. 2. lib. 1  under Honorius, who also was made and crowned Emperor by the Pope Leo the third, as his successors ever sense have been.  
jewel. In old times the Emperor called the Pope to the Council. 
The 51●. Untruth. Answered before.  ●ow contrary wise the Pope calleth the Emperor.  
How true this is, it hath before been declared No Catholic Emperor ever summoned Council without the Authorize and consent of the B. of Rome. Nor was ever any general Council allowable and of force without the same authority, as before hath been proved.  
jewel. As touching the restoring of Athanasius; 
The. ●1●. Untruth. For be w●ite 〈◊〉 to the Emperor.  Pope Iuliu● entreated the Emperor in his behalf.  
This is a flat Untruth. He restored him by his own letters not to the Emperor, but to the Arrian bishops, who had injuriously deposed him in their conventicle at Antioch.  
jewel. Which as it appeareth was his greatest request.  
Stapleton What the request of Athanasius was to Pope julius, it appears by that which Pope julius did for him. That was ●o restore him to his bishopric by his own letters, not to write to the Emperor for him. But will you see how clerkly M. jewel proveth this? He saith.  
jewel. For thus he writeth unto Liberius.  
Stapleton. 
A pot full of plums jewel out of Athanasius in Epist. ad Liberi●m.  Lo, M. jewel will prove the request of Athanasius to Pope julius, by that which he wrote to Liberius, which was Pope after julius. Yet let us hear the words of Athanasius to Liberius. The words are.  
We beseech you, that through your good exhortations, both by yourself, and what your Age●tes, we may be helped.  
What word is there here of entreating the Emperor, in the behalf of Athanasius? Athanasius desireth to be helped by the Pope, and by his agentes or deputes. He speaketh no one word of the Emperor. And to what purpose, I ask your wisdom (M. jewel) should Athanasius require Liberius to entreat the Emperor, who was then an Arrian himself (Constantius by name) and who was no less enemy to Liberius then to Athanasius, whom also the same Emperor banished, as he did Athanasius? Liberius was banished himself, and the Noble Matrons off Rome entreated the Emperor for Liberius: And was Liberius required to entreat for Athanasius? What thinketh M. jewel to wine the game by facing? A man might say. Non satis commodè divisa sunt temporibus tibi Daue h●c. But, by such impudent Untruths an evil cause must be defended.  
jewel. 
Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 8. Stapleton Regula in ri●.  Moreover, for that he was a Patriarch, he summoned a Particular Council, and laboured the Bishops.  
What of that Master jewel? You know by your law. Abundans Cau●ela in jure non nocet. And the common saying, a man can not be to sure of his right.  
jewel. For the Arrians said. There was an Ecclesiastical Canon that no man being once depose●, should be restored again unless he had first cl●ered himself ●●fore a Council. 
O●ea●●l. in Epist. ad julium.   
Stapleton. What the Arrians said, M. jewel, we reckon not. We hold● not by the Arrians. We hold by the Catholic Fathers. Though you may claim by hererikes, yet it is our part to disclaims against you in that point. We have not so learned Christ, M. jewel.  
The Egyptian bishops in the Council of Chalcedon upholders of the Eutychian heresy. being required and commanded by the Council to subscribe to the decretal Epistle off Pope Leo sent to the council, refused to do it, and alleged for their defence, that in the Nicene Council it was decreed. that the bishops of Egypt be subject only to the Patriarch of Alexandria. 
Concil. chal. Act. 4.  But the Catholic bishops answered plainly Mentiuntur. They lie. And again. Ostendant quod dicunt. Let them show and prove their saying. So we answer to your Arrians M. jewel, 
M. jewel. seeketh to heretics for help.  saying that a bishop being deposed can not be restored but by a Council, They lie. And again. Let them show that decree. We know heretics have ever claimed against the authority of the See Apostolic. So the Donatists appealed from Pope Melchiades to the Emperor. So these Arrians and Eutychians alleged Canons against their obedience to the bishop of Rome. If you list to be an heretic M. jewel, claim by them. we Catholics can not do so.  
jewel. And therefore Crysostom was much blamed of his adversaries, for that he being once deposed had recovered his room without a Council of other Bishops.  
Stapleton M. jewel is forced ever to take part with the worst sort of men. So must an evil cause be bolstered. Chrysostom was a holy and learned Father, and wrongfully deposed of the Egyptians. What they in their wicked and injurious attempt alleged for themselves, it is no precedent to them which mean to deal uprightly, or which will defend the truth. M. jewel because he defendeth a schism against Christ's vicar, no marvel if he be forced to use such proofs. The plea of these Egyptians against S. Chrysostom was so good, that they were for their labour excommunicated off Innocentius thebishopp of Rome. As it hath before been declared in examining the Appeal of Chrisostom  
jewel. 
The 512. Untruth for the Appeal was offered to the Pope's Legates only.  And therefore Flavianus, being wrongfully put from his bishopric offered up his bill of Appeal, not unto the bishop of Rome alone, but unto him other bishops.  
Lo here is an express Appeal confessed by M. jewel of the patriarch of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome. Yet he saith it was not to the bishop of Rome alone, but to him with other bishops. Let us see how he will prove it.  


The .513. Untruth in nipping off words out of the midst of S. Leo his whole sentence. Leo epist. 24.   Stapleton. 
Esa. 28.  The truth hereof may well appear by these words of Leo bishop of Rome unto the Emperor Theodosius. Omnes par●●um nostrarum E●clesiae, omnes mansueti●ini vestrae ●um. G●mutibus & lach●imes supplicant Sacerdotes ut quia eisdem L●bellum appellationis. Fl●uianus Epis●opus dedit, generalem Sy●●dum i●beatis intra Italiam celebrari. All the Churches of these our countries, and all the priests with sighs and tears beseech your highness'. that, for as much● as Flavianus hath offered up his bill of Appeal unto them, it may please you to command, a General council to be kept in Italy.  
What shall I say to M. jewel? I am forced to say he is one of them of whom the Prophet speaketh, Posuimai● mendacium spem nostram, & mendacio protecti sumus. We have put out hope in lying, and by lying we have been defended. For had M. jewel given us here the whole words of Leo, had he not in the very midst nipped of one whole sentence, than the truth should have appeared, and the contrary to his assertion evidently been proved. He hath put the words in Latin, He hath englished them truly. He hath in the Margin quoted the place rightly. And would a man suppose any Untruth herein to be committed? Truly but that I had herein to do with M. jewel, 
Leo epist. 24.  whose nature I am now some what acquainted withal, I should have trusted his allegation without searching the original. The whole words of Leo are these. Omnes partium nostrarum ecclesiae, omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus & lachrymis supplicant sacerdotes, ut quia 
* The words which M. jewel ●ipped quite of.  Et nostri fideliter reclamarunt & eis●●m libellum appella●●nis Flauianu● Episcopus dedit generalem: Synodum iub●●ris intra Italiam celebrari. All the Churches of these our Countries, and all the priests with sighs and tears beseech your highness, that forasmuch as 
* The words which M. jewel nipped quite of.  Bo●he our men (he meaneth his legates in the Ephesine conventicle) have faithfully resisted (to the condemnation of Flavianus) and to them Flavianus the bishop hath bishop offered up his bill of Appeal, it m●y please you to command a general Council to be kept in Italy. These are the whole words of Leo in the same epistle. By these words it appeareth evidently, that the bill of Appeal was offered up not to all the Church an priests in Italy, but to the Pope's legates present at the Ephesine Synod, in the which, and where, Flavianus was deposed and did appeal, as the words, which M. jewel for that purpose nipped quite of, do give us to understand. As also in a letter of Valentinian the Emperor to Theodosius it appeareth. where it is written, that the Bishop of Constantinople sent his libels of Appeal to Leo the Pope. 
In preamb. Con. Chal.  But be it now that the Pope with his learned Council do restore bishops, and not alone. What can M. jewel gather thereof? He saith.  
jewel. In such Councils the Bishop of Rome being sometimes the chief, prononced the party worthy either to be restored, 
The .514. Untruth For the Pope was always Chief.  or to be deposed.  
The Pope was always chief in such Councils. And not only pronounced the party worthy, but did by his own authority restore bishops. Tanquam curam omnium gerens propter propriae Sedis dignitatem, 
Hist. trip. lib. 4.  As having charge of th●m all through the prerogative of his own See, as the Ecclesiastical history speaketh.  
But (saith M. jewel) that Sentence was not always put in execution. 
jewel.   
Stapleton Show M. jewel when the Pope's sentence was not put in execution, You say for proof hereof.  
jewel. The Council of Antioch deposed Pope julius, yet was not julius therefore deposed.  
Stapl. 
M. jewel not well in his wit●es.  Th●s was not a Sentence given by the Pope. But a sentence given against the Pope. And those which gave such a sentence, were Arians. No marvel therefore if it prevailed not. What meaneth M. jewel thus to reason? The Arrians could not depose the Pope, Ergo the Pope can not depose Arrians and such other sc●usmatikes. Was he well in his wits, when he thus reasoned?  
jewel. The Council of basil deposed Pope Eugenius. Yet Eugenius continued Pope still.  
Stapleton This proveth well, that the Pope is above a Council. And that no Sentence can be geeven against the Pope. But that the Pope's Sentence is not always put in execution, no man that hath his five wits can gather thereof. This kind of reasoning passeth not only all truth and honesty, but even all wit and common sense.  
jewel. The decree of bishops in such cases, without the emperors authority was then of small force.  
Stapleton In deed for any bishops to depose a Pope by any decree it was ever of small force. The Emperor by violence have done much, But by right no Emperor can either make a bishop or depose a bishop. And therefore the Fathers in the Millenitaine Council decreed, 
Cap. 19  ut quicunque ab imperatore etc. That whosoever sued to th'emperor, to have him hear and determine public judgements, that he be deprived therefore of his dignity.  
jewel. And therefore Athanasius himself reporteth that the Emperor gave his consent to the Determination of the Council of Sardica, and so commanded him to be sent for home.  
Stapleton God forbid but that Emperors both may and ought to give their Consent to councils, and also to command the execution of Counsels. And when heretics can not otherwise be brought to obedience as it was in that time of the Council of Sardica: 
Hist. trip. lib. 4. cap. 34.  it is necessary that the secular sword do help the spiritual jurisdiction, Thus far hath M. jewel ranged and roved, labouring to bring somewhat against the authority of the Bishop of Rome. But he hath only multiplied his Untruths, declared his own weakness, and fortified more the Truth touching the Pope's Supreme authority. For being so much impugned and so little impaired, so of assaulted and nothing battered, it remaineth as a Rock unvincible, against the which hell gates shall never prevail.  
Harding. Concerning the Reconciliation of the Prelates of the Church, both bishops, and patriarchs, to the bishop off Rome (114) whereby his Primacy is acknowledge and confess, I need not say much, the matter being so evident.  
The 114. Untruth. For Reconciliation is no necessary token, neither of Primacy, nor of subjection. 
The .151. Untruth joined with a slander. for Reconciliation is acknowledging of Primacy, And D. Hard. speaketh of one sp●cial kind thereof which is to the pope.   
Albeit it were true, that Reconciliation of itself were no necessary token of Primacy, yet this Reconciliation, being off the Chiefest prelates and patriarchs in Christ's Church, to the See of Rome, this Reconciliation also being joined with the other arguments of Primacy in the Apostolic See off Rome, (as Appeals, Confirming of Bishops, Excommunications in all parts of Christendom, Restitutions of bishops and Confirmations of Councils) it is a necessary and sufficient argument for the Primacy and Soweraintie of that See above all others. For as many circumstances may make a good and sufficient evidence, where one Circumstance alone could prove nothing, so the argument of Reconciliation being joined with the other, is sufficient for the acknowleadging and confessing of a Primacy.  
Again if Reconciliation be no argument of Primacy, M. jewel should have done well either to have showed that the bishop of Rome was reconciled to other bishops as well as other bishops were to him, or else to have given a reason how it came to pass that the bishop of Rome was never in such sort reconciled. Verily beside the examples alleged here by D. Harding of the African bishops reconciled to Bonifacius the second, and of Alexander the patriarch of Antioch reconciled to Innocentius, both bishops of Rome: we read also, that the Bishops of the East, who were no part off the bishop of Rome's peculiar province or Patriarkeship, having unjustly deposed Flavianus of Constantinople, and wickedly consented to Dioscorus the Eutychian, were not only reconciled by Leo the B. of Rome, but did also require that Reconciliation, and in the reconciliation did abide the Order prescribed by the Pope.  
For beside the words of Leo above alleged, wherein he signified that those Bishops Reconciliationem reposcebant, 
Leo epi. 39  did require a Reconciliation, in his next epistle following and bearing the same date with the former, written to Anatholius the patriarch off Constantinople about the same matter he writeth thus. 
Epist. 40 Cap. 1.  As touching our breh●rn, which we understand both by your letters, and by the information of our legates, to be desirous of our Communion, repenting them that they were not stable and steadfast against violence and terror, but consented to the mischief of another, and for fear yielded both to the condemnation off that Catholic and innocent bishop Flavianus, and to the approving off the wicked heresy off Eutyches, we allow the order that our deputes have already taken, that they be in the mean while contented with the Communion of their own Churches. 
Suarum interim Ecclesiarum essent Communione contenti. Pacis & communionis nostrae unitate laetentur.  Howbeit let order be taken by our legates, and you together, that such as with full satisfaction do condemn their wicked doings, and chose rather to accuse themselves, then to defend themselves, may enjoy also our Communion, and peace. So that yet before, they condemn and accurse all such things, as have been allowed off them against the Catholic faith. And a little after lest he might seem herein to be over gentle, as admitting so easily such notorious offenders, he addeth. Neither can our gentleness in any point be reprehended, 
Ibidem.  when we receive again with satisfaction such as we were sorry to see before deceived. Therefore the favour of our Communion is neither to be denied, neither yet rashly to be granted. For as it is a deed of mercy to comfort the afflicted, so it is a point off justice to punish the Offenders.  
In an other Epistle, written within two months after to the Empress Pulcheria also, when he had now sent his legates to Constantinople about the redress of these matters, he writeth thus. 
Leo Epist. 55.  I have now sent (as I declared in my other letters I would do) the Bishop of Luca, and Basilius Priest, who ioyintly with my Brother Anatholius, shall execute the Order which I have taken according to the rules prescribed unto them. For, as I am informed by the letters of the foresaid bishop Anatholius, and by th● suggestion of his clergy, there are many things favourably to be amended, and many things rigorously to be punished: to the intent that in such a trouble and disorder, neither the discipline be to sharp, neither the pardon to easy: For the obstinates, and the repentaunts, are not in like sort to be dealt withal. Thus far Pope Leo touching the Reconciliation of the bishops of the East, who had in the Conventicle at Ephesus both wickedly admitted the heresy of Eutyches, and wrongfully consented to the deposing of Flavianus.  
We see by the first words alleged that they were reconciled not only to the Communion of their own Churches, but also to the Communion of the See Apostolic, and that they desired such a Reconciliation. If this had been but a Common Reconciliation as between friends and equals, which have been at variance, it had been enough for them that they were restored by the Pope's legates to the communion of their own Churches. It had not needed to have had beside a Reconciliation and a restoring to the Communion of the Church off Rome.  
Again we see in the words in the second place alleged, that a kind of discretion was used in granting the Reconciliation which importeth a sovereignty in the granter, and a kind of subjection in the party reconciled.  

The Pope's superiority proved by Reconciliation, desired off him, or given out by him.  In the third and last allegation we see some admitted upon satisfaction, some repelled for obstinacy: And all by the legates of the See Apostolic. This Reconciliation admitting some and repelling other by Authority, is a clear and manifest token of a Primacy and sovereignty in the See Apostolic over the bishops of the East. For albeit in the way of charity one equal may be reconciled to an other, yet in the way of justice one equal hath no power to punish the other, that will not be reconciled. This Reconciliation therefore to the Pope off bishops not properly subject to his Diocese or province, wherein as some are reconciled, so other are repelled, is a necessary token of Primacy in the Pope over more bishops then of his own province, which Primacy in no other B. or patriarch can be showed. Against such a Reconliation he speaketh not one word. Only he reasoneth that every Reconciliation importeth not a Primacy. Which thing is not avouched by D. Harding. But only that by such a Reconciliation as was made unto the B. of Rome, of them as were not of his own province or Diocese, a Primacy of the Pope was acknowledged and confessed. But of this we shall have more occasion to speak in the next Untruth. Let us consider what M. jewel hath said therein.  
Harding. Among them that, to satisfy the malicious mind off Eudoxia the Empress, practised their wicked conspiracy against Chrysostom, through which he was deposed, and carried away into banishment, Alexander Bishop of Antioch and primate of the Orient, was one. (115.) Who at length strooken with repentance, for that he had been both a consenter, and a promoter of that wicked Act, submitted himself humbly to Innocentius the Pope, and by all means sought to be assoiled and reconciled. And therefore sent his legates to Rome to exhibit to Innocentius a solemn Instrument of his Repentance and lowly submission, and to accept what should be enjoined. By which his humbleness Innocentius moved, granted to his petitions, received him into the lap of the Catholic Church again, and thus was he reconciled.  
jewel. The 115. Untruth. This story is here interlaced with many Untruths.  
Stapleton. What are those Untruths M. jewel? You tell us in your text.  
jewel. 
The 516. Untruth Slanderous. For the sending of legates and performing of the conditions of the Reconciliation importeth repentance, penance, Submission. Innoc●tius epist. 16. Tom. 1. Profitenti Condi●iones pacis. impletas.  For in all that is written thereof by Innocentius, there is no manner mention, neither of Solemn Instrument of repentance, nor of accepting of Penance, nor of Subjection or humble submission.  
Innocentius writing to one Maximianus a bishop, who had moved Innocentius about the Reconciliation of Atticus the bishop of Constantinople (who also had been a consenter to the deposing of Chrysostom) and declaring to that bishop, why he had not reconciled Atticus of Constantinople in like manner as he had reconciled Alexander the bishop of Antioch, by the way, toucheth somewhat off the Reconciliation made by the same Alexander, in these words. Communio suspensa restituitur demonstranti causas etc. A man suspended from the Communion, is restored when he showeth the causes why he was suspended, to be taken away, and professeth the Conditions off reconciliation to be fulfilled. Which, Atticus neither hath signified, neither proved to be fulfilled by any messenger either to you or to us. As our brother and follow bishop off Antioch Alexander, by a just embasye hath prosecuted and proved. Whereat also you being present do know, that I have particularly examined all our writings touching the cause of the holy bishop Chrisostom, wherein they have evidently showed that at Antioch all things have been performed as they ought to be. Whose reconciliation we embracing, truly we have made a way for all that will ask it, to obtain the like: iff at the lest they will at any time prove, that they have done and performed for their part, such things as have been in others examined and performed, 
communio nemque ut isti, legatio ne solemniter destinata, sibi roga verint redbiberi.  and also if they desire to be reconciled, by sending solemnly their legates as these of Antioch have done. Thus far Innocentius.  
In whose words we see, that this Alexander bishop of Antioch sent his legates solemnly to Rome, that by those legates he desired to be reconciled, that he had performed the conditions of Reconciliation, and that thereby he was reconciled. Now this solemn sending of legates desiring to be Reconciled, what was it but a Solemn Instrument off Repentance? For such was the manner of Reconciliation in those days. So ursatius and Valens did offer up to julius the Pope, Libellum penitentiae. An Instrument of repentance, when they were reconciled from their Arrian heresy to the Catholoke unite. The performing of the Conditions of Reconciliation, was the accepting of that which was enjoined. The word Penance, as it is not in Innocentius, so neither is it in the words of D. Harding. And who doubteth but all this was done with an humble submission, seeing that no repentance can be without humble submission, nor no reconciliation without repentance? 
Cassiod. li. 4. cap. 12.  seeing also that Conditiones pacis complere, to perform the Conditions off Reconciliation, requireth expressly an humble submission, for lack of which Atticus was not at that time yet reconciled, but continued suspended, and through the which afterward, as it appeareth in an other epistle off Innocentius, 
Epist. 17.  he was also reconciled. touching this Reconciliation of Alexander of Antioch to Innocentius, it shall the better appear, if the diligent Reader remember in this place, the solemn Excommunication of Theophilus and other bishops his adherents, in deposing Chrysostom (off the which this Alexander was one) made by this Pope innocentius. Of the which I have at large spoken before about the matter of Appeals. For by reason of the Excommunication, this Alexander patriarch of Antioch, was necessarily reconciled. Therefore Innocentius having received his submission, answereth him in these words. Quam grata mihi, quam pia, 
Innocence ● epist. 15.  quam necessaria legatio a tua sanctitate frater Charissime ad nos directa fuerit, gestorum ipsorum replicatione cognosces. How acceptable, how godly, how necessary (dearly beloved brother) your sending of your legates to us hath been, you shall know by the tenor of our dealing with you. As for the word Subjection, which M. jewel saith is not in Innocentius, no more it is in the text of D. Harding. The Spiritual jurisdiction M. jewel. requireth no Subjection, as Civil Princes do of their subjects. But as S. Gregory saith: 
Lib. 7. ep. 64.  ubi Culpa non exigit, omnes ratione humilitatis ●quales sumus. Where no fault is committed, by the way of humility, we be all equal. Therefore Innocentius, after this Alexander was reconciled, he calleth him, Fratrem Charissimum, dearly beloved brother, 
Epist. 15.  and as you allege for a mighty argument against the Pope's primacy, Condiscipulum sedis Apostlice, 
Epist. 17. Epist. 15. The .517. Untruth in false translating Ephes. 2. Epist. 16. Necessaria legatio Solemnite● de de●●ina●a Cōdit●ones pacis ●●mple●●s d●gna lega●●one 〈◊〉 ut●s est & probavit.  Scholefelowe of the See Apostolic. And sending his letters at that time calleth them primitias pacis nostre: the first fruits (not of friendship as you untruly in this place translated it) but of the reconciliation made by us. And so Crist is called in holy scripture Pax nostra Our reconciliation to God. So this Alexander, Conditiones pacis completas esse, digna legatione prosecutus est & probavit, by his worthy legates he went thouroughe with it and proved it to the Pope that he had performed the conditions of Reconciliation. Had all been but a matter of friendship and equality, neither had he been before, by the Pope excommunicated, neither had that solemn sending of legates to Rome been necessary, neither needed any such Conditions to be performed, nor the performance thereof so expressly to be prosecuted and proved. Thus therefore was the patriarch of Antioch reconciled neither as a Subject unto his Prince, nor as one equal friend to an other, but as a party before excommunicated to his Spiritual head, that joining with his head Christ's vicar, he might be a part of Christ's mystical body.  
Touching the examples alleged by jewel, the writing of the Africanes to Pope Innocentius about a Reconciliation between the Church of Alexandria and the Church of Rome, 
Council Aphric. cap. 68  was about this very matter of Crysostoms' deposing, and maketh very well to prove a necessity of the same Reconciliation. But saith M. jewel.  
jewel. It was not that the Church of Alexandria should submit herself, as unto her Head, and live in Subjection, but that they might be reconciled and live in peace together.  
Stapleton The Church never lived in Subjection to the bishop of Rome. This is but an odious term of disobedient heretics. The Church hath lived in obedience of the See. Apostolic for the redress of faults committed, either in faith or in manners, not otherwise. The Church of Rome had no quarrel to the Church of Alexandria. But the Church of Alexandria by Theophilus the bishop thereof having wrongfully deposed Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople, and being therefore justly excommunicated of the See Apostolic, the good bishops of Aphrica thought good to write, not to the Church of Alexandria, 
Concil. Aphric. cap. 68  which was justly excommunicated, but ad sanctum Papam Innocentium, to the holy Pope Innocentius, who had excommunicated them, that they might be Reconciled. This expresseth clearly, how necessary it was for the Church of Alexandria to be reconciled to the See Apostolic. And thus far M. jewels own alleagation hath helped our matter.  
jewel. So Liberatus saith. Petrus Moggus was reconciled unto Asatius, 
Cap. 18.  not as unto his superior, but as unto his brother.  
This Petrus Moggus was an heretic, 

Liberatus cap. 17. & 18.  
Felix in Epist. ad Acacium.   excommunicated of the See Apostolic, and of Acacius also (whom M. jewel calleth Asatius) but after was reconciled unto him. Whereupon they were both of Felix the bishop of Rome excommunicated. The conspiring of heretics can be no precedent against the Reconciliations of Catholics. Who listeth to see the whole tragedy of this Petrus Moggus (which accursed the Chalcedon Council) and of this Acacius consenting unto him by an edict of Pacification made by Zenon the Emperor, against the See Apostolic, and the end thereof, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. edictum. Cap. 16.17 &. 18.  let him peruse Liberatus set forth in the second tome of the Councils. The primacy of the bishop of Rome over the other patriarchs appeareth therein most evidently: As by Appeals, by Reconciliations, by Excommunications, and such like Practice.  
In this sense writeth Hormisda bishop of Rome unto Epiphanius the bishop of Constantinople. 

jewel. The 518. Untruth For he wrote so not as absolutely his equal, but as to whom the other was then reconciled.  
Con. Const. Act. 2. Vide libel. joan. ad Ho●nisdam Tom. 2.   Seing we have one frendsship in Communion and in faith, let us therefore take like study and like care.  
Yea. But what followeth M. jewel? It followeth immediately. To th'intent that as we do now both equally rejoice in our Lord, that the Church of Constantinople is united to the Apostolic See, so also we may (as you do charitably move me) provide for the Reconciliation of other Churches also. For under john the predecessor of this Epiphanius, the Church of Constantinople was reconciled from the schism that Acacius before had made, to the See Apostolic. Being thus reconciled, they wrote as fellows and equals. For unless bishops had offended either against the Canons or against the Catholic faith, the Bishop of Rome, used no superiority over them. Thus M. jewel by titles and phrases would disprove that, which the clear and open practice of the Church evidently proveth.  
That which M. jewel allegeth out of Socrates for an example of Reconciliation, 
Cassio. lib. ●. cap. 23. & 25. The 519. Untruth in alleging one thing for an other.  was (519) no Reconciliation at all. They were, or, at least, pretended to be Catholics which went to Pope Liberius. They went for a redress and ease of their great adversities and miseries which they sustained by the Arrians. They sued also at that time to the Emperor of the West, Valentinianus the first. All this was not for a Reconciliation, but for the establyshing of the Catholic faith against the Arrians, and to have some redress of the disorders in their Churches.  
jewel. 
The 520 Untruth For Arsenius was Reconciled to Athanasius as to his Superior. Atha●as. Apolog. 2.  another like example of Reconciliation we have made by one Arsenius the bishop of H●psilitae to Athanasius the B. of Alexandria. This Submission or Reconciliation was made unto Athanasius, yet was not Athanasius the bishop of Rome.  
This Reconciliation that Arsenius the bishop of Hipsilitae made to Athanasius, was not as to his equal, but as to his own primate and Metropolitan. For so in the very sentence alleged by M. jewel, it followeth. Neque citra tuam Metropolitani Episcopi sententiam ullum de episcopis aut alio dogmate cōmu●i & ecclesiastico decretum aedituros. We promise also, that without your authority, being the Metropolitan bishop, we will make no decree either concerning bishops, or any other point of common and ecclesiastical doctrine. This Submission therefore or Reconciliation made to Athanasius, though it were not made to th● bishop of Rome, yet it was made to the Metropolitan and superior, not to a fellow or equal. And thus the manner of Reconciliation of Churches was done not between friends and fellows as M. jewel fancieth, but with humble submission, and knowledge of a Supremacy over the party reconciled. Finally thus Reconciliations being made to the Bishop of Rome of patriarchs and metropolitans themselves as of Alexander the patriarch of Antioch and of Atticus the patriarch of Constantinople both to Innocentius the B. of Rome, also of the bishops of the East to Leo the B. of Rome, as before hath been declared, is a sufficient token of primacy and Supremacy in the Church of Rome over all other Churches, patriarchs and metropolitans.  
Harding. Thus having declared the Supreme authority and primacy of the Pope, by the Common practice of the Church, I need not to show further how in all questions, doubts and controversies touching Faith and Religion, the See of Rome hath always been consulted.  
jewel. 
The 521. Untruth Slanderous. Stapleton  The 116. Untruth. For many great questions were never removed to Rome.  
What were those great questions that were never removed to Rome? M. jewel nameth in his text not one question, great or small. And shall it be true because M. jewel saith it only? He hath been taken in Untruths to often, to require now such credit. It had been an easy matter among many to name one. Now no instance or exception being made, the universal remaineth true. For to prove an universal, it is impossible. But if it like M. jewel to stand by this Untruth, he may take his pen and turn to the 91. and the 93. epistles in S. Augustins works, and score it there also upon Innocentius the first: who in his epistle, answering to the Fathers of the Council of Carthage (who had required him, ut statutis eorum mediocritatis, 
Augustin. Epist. 90.  etiam Apostolicae sedis adhibeatur Authoritas, that to their decrees and Canons the authority of the Apostolic See might be added, saith no less than D. Harding in his text said. For these are his words. 
Innocentius epist 91. inter epist. Aug●stin.  Patrum instituta sacerdotali custodientes officio non censetis esse calcanda, quod illi non humana sed divina decreu●re sententia, ut quicquid de disiunctis remotisque pr●uincijs ageretur, non prius ducerent finiendum, nisi ad huius Sedis notitiam peruenire●, ubi tota huius Authoritate justa quae fuerit pronunciatio firmaretur. You observing the decrees of the Fathers, according to the duty of priesthood, do show that they are not to be trod under foot, whereas they, not by the sentence of man but of God himself, have thought good that what soever should be in debate concerning such provinces as are far distant, it should not be determined, before the matter were brought to the knowledge of this See, where, by the whole Authorire of the same, the right and just Sentence might be confirmed. In these words Innocentius affirmeth, that whatsoever was in debate or controversy in far distant provinces, should be referred to the See of Rome, and there should take his final sentence. Also that the Fathers had so decreed. And last of all that the same decree of the Fathers proceeded not of the Sentence of man but of God himself.  
Again the same Innocentius answering to the Fathers of the Millevitane Council in Africa also, requiring in like manner a Confirmation of their doings in that Council, hath these words. 
Innocentius epist. 95. inter ●pi●t Augustin  Quid etiam Acti●ne firmastis, nisi scientes quòd per omnes prou●ncias de Apostoli●o sente petentibus, responsa semper eman●nt? Praesertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnes fratres & co●pis●opos n●stros non nisi ad Petrum, id est, sui n●minis & honoris Authorem ref●rre debere, velut nunc retulit vestra dilectio, quod per totum mundum possit omnibus eccl●sijs in commun● prod●sse. An● what have you declared in this your doing, but that you know that thorough out all provinces, answers and Solutions do continually flow to all that seek for it, at the Apostolical fountain? Especially, as often as any matter of the faith is called in doubt, I think all our brethren and fellow bishops ought to refer it to none, but to Peter the Author of their name and honour, you have now referred, that which might be behoful to all Churches in common through out the whole world. Here Innocentius, avoucheth no less to the Fathers of the African Counsels, than D. Harding did to his Reader: If the impudence therefore of M. jewel will serve him to abide by this Untruth, let him score it up also (as I said) upon Innocentius.  
Now if M. jewel or any other man for him, will take this saying of Innocentius being a Pope himself, to be an untrue saying and spoken only of Ambition to exalt his own See and authority, it might suffice to call only to remembrance that, this is the same Innocentius, to whom that excellently learned and most holy Father Chrysostom patriarch of Constantinople, Appealed, 
Palladius in vita ●oā. Chrysostemi, & Chrysost. epist. 1. ad Innocentium. Nicephorus lib. 13. cap. 34. Innocentius epist. 16. Tom. 1. Conc. I●em epist. 17. Concil. Aphric. Can. 68 Aug. epi. 90. & 91  being wrongfully deprived of his bishopric by the Synod of more than thirty bishops: who thereupon, excommunicated Theophilus the patriarch of Alexandria, which had done that injury: To whom, Alexander that holy and wise patriarch of Antioch was Reconciled from the bond of excommunication which he incurred by the wrongeful deposition of Chrysostom: To whom also, Atticus the second successor after Chrysostom in the Patriarkeship of Constantinople, was in like manner Reconciled: To whom, the Bishops of Africa thought good to write about the Reconciliation of the Church of Alexandria to the See of Rome. Last of all, to whom, the learned Fathers of the councils of Carthage and of Millevitum, among whom S. Augustin was one, referred the Acts of their Counsels to be Confirmed, this I say might suffice to any indifferent Reader, to remember, and so to consider, that the authority of this Innocentius so evidently practised over the Chief patriarchs of the East, and so expressly confessed of the African Fathers, proceeded of no vain ambition, but of right and Order, such as was dew to the Apostolic See of Rome.  
But yet if all this suffice not to justify this saying of Innocentius, which M. jewel hath noted for an Untruth, let S. Augustin be an Vmper between us, and let him pronounce, how he liked those letters of Innocentius the Pope, wherein he uttered such words, so prejudicial, for the authority of the See of Rome. S. Augustin writing to Paulinus of the Pelagian heresy, which in those two Councils off Carthage and of Millevitum was condemned, 
Augustinus Epist. 106.  speaketh of the letters of those two Councils sent to the See Apostolic thus. Missae sunt de hac re ex duobus Concilijs, Carthaginensi & Milleuitan●, relationes ad Apostolicam Seden. Relations of this matter were sent, from the two Councils of Carthage and of Millevitum, to the See Apostolic. Those are the letters unto the which Innocentius made answer, and in the which Answer the words above alleged of Innocentius, are written. Of those answers S. Augustin a little after saith thus. Ad omnia nobis ille rescripsit, eodem modo, quo faserat atque oportebat, Apostolicae Sedis Antistitem. To all those matters, he (Innocentius) wrote back unto us, even as it was right, and as it behoved the Bishop of the Apostolic See.  
This lo is the judgement of S. Augustin, touching the Answer that Innocentius made to the two Councils of Carthage and Millevitum. In which answers seeing the words above alleged, are comprised, that all doubts ought to be referred to the See of Peter, and all Solutions be sought from that Apostolic fountain, we have the clear judgement of S. Augustin, that Innocentius in so saying, spoke no otherwise than it was right, and then it becomed the Bishop of the Apostolic See. Other bishops so to have spoken, it had been in deed neither right nor convenient. This therefore being so clearly affirmed of Innocentius a Pope of such authority well near twelve hundred years passed, in two sundry epistles, and by the judgement of learned S. Augustin approved and commended, M. jewel cometh now to late to control it, and to sco●e it up for an Untruth. For confer the words of Innocentius and of D. Harding together, Gentle Reader, and thou shalt see, they are all one both in effect and in very terms. But that the one wrote in Latin, the other in English. Such be the Untruths, that the plain and upright dealing of M. jewel hath scored upon D. Harding. The sayings and decrees of the Ancient Fathers. Yea such a decree, quod non humana sed divina decreuere sententia, as the Fathers have decred, not by the sentence of man but of God, saith Innocentius.  
If M. jewel had read thus much in S. Augustins epistles, than was he overperte and proud to note the doctrine of such authority for Untruth. He specially who offereth to yield and Subscribe to any One sentence of any One doctor. If he had not before read so much, but took this saying of D. Harding to be (as he thought) a papistical saying, and void of all good authority, then let him learn by this, that he knoweth not all things, and as he was grossly overseen in this, so let him not be ashamed to confess his ignorance in the rest. Our Lord of his mercy send him humility. By true humility he will soon forsake his heresy.  
Now somewhat to touch, that which M. jewel prosecuteth here in his text, the examples of Marcellinus, Dulcitius, Bonifacius, Euodius and others, which sent their questions to S. Augustine and desired his Counsel, were questions Moved, not Removed: that is: they were for instruction and Counsel, not for final decision and determination. Such Removing of questions to be decided, is here spoken off, not all kind of doubts and questions. Neither is this universal so precisely avouched, as that you should require of us to declare it in every particular, but being true for the most part or the most principal matters, it declareth a Primacy in the See of Rome. But, saith M. jewel.  
jewel. S. Ambrose saith that many that had been with the B. ●f Rome, would afterward fo● their better satisfaction send to him.  
Stapleton Who doubteth, but the judgement of the learned, was ever worth the hearing, though matters were allreadye decided? This doth not weaken the authority of the decree, or of him that maketh a decree. But showeth a desire common to the children of Adam, to know more than needeth, or then sometimes is requisite. That which is alleged out of Leo, is not to be found in the epistle that is quoted. I would M. jewel would be tried by the Epistles of Leo, what and how great in his time, well near twelve hundred years past, the authority of the See of Rome was. He should be driven to grant the Supreme authority of that See over all the Church of Christ, as it shall well appear in the 123. Untruth. This saying therefore of D. Harding being no better impugned remaineth true, and proveth well the purpose.  
Harding. And to be short, how all the world, hath ever fetched light from thence.  
jewel. 
The 522. untruth Slanderous, and agreeing with the Arrians. Hist. tripar. lib. 4. cap. 16.  The 117. Untruth. For Rome herself had her light from Grece.  
So said the Arrians in deed in their rescript to julius the Pope. But no Catholic writer I ween ever said so. Of this matter we have before talked at large in the 32. and 37. Untruths. For this is now the third time that it hath been noted for an Untruth. So much the Truth thereof misliketh him, or else so desirous he was to heap up a number of Untruths. A toy, to my knowledge, never used of any grave or learned writer before.  
Harding. Leo that worthy Bishop of Rome, was called the universal bishop and universal patriarch of six hundred and thirty Fathers assembled together from all parts of the world in General Council at Chalcedon. Which is both expressed in that Council, and also clearly affirmed by S. Gregory in three sundry epistles, to Mauritius the Emperor, to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, and to Anastasius patriarch of Antioch.  
jewel. 
The 523. Untruth Slanderous, and peevish.  The 118. Untruth. There is no mention made hereof in any Canon in that Council.  
What then M. jewel? Can it not be expressed in that Council, but if it be in some Canon expressed? What a childish reason is this? The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon do contain a hundred and five leaves in print. The Canons of that Council being set forth with a double edition contain but three leaves thereof. And is there not room enough (M. jewel) in all that Council to find our matter in, except it be in some of the Canons? You mock and delude your unlearned Reader M. jewel, making him to believe that a Council consisteth only of the Canons made therein. And how many things have you alleged M. jewel in this fourth Article out of the Council of Chalcedon, and yet out of no one Canon thereof? Were it honest and true dealing, to score up Untruths in all these Allegations upon Master jewel, because no mention is made in any Canon in that Council? You are but a pelting wrangler, thus to cavil and trifle. You seek not the edifying of your Reader. You seek only to snarl at him, who hath disclosed your immoderate pride and confuted your vain malapert Challenge. But let us consider your learned Reply in this behalf. For this point touched you to the quick. To be confuted in the very terms, of your own challenge, that is death to you. Let us therefore consider how you acquit your self.  
jewel. 
The 524. Untruth For D. Harding saith not that Title was then given  Now for a brief answer, M. Harding hath found 630. bishops that (524) gave this title to Leo the bishop of Rome in the Council of Chalcodon, and called him the universal bishop, which thing (as he saith) is recorded in S. Gregory in three sundry places.  
M. jewel for a brief Reply, doth first untruly report the words of D. Harding, to th'intent he may after daily thereat at pleasure. Gentle Reader, look back to the words of D. harding last above recited. Thou shalt find, he saith not as M. jewel reporteth him. He saith not that the 630. bishops in the Council of Chalcedon gave to Leo the name of Universal Bishop. He speaketh of no such gift. But he saith, those Fathers called Leo by that name. This seemeth perhaps to be a small difference. Verily if we had not to do herein with a pelting wrangler, the difference were small in deed. But you shall see what a stir he keepeth about it.  
jewel. 
The 525. Untruth. For it was holden in the year The 453. Pantaleon in sua Chronogr. ex Sigeber to & alijs. Stapleton  Here good Christian Reader, by the way, this one thing I trust, thou wilt consider of thyself. If the name of Universal Bishop was given to the bishop of Rome in the Council of Chalcedon which was holden in the year of our Lord .488. then by M. hardings own grant; and by the witness of this Council, the Bishop of Rome before that time, had not the name of universal Bishop. Otherwise, how could either they give, that they had not to bestow, or he receive that he had already? In deed such bestowing of gifts had been very childish.  
Loe. Do you not see wha● a high point of learning M. jewel hath picked out of the word give? Think you it was no vantage for him to alter the text of D. Harding? No I warrant you. M. jewel though he make many Untruths, yet he will make few without some vantage. As touching the matter, what if the Council did not give that name, and what if D. Harding did not grant so much? Then hath M. jewel lost a good Argument. And more than that. For you shall see.  
Thus of the whole number of six hundred years, M. Harding freely, even at the sight, hath yielded us back (.526.) four hundred, four score and eight years towards the Reckoning.  
You make your Reckoning without your Host M. jewel. There is no such grant made yet unto you. Therefore you may wipe your bill and go to roust.  
This weighty consideration you have made by the way, 
The 526. Untruth For you come short of your reakoning thirty years and more.  as you say. What Reply make you to the matter itself?  
Before we pass farther, let us see what credit the Pope himself giveth to this Council of 630. Fathers holden at Chalcedon.  
jewel. It appeareth M. jewel hath small hope to Reply any thing to the matter itself, that maketh such preambles as these are. O M. jewel. Is your desperate impudence so great, that you can find in your heart to pick quarrels against the fourth General Council of Christendom, holden above a thousand years paste, with such concourse of bishops, as never was seen in any Ancient Council beside? And do you think to discredit this most famous, most learned, and most holy Council by the words of the Pope himself? Pope Leo confirmed that Council both by his Legates present at the Council, and by his letters after the Council. Pope Gelasius acknowleadged, 
Leo epist. 47. Greg. lib. 1. epist. 24. & li. 7. epist. 5. Gelas. in Tom. de Anath. vin. Tom. 1. Con.  that by the authority of the See Apostolic it was holden. Pope Simplicius excommunicated Petrus of Alexandria: Pope felix, Acacius of Constantinople: and Pope Gelasius, Anastasius the Emperor for reproving the Council of Chalcedon. Pope Gregory commanded the four general Councils to be observed and reverenced like as the four Evangelists. And thinketh now M. jewel to bring us Popes that do disallow it? Yea even of these very Popes alleged, Leo and Gelasius? Truly though nothing be to hard to one that must defend Untruth, yet this I trow will be very hard for M. jewel, so much as colourably to prove. Howbeit let us behold how impudently he faceth and avoucheth out the matter. He saith.  
jewel. Pope Gelasius saith. The Apostolic See of Rome in part allowed it not. For that things were there borne out by inordinate presumption. 
Inter Acta Con. Tarrac. The 527. Untruth. Gelasius falsely alleged touching the quotation.   
For these words of Gelasius you have noted in the Margin the Acts of the Council of Tarraconense. Now that Council was held before Gelasius was Pope under Felix the third. And in the whole Acts of that Council there is no word or half word of the Chalcedon Council. All this therefore is but a pregnant Untruth. The words of Gelasius that you do mean are among the decrees of Gelasius. Your Notary deceived you, that told you it was in Conc. Tarracon. 
In tom● de Anathem● tis vinculo  Such care you have what you writ, and what you teach the people that readeth your books. Had you seen M. jewel the whole place of Gelasius, you would have been ashamed to have alleged them as you have done, and to have taken part again with the Eutychian herelikes. For this was the case. In the Council of Chalcedon the Eutychian heretics were condemned. 
Concil. Chal. Act. 16.  At the end of that Council also not by the consent of the whole bishops, nor of the third part of the bishops (as it hath been before declared) and against the express contradiction of the Pope's legates, the bishop of Constantinople by certain of the Council, was made in dignity next to the bishop of Rome, and preferred before the patriarchs of Alexandria, and of Antioch, contrary to the express decrees of the Nicene Council, which the Pope by his legates defended. 
Can 6. Con. Nic.  This privilege of the bishop of Constantinople, the Council in their letters to Pope Leo desired most humbly the Pope to confirm, 
Concil. Chal Act. 3.  as it may be seen in the letters of the Council, registered among the Acts off the Council of Chalcedon. Yet Leo the Pope in his rescript to the Councils letters, confirming all other matters touching the Catholic faith, would in no wise confirm or allow the privilege of Constantinople: This privilege notwithstanding being (as Liberatus writeth) by the emperors favour bore● out after a sort, the Church of Constantinople fell shortly after to the Eutychian heresy, under Acacius their bishop: who therefore with Petrus Moggus Bishop of Alexandria were of Pope Felix predecessor to this Gelasius excommunicated. The upholders of this Acacius, 
Leo epist. 59 Liberatus. Cap. 18.  found fault with Gelasius the successor off Felix, for the excommunicating of Acacius, and alleged that Acacius being an Eutychian ought not to be condemned for that opinion by virtue of the Council of Chalcedon, seeing that the same Council was not in all points allowed of the See Apostolic itself. This objection of those upholders of Acacius the Eutychian, M. jewel hath picked out of Gelasius, to prove (as you see) that this Pope allowed not that General Council off Chalcedon. But Gelasius himself as he was an eloquent and learned Pope, so he answered these upholders of Acacius the Eutychian at that time, learnedly and eloquently. And the same answer may serve M. jewel taking also their part. The beginning of the place is some what abrupt and imperfect. Yet the words do evidently give to understand that all things touching the Catholic faith done and concluded in that Council, à tota ecclesia indubitanter admitti, were admitted of the whole Church without all doubt or controversy. But other things which in that Council per incompetentem praesumptionem prolata sunt vel potius ventilata, 
The .528. Untruth. Gelasius falsely translated  by inordinate presumption were propounded or rather tossed: not, as M. jewel translateth it, born out, which the See Apostolic denied, being presently by the Legates thereof gainesaied, those things the See Apostolic allowed not. And the reason in Gelasius followeth. Quia qu●e privilegijs universalis Ecclesiae contraria probantur, nulla ratione sustine●. Because such things as are contrary to the privileges of the universal Church, the See Apostolic by no means alloweth. For by the decrees of the general Council of Nice it was decreed that the Bishop off Alexandria and of Antioch should be the next patriarchs in dignity after the bishop of Rome. 
Conc. Nicen. Can. 6.  The bishop of Constantinople at that time was no patriarch at all. This was the thing that the See Apostolic allowed not. And therefore learned Leo in his letters to the whole Council of Chalcedon, 
Leo. Epist. 61. Epist. 53.54, 55. & 62.  to Anatholius then bishop of Constantinople, to Martianus the Emperor, to Pulcheria the Empress, and last of all to Maximus the patriarch of Antioch utterly disproveth and disalloweth that unlawful prerogative of the bishop of Constantinople, only because it was expressly against the Canons of the Council of Nice. And in his letters to Maximus of Antioch, thus he saith. Quicquid praeter speciale● causas synodali●m Conciliorum ad examen episcopale defertur, 
Epist. 62.  potest aliquam di●udicandi hahere rationem, si nihil de eo est à sanctis patribus apud Nicaeam definitum. Nam quod ab illorum regulis constitutioneque discordat, Apostolicae Sedis nunquam obtinebit consensum. Whatsoever in Councils is called to the judgement of bishops, beside the special causes of the Councils, it may after a sort be determined, if the matter be not already defined of the holy Fathers at Nice. For whatsoever varieth from their rules and constitutions, the Apostolic See will never consent unto it. And the reason hereof is most strong and necessary, which Leo also in that epistle allegeth, saying. universae pacis tranquillitas non aliter poterit custodiri, nisi sua Canonibus reverentia inte●nerata servetur. The quietness of universal unite can not otherwise possiby be maintained, except the Canons be reverently and inviolably observed. Thus Gelasius and Leo both, allowed and confirmed the General Council of Chalcedon, in all matters touching faith and doctrine, for the which that Council was especially called, albeit, the prerogative of the bishop of Constantinople injurious to the bishops of Alexandria and of Antioch, and contrary to the Canons of the Nicene Council, was worthily and rightfully gainesaied, resisted, and denied. Yet saith M. jewel.  
Pope Leo accuseth the whole Council of Ambition and wilful rashness.  
jewel. 
The .529. Untruth Leo never accused the whole Council so.  M. jewel should have done well, to have given a note in the margin where Leo so said, his works being so great and diverse. How be it the matter being utterly false and untrue, no marvel if he left the place without quotation. Pope Leo accuseth not the whole Council, of Ambition, but only certain of the Council, as Anatholius the bishop of Constantinople and certain other. Therefore writing of this matter so granted and presumed by certain of the Council, he calleth it, quorundam consensum, the consent of certain, 
Leo Epist. 55. Leo. Epist. 62.  and again quorundam episcoporum consensum the Agreement of certain bishops, and in an other epistle, quorundam surreptionem, the guile and fraud of certain. And as we have before declared, to this privilege of the bishop of Constantinople, 
Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 16.  there subscribed only .212. bishops, as the Acts declare, whereas the whole Council consisted of .630. bishops. So in the Ephesine Council, Inuenalis bishop of Jerusalem attempted to get by consent of certain bishops the jurisdiction over Palestine, 
Leo ep. 62  from the patriarch of Antioch, as Cyrillus the bishop of Alexandria in his letters to Pope Leo complained, but it was by the See Apostolic resisted and overthrown. As that attempt of Iwenalis' doth not disprove that learned Council of Ephesus the first, no more doth this attempt of Anatholius, any thing impair the authority of the Council of Chalcedon.  
jewel. 
32. quaest. 2. Tria legit. The .530. Untruth Slanderous, and joined with a folly. Exca. 27. Con. Chal. 26. quaest. 2. Nullus.  And S. Hierom in the case of Matrimony, Inter raptorem & raptam is received against all those .630. bishops, and against the determination of the whole Council.  
I wot not verily, whether this false dealing of M. jewel proceed of wilful malice, or of mere ignorance. The question moved of Gratian is this. An raptori rapta nubere possit patre assensum praebente. Whether a maid taken away by violence may be married to the party that useth such violence, by the consent of the Father. First he proveth by the Council off Chalcedon and divers other authorities that two such parties ought not to be coupled together in matrimony. But then he saith. Raptor & rapta nomina sunt vitiorum non personarum. Vitia autem cum per poenitentiam purgata fuerint, nomina eorum abolentur. A user of vilence, and a party so used, are the names of the faults not of the persons. But faults being purged by penance, do lose their names. For so the adulterer that repenteth, is no more an advonterer. Upon this distinction he allegeth authorities, that such parties after satisfaction may marry, and among the rest, S. Hierom. Who speaking of three kinds of lawful marriages, 
Ibidem. Tria legitima  putteth for the second, this. Virgo in civitate etc. Amayde in some city taken of a man and coupled to him by violence, if the Father of the maid will, the man shall give her a dowry as much as the Father shall think good, and shall give the price of her virginity. By this satisfaction of the dowry to be made by the man that hath done the violence in recompense of that injury (which dowry otherwise the Father should have given with the daughter) the fault is taken away by S. Hieroms' judgement, and so they may mary. Not as Raptor & rapta, contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, but as man and wife, the other trespass of violence used, being by satisfaction of a dowry paid, abolished. And this ●s S. Hierom defended and the Council of Chalcedon both. Understand your laws better M. jewel, before you allege them. Abuse not your Reader which desireth to learn, and looketh not to be mocked at your hands, M. jewel, with the quotations in your margin out of Pope's decrees, making nothing for your purpose. Use no more false marginal notes, like a Cal for birds: tolling therewith your Readers consent to falsehood and Untruth. The more you deceive, the greater is your damnation.  
In such regard they have the Councils, when they list.  
Like as a Shrew having well bet her husband crieth out to her neighbours, as if her husband had bet her, so here M. jewel having spett all his poison against the holy Council of Chalcedon, having missereported Gelasius, 
The 531. Untruth Slanderous.  flatly belied Leo, and ignorantly alleged the decrees, now he crieth out against the Catholics, and saith that they have no regard of Counsels but when they list. This therefore to be but a mere Slanderous Untruth, it appeareth by that which hath before been said. Let us proceed.  
jewel. But the law saith. It is against reason that one man should in part allow the will of the dead (so far forth as it maketh for him) and in part overthrow it (where it seemeth to make against him).  
Stapleton M. jewel did very well to put his gloze to the law. For hereby it is evident, that the law maketh nothing for him. That part of the Council of Chalcedon touching the unlawful prerogative of the bishop of Constantinople before the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, which Leo and Gelasius after him disproved, made nothing for the bishop off Rome's Primacy, or against his Primacy, but only it made against the Nicene Council which the bishops of Rome most godly and rightfully defended. For notwithstanding that Privilege of the bishop of Constantinople granted by the emperors Commissioners, through the consent of certain bishops, yet the same Commissioners pronouncing that Sentence, said expressly these words. 
Concil. C●alced. Act. 16.  Ex his quae gesta sunt vel ab unoquoque deposita perpendimus omnem quidem Primatum & honorem praecipuum secundum Canon's, antiquae Romae deo amantissimo Archiepiscopo confirmari. By these Acts and depositions of each one we understand, that all the Primacy and chief honour is reserved, according to the Canons, to the well-beloved of God, the archbishop of old Rome. After which words followeth the privilege of Constantinople over Asia, Pontus, and Thracia. In all these words therefore Master jewel hath declared his good will that he beareth to the general councils of Christendom. But gods name be blessed, though he hath spett his poison, the Truth remaineth sound. Remember the saying of the wise man M. jewel. Quid stulti proprium? Non posse & velle nocere. Remember that of late years in the very time of your schism, the four first general Councils, of the which this Council off Chalcedon is one, were allowed by open Parliament. Verily in the very first beginning of the Christian faith among us englishmen, our Country being in a manner all and throughout converted to the faith, our godly ancestors thought it necessary by a full Synod and Council of our own country to establish the authority of the v. general Councils off Christ's Church holden before their days, 
Beda lib. 4 cap. 17.  of the which this Council of Chalcedon is the fourth. And Severus a schismatical bishop of Antioch had his tongue cut out by the commandment of the Catholic Emperor justinus for the blasphemies that he uttered against this holy Council of Chalcedon. 
Nicephor. lib. 17. c. 2  Such examples you follow, and such you forsake in defending your most impudent Challenge. Let us hear you proceed.  
jewel. 
The 532. Untruth. For D. harding will not put any doubt of that councils credit. The lewdness of M. jewel  But M. Harding will say. Of what credit so ever this Council ought to be, it gave Leo the name of universal bishop.  
No. No. M. jewel. D. Harding will put no such doubts of the credit of the Council of Chalcedon. He neither hath said neither will say any such thing. And yet you have printed those words in a distinct letter, as if not only D. Harding would so say, but also had already so said. So impudent and false you are not only in misalleaging the words of the doctors, which the unlearned Reader seeth not, but even in falsifying the words of D. Harding, whose whole text lieth open in your book to be readen. But you think perhaps to be of such credit, with your Reader, that he will trust your allegation, without looking to the text being so nigh and easy to espy. And verily so did I trust you M. jewel in the beginning also. But now I have perceived that you altar sometimes the words of D. Harding in your own text, though they are truly set forth in his text, which maketh me not always to trust you. But alas, when come you to the matter M. jewel?  
jewel. And what if all this be utterly untrue? 
M. jewel toieth and dallieth.  What if there were no such title either offered or given in the Council?  
Stapleton. 
Lib. 4. epist. 32. & 36.  Truly then you shall prove S. Gregory a liar. Who said expressly, it was Offered. As for the giving, that word is not avouched by D. Harding as it hath before been showed. But let us hear your proofs.  
jewel. 
The 533. Untruth. For S. Gregory saith, it was corrupted many a year ago.  Certainly the whole Council of Chalcedon is extant abroad, both written and printed and may soon be seen.  
If the whole Council be extant, and yet no such thing can be found in the Council, then S. Gregory made a lie in deed, which avouched the Council did so. But I reckon it a matter of more credit, that S. Gregory said, than that M. jewel avoucheth. Let M. jewel prove that the whole Council is extant and that nothing thereof lacketh, and so prove S. Gregory a liar. 
Lib. 5. epist. 14.  Else it will be thought M. jewel hath made a 〈◊〉, and not S. Gregory: Certainly S. Gregory him self saith. Sancta Chalcedonensis Synodus in uno loco ab ecclesia Constantinopolitana falsata est. The holy Council of Chalcedon was in one place corrupted by the Church of Constantinople.  
jewel. Why doth not M. Harding allege either the place, or the Canon or the words? At the least why giveth he no note in the Margin, where this authority may be found?  
Stapleton Forsooth, and if it please you M. jewel, he alleged S. Gregory for his Author, and that in three sundry epistles. He thought his authority should satisfy you. He knew not before forsooth, you would have taken the matter so hot, or have called him to account so straightly, having so good an Author as saint Gregory is, to bear him witness. He thought, such evidence might have served his plea. What say you therefore to the evidence? What say you to S. Gregory? We must suffer you to dally yet a while, and to bait your Reader with vain talk: Go to then. Let us hear you.  
jewel. 
The 534. Untruth. For not he, but Athanasius so said. Pag. 234. Lib. 5. epist. 14.  Perhaps he will say. This Canon was burnt by some heretics: as he (534) said before of the Council of Nice.  
Not he M. jewel, but Athanasius himself (as you have before confessed) saith the Canons of the Nicene Council were burnt by the Arrians. And of this Council of Chalcedon S. Gregory saith, as you heard before. It hath been falsified in one place thereof by the Church of Constantinople.  
jewel. Howbeit it were much for him to say, that of the whole Council only six lines should be burnt, and that in all the examples through out the world, and yet all the rest remain safe.  
Stapleton M. jewel fighteth with his own shadow. There is no such loss imagined. This matter shall be found in the Council. You shall hear anon M. jewel will confess it himself.  
jewel. 
The 535. Untruth. The Pope claimeth not his Title by any such words.  Or else the words whereby the Pope (535) claimeth his title should so negligently be lost, and that in Rome itself, in the Pope's own Library, and yet the words that the Pope reproveth and condemneth should stand whole.  
This is a slanderous Untruth. The Pope claimeth not his Title by the words of Universal bishop. Master jewel in all this Article with all his study and conference with his friends can name no one Pope that ever so called himself, or required to be so called. And yet he putteth this Title neither desired nor used of any Pope, as the ground and foundation off the Pope's supremacy. Will you know M. jewel, whereupon the Pope's primacy is grounded? S. Gregory hath told you in the beginning of this Article. 
Whereupon the Pope's Primacy is grounded. Matth. 16. joan. 21. Luc. 22.  It is grounded upon the words of our Saviour in the Ghospel to S. Peter, whose successor the Pope is. It hath been established by the General councils namely of Nice and Sardica. It hath been confessed by the continual practice of the Church, by Appeals to that See, by Reconciliations, by Confirmations of Counsels, by Confirming of Bishops and so forth, not only of these 900. Years and upward by your own confession M. jewel, but even of the first 600. Years also, as it hath been in this Article against your most lying Reply, clearly and evidently proved. It hath been confessed of the learned Fathers, and Confirmed by the decrees of Emperors. Upon such good grounds is the supremacy of the See Apostolic builded. These grounds you shall never remove M. jewel, nor any of your sect, without most manifest, most impudent, and most outrageous Untruths. Such as you have in this Article abundantly committed.  
jewel. M. Harding hath no other Council within six hundred years after Christ to hold by, but only this. 
The .536. Untruth. For he hath the Council of Nice and of Sardica, beside, to hold by in this matter.  And yet the same can not be found.  
This is an other pregnant untruth. For both the Council of Nice and of Sardica, both within less than 400. Years after Christ have confessed a primacy in the Bishop of Rome by the which D. Harding holdeth, and the very name of Universal bishop M. jewel anon will find himself in the Council of Chalcedon. Yet we must give him leave in the mean while to brag and crow at pleasure.  
jewel. But S. Gregory is witness sufficient.  
Stapleton Thanked be God M. jewel hath not so forgotten him self, but that at length he cometh to the matter. Now Sir. What saith S. Gregory?  
jewel. He saith, that 630. bishops in the Council of Chalcedon, named the bishop of Rome the universal bishop. ●his is an Untruth to beguile the Reader.  
Stapleton Then by God's grace, you will prove it to be so. Let us hear your Reason.  
jewel. 

The. 53●. Untruth. For S. Gregory saith, the bishops in that Council so called the B. of Rome, as it shall anon appear.  
Greg. li. 4. Epist. 32. &. 36.  
The .538. Untruth. For he saith not so only as it shall strait appear.   For Gregory saith not, the bishops in that Council Saluted, Entitled, Proclaimed, or (537) Called the bishop of Rome by that name.  
As for Saluting, entitling, Proclaiming, they are no part neither of your Challenge, neither of D. hardings Answer. But that the Pope was Called the Universal bishop, you deny, and D. Harding out of S. Gregory will prove. To that what do you Reply?  
Only (538.) he saith. The name of universal bishop was offered by the Council of Chalcedon to the bishop of Rome.  
Will you grant so much M. jewel? Then where is become your what if, which you made before, when you said: what though there were no such title either given or offered in the Council? You confess yourself now, it was offered in that Council, and so you prove yourself that you uttered before a manifest untruth. But now to the matter. You have confessed the words of S. Gregory. What say you now unto them? Thus you say.  
jewel. 
The .539. Untruth. For S. Gregory saith it. The .540. Untruth, Slanderous.  He said they offered to call him so, but that they called him so in deed (539) he saith not. therefore M. Harding herein (540) overreacheth and missetelleth his Author's tale.  
S. Gregory writeth of this matter in more places than one. Therefore though in the words by ●ou noted he saith not expressly, The bishops of Rome were called Universal bishops by the Council of Chalcedon, yet in an other place he saith so. In a letter to john of Constantinople he writeth so expressly and plainly, in these words. Nunquid non, sicut vestra sanctitas novit, per venerandum Chalcedonense Concilium huius Apostolicae Sedis Antistites, cui deo disponente deseruio, 
Grego. lib. 4. epist. 38  Vniversales oblato honore vocati sunt? Were not (as your holiness knoweth) the bishops of this Apostolic See, (which by the Providence off God I serve) by the reverent Council off Chalcedon Calle● Universal Bishops, that honour being Offered them? Behold M. jewel, and remember your promise at Paul's Crosse. You said there. If it can be showed out of any Old General Council that the bishop of Rome was within the first 600 Years Called an Universal Bishop, you will yield and Subscribe. S. Gregory (whom yourself before calleth, (a witney suffiment) whom Venerable Bede calleth Our Apostle, 
Li. 2. ca 1. Hist. gentis Anglorum.  because he sent us our first preachers of Christian faith, whom the Church hath esteemed as one of the Four doctors off the same, this holy and learned Father telleth you, that By the reverent Council of Chalcedon his predecessors (bishops of Rome) were Called Universal Bishops. Will you now come to the book and Subscribe? Will you yield according to Promise? What you will do, it is easy to judge. But that you may so do, for your own sake I wish. In the mean the Reader seeth, both that you have (not overreached or missetolde) but flatly belied your Author S. Gregory, and also how D. Harding hath neither overreached nor missetolde his Author, but hath avouched that, which his Author expressly wrote.  
But let us take S. Gregory's words, even as yourself M. jewel, hath alleged them. Thus they stand. The name off Universal bishop was offered by the Council of Chalcedon to the bishop of Rome. His words are not. The Council offered to call him so. Therefore M. jewel hath overreached and missetolde his Author's tale.  
Now when the Council offered that name to the bishop of Rome, I would gladly learn of M. jewel, how and by what means they offered it. Either they offered it by mouth, or by writing. If by writing, than they entitled him so, and called him so in writing. If they offered that name unto Leo by mouth, than they spoke it out to his legates (for he himself was not present at the Council) they spoke it I say and uttered it by mouth. I trust M. jewel will not say. The whole Council stood up, and gaped upon the legates, and proffered to speak, but the legates before they spoke or uttered any word at all, desired them to hold their peace, and not to utter their minds. Unless they did this, or some like thing, it can not be true that M. jewel saith, They offered to call him so, but it must be true that D. Harding saith, they called him so in deed, and that either by mouth or by writing. For how a name or title can be offered, without it be spoken or written I know not.  
jewel. But S. Gregory saith further, that neither Leo, nor any other of his predecessors bishops of Rome, would ever re●eiue that Arrogant and ungodly name, or suffer himself to be so called, notwithstanding it were offered by the Council. The bishops of Rome never used that name, notwithstanding it were offered to them. Therefore they ought to lose it by non usure.  
Stapleton This is a very good Conclusion M. jewel. You say very well: The bishops of Rome never used it in deed. therefore (say you) they ought to lose it by non usure. On God's name. We do not desende that Name M. jewel. The Pope requireth it not, but hath ever shunned it and refused it. Only because of your rash Challenge, it hath been showed, that the Pope hath been so called off others. Which also yourself confesseth, saying.  
All this notwithstanding, true it is, that M. Harding saith, Leo in that Council of Chalcedon was thus called. The places be known and may not be denied.  
Lo gentle Reader: M. jewel now, nothwithstandinge the Untruth noted in his margin, notwithstanding his what ifs, 
M. jewel confesseth for Truth, which he noted before in D. Hard. For Untruth.  notwithstanding his great questioning of Canons lost and six lines burnt, notwithstanding I say all this great storming and striving that he made before, now he confesseth the Truth, and saith All this notwithstanding true it is, that M. Harding saith, etc. Yea he will show us the very places off the Council of Chalcedon, beside the witness of saint Gregory, in the which the Pope is called Universal bishop and not only called, but saluted: For thus he saith.  
jewel. He is so saluted in three sundry Epistles. 
M. jewel confesseth that, which in ●is Challenge, he valunted, no man could prove.  The one sent by one Athanasius a priest, the other by one Ischyrion a deacon. The third by one Theodorus likewise a deacon.  
Lo you have heard M. jewels Confession. That the Pope is saluted Universal bishop in three sundry Epistles in the Acts of the Chalcedon Council. But what think we now? Will M. jewel trow we, yield and Subscribe? He confesseth himself, the Pope was Called and saluted Universal bishop in three sundry letters registered in the Council of Chalcedon, which Council was holden as M. jewel also confesseth in the year of our Lord 488. This was more than one whole hundred of years within his 600. What then? Will M. jewel Subscribe and yield? No No. He never meaned no such matter. You shall see what shift he hath to escape his promise. He saith.  
jewel. But of that whole number of six hundred and thirty bishops there assembled, I trow M. Harding is not well able to show that any one ever saluted or called him so.  
Stapleton What then M. jewel? Was your challenge made at Paul's Cross of those six hundred and thirty bishops assembled together in the Council of Chalcedon. Was that the tenor of your Challenge at Paul's Cross? Is that Condition annexed to the words of your Challenge? Nay you speak very largely and freely, 
The Tenor of M. jewels Challenge.  If it can be showed out of any old Catholic doctor, or Father, or out of any old general Council, or out of the holy Scriptures of God, or any one example of the primitive Church, whereby it may clearly and plainly be proved, that the Bishop of Rome was with in the first six hundred years called an Universal Bishop, or Head of the universal Church, you will yield and subscribe. Now Sir, here you have not only a General Council by the witness of S. Gregory, but also an Example of a Priest and two Deacons of the Primitive Church, that Called, Saluted and Entitled Leo the Pope of Rome, an Universal bishop. That it is clearly and plainly proved, you confess yourself, 
jewel. Pag. 298.  saying. The places be known, it can not be denied. Will you now except and draw back because they were no bishops which so saluted and Entitled the Pope?  
Do not all men here see, that you mocked your whole Audience when you made your Challenge, and that you never intended to perform, which so stoutly you promised twice in the Pulpit? Or was it (M. jewel) the Act then passed in Parliament, which made you so bold? Thinking that thereby all men's mouths should be mouseled, and you might crow alone?  
For why M. jewel? The Priest and Deacons of that time, are they no Christian men? Or is their testimony the worse because they were of the clergy? Then behold an other testimony read and Registered also in that holy Council of one neither priest nor deacon, and yet a Christian man, who in his supplication offered up to the Pope and to the Council of Chalcedon, useth the very same Title and style as the other two deacons and Athanasius the priest did. 
Concil. Chalced. Act. 3.  The title of the supplication is this. Sanctissimo & beatissimo universali Archiepiscopo & Patriarchae magnae urbis Romae Leoni, & sanctissimo Concilio secundum voluntatem Dei & Divina mandata in Chalcedonensi Civitate congregato, a Sophronio Christiano. That is. To the most holy and most blessed Universal archebishopp and patriarch of the great City of Rome Leo, and to the most holy Council assembled together in the City of Chalcedon according to the will and commandments of God, by Sophronius a Christian man. Will this Example please you M. jewel? This is an Example of the primitive Church. This was neither poor deacon, nor strange priest, as you term them scornfully, more like a Hicke scorner, then like a Bishop, but this was a Christian lay man and as it appeareth a man of worship. For in his Supplication to the Pope and to the Council, wherein he accused Dioscorus the tyrannical Patriarch of Alexandria, he added, that many other could say as much as he said against the same Dioscorus, but that sive pro paupertate, sive pro timore eius tyrannidis non sunt ausi, partly for poverty, partly for fear of his tyranny they durst not. Whereby it appeareth, this Sophronius was neither poor, neither of such a state as he needed to fear the Patriarch.  
Now because M. jewel urgeth this matter and would make it of no force, because no bishop did so call the Pope in the Council, I would wish M. jewel, if he can, to satisfy and solute these questions.  
First when S. Gregory witnessed (which M. jewel also confesseth) that the Council of Chalcedon offered the name of Universal Bishop to Leo then Pope of Rome, 
That the Bishop of the Chalcedon Council Called Leo, Universal Bishop.  yea and that his predecessors were by that holy Council so Called, whether he meaned not that the bishops off the same Council did offer that name and Call them so, or no. If not the bishops, then either the Emperor and his Council, or the notaries and inferior clergy of those bishops did offer that name and Call his predecessors by that name. And then it was not the Council at all that did it. For a Council consisteth of bishops, not of the lay magistrate, or of the inferior clergy. And therefore it was cried in this very Council of Chalcedon. 
Actione. 1  Synodus episcoporum est, non clericorum. A Council is of bishops not of clerks. If then of the bishops of that Council that name was offered, and ofter it they could not without expressing the name, either by mouth or by writing, if by those bishops, they being the Body of the Council, the Bishops of Rome were so Called, than it is clear that the bishops of that Council either by mouth Called the Pope Universal bishop, or by writing Entitled him so. And thus by the witness of S. Gregory it is clear, the bishops of the Council of Chalcedon no less in number then six hundred and thirty, either called by mouth, or entitled by writing the Bishop off Rome an Universal Bishop. And so M. jewel must Subscribe.  
Again whereas the supplications of Athanasius priest, of Theodorus and Ischyrion deacons, and of Sophronius the lay Christian man, offered up to that Council, were by the commandment off the bishops, namely of Paschasinus one of the Pope's legates there, of Petrus bishop of Corinthe, 
Concil. Chal. Act. 3.  Marinianus bishop of Synnada, of Pergamius bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, of Patricius bishop of Tyana, and by the consent of all the rest, registered among the Acts and monuments of the Council, were they not also, I ask you M. jewel, allowed and approved of the bishops? Should they otherwise not only have been readen in the Council, but also be registered in the Acts thereof? The supplications then being thus registered and allowed, was not think you the Title and style thereof also allowed? If it had been then accounted a blasphemous, strange, or injurious title, that the Pope should be entitled Universal Bishop, would that holy and learned Council, not only have given the hearing thereof, but also commanded the same to be registered and reserved with the other Acts of the Council? Would they not rather have blamed those deacons, that priest, and that other lay man for using that Term, and for entitling the bishop of Rome with the name of Universal bishop, if they had in deed disallowed it, or been of that mind as M. jewel is of? Therefore seeing it was not of the bishops reproved, but by their express Commandment Registered among the Acts of the Council and thereby Allowed, it followeth the bishops allowed that Title, and so the Example is of good authority, and can not be avoided. Verily of no less authority then if the bishops themselves had so saluted or entitled the Pope. It followeth also by force of this Clear Example of the primitive Church, M. jewel according to the tenor of his Challenge must yield and Subscribe.  
Thirdly I would gladly learn of M. jewel, how it happened that Athanasius this priest, Ischyrion and Theodorus the deacons, and Sophronius the lay Christian man, being all of Alexandria in Egypt, and subject to that diocese and patriarkeship (as it appeareth evidently in their supplications against Dioscorus their patriarch) made their supplication not only to the whole Council, but to Leo the Pope by name, who yet was not otherwise present there, then by his legates? Why do these of Alexandria in Egypt, put up their supplication to the Pope by name, having the whole Council present, and call him the Universal Bishop, omitting the other patriarchs of Antioch and of Constantinople, but that they acknowledged him as Head and Chief of the Council, and as the Primate and Superior to all other bishops and patriarchs?  
fourthly I would the wisdom of M. jewel would instruct us how these suppliants and plaintiffs of Alexandria would have presumed to Salute and entitle the Pope of Rome, a Universal bishop and that in the presence of a whole Council, unless that name and Title of right appertained to the bishop of Rome? Or what vantage could it be unto them to make a lie, and to utter such a Title in honour of the Pope, which did dishonour and debace all the rest of the bishops (in that sense as M. jewel taketh Universal bishop) and should therefore in so doing have provoked all the Countell to indignation and displeasure for so injuring them even to their faces? Must we for M. jewels pleasure, imagine such a peevish absurdity or blind beetle ignorance in those four plaintiffs of Alexandria?  
Last of all what thinketh M. jewel in this matter? Thinketh he that those four plaintiffs of Alexandria did then first and upon their own heads call the bishop of Rome Universal Bishop? Shall we not rather think that in such a solemn Instrument of their humble suit and petition to the Pope and to the Council, they would with all diligence and truth, exactly observe the right, dew, and approved Title of the Bishop of Rome and of the whole Council? When are Titles of Magistrates exactly and truly penned, but in the suits and complaints made to Magistrates? And what can more evidently prove the dew title of a Magistrate, than the approved tenor of supplications made unto the Magistrate? Or are such Titles in all private suits exactly kept, and in the most honourable assembly of a whole General Council not kept? Nay it is most evident by this Example of the Primitive Church, the Pope was either by the Consent of that Council than first, or else before usually and of right called Universal bishop, of others, though the Popes themselves to avoid the inconvenience of a wrong sense that might be gathered thereof, have never so entitled themselves. And therefore M. jewel to this Example of the primitive Church must Subscribe.  
jewel. Therefore, whereas Master harding, the better to put his Reader in remembrance, hath set this note in the Margin, The Bishop of Rome was called the universal bishop, and head of the Church above a thousand years sithence, he might with more truth and much better have noted his book thus. S. Gregory's words misalleaged, the Council falsified, this only Canon lost, all the rest whole and safe, A strange priest, and two porre deacons, in their private suits for their goods, and legacies, named Leo the universal bishop. But of the six hundred and thirty bishops, that had voices in the Council, not one ever named him so. Thus much M. harding might truly have noted in the margin.  
Stapleton If Facing and Bragging, if Blazing of letters, and impudent Looks may persuade, than M. jewel hath won the Price. We read of two noble men of Athens, Pericles and Thucydides, the one eloquent of tongue, 
Plutarch in Pericle.  the other strong and valiant of body, that making a Combat and wrestling the one with the other in the sight of all the people, Pericles being ever cast by Thucy dides, he had yet such a slight that suddenly recovering himself, he would by his eloquence persuade the people, that he had given his fellow the fall, though all they saw with their eyes that he had taken the foil and the fall both. It seemeth M. jewel hath conceived some like vain hope of Dame Eloquence and impudency her cousin, that being expressly forced upon his fond and rash Challenge to yield and Subscribe by clear and express evidence, he may shift yet the whole matter away, from him self, and to give his adversary the foil. For this purpose he hath overreached the words of S. Gregory, and hath forced the whole Council of Chalcedon to stand gaping upon the Pope's legates, and not be so hardy as to speak out their minds, when they offered Leo the name of Universal bishop, lest if they had spoken out, M. jewel had been confounded. Therefore he maketh S. Gregory to say, The counsel offered to call the Pope so, but calleth him not so in deed. Again he telleth the Reader of Canons lost, and six lines burnt, and only this poor name of Universal bishop not able to be found in the whole Council. Thirdly confessing of fine force the Truth which before he denied, and showing how in the very Council the Pope was so Called, Saluted, and Entitled, than he thinketh to debace the matter, for that they were two poor deacons, not rich Bishops and a strange priest, not an Englishman borne (for else I marvel why M. jewel should call any priest of all Christendom a strange priest) and again that none of the 630. bishops called the Pope by that name. Whereas yet neither his Challenge was made of those .630. bishops, or of any bishops at all, more than priests or deacons, and also the supplications of those parties and the style thereof was both allowed of the bishops, and by their Commandment Registered among the Acts and monuments of the Council. Last of all that all this was done in their private suits for their goods, as though suitors and suppliants might be suff●ed to use a false flatte●ing style more than the judges would allow, and as though that should help their cause, and not rather greatly hinder it, having a whole Council of so many learned and holy bishops assembled from all parts of the world to be their judges. Which (as it may well be gathered) neither for their holiness would dissemble and wink at such a false flattering Title, neither for their learning could be ignorant what Title of right appertained to the Pope. Which if it had been otherwise then meet and right, the plaintiffs in that case had been more likely to have sped the worse, then to have fared the better therefore. Unless M. jewel will also say, that all the whole Council was either lead by flattery, or blinded with ignorance, and that he only walketh upright, and seeth all. Therefore the marginal note of D. Harding is true, that above a thousand years past, The Pope was Called, Entitled and Saluted, the Universal Bishop: Wherefore M. jewel must Subscribe: There is no remedy.  
Harding. Sundry holy Martyrs bishops of Rome used to call themselves bishops of the universal Church: which in effect is the same as the Fathers of Chalcedon understood.  
jewel. The 119. Untruth. For these names import not one thing, 
The 541. Untruth. Slanderous.  as shall appear.  
The name of Universal bishop, and of, bishop of the Universal Church, as the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon understood universal bishop, are in effect all one. How show you the contrary?  
jewel. If an universal bishop and a bishop of the Universal Church be (541) all one thing, how then is it true, that S. Gregory saith, 
Lib. 4. ep. 32. & 36 The 542. Untruth in altering D. Hard. meaning. For he said not,, they were all one thing absolutely, or in Saint Gregory's sense, but as the Fathers off Chalcedon understood them.  none of my predecessors would ever consent to this name? Or how can he find such fault with the name of universal bishop, and bear so easily with the name of Bishop of the universal Church, which he knew, his predecessors had used, if he took them both for one thing without difference? To be short, if these names, as M. Harding assureth himself, be both one thing, how is the one godly, the other ungodly, the one Arrogant, the other not Arrogant, the one blasphemous, the the other not blasphemous?  
All these words make one argument. But all these words do not answer D. Harding. S. Gregory blameth the name of Universal bishop: But he blameth not the name of Bishop of the Universal Church. Therefore to S. Gregory, and in S. Gregory's meaning they are not all one. I grant. But as the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon understood them, they are all one. S. Gregory understood the name of universal bishop, as excluding all other bishops. 
Lib. 4. epist. 34. Of this matter Read more in the beginning off this Article. fol. 7.  Therefore he saith of john of Constantinople which usurped that name: Despectis omnibus solus conatur appellari episcopus. despising all other bishops, he would only be called a bishop. In this sense it was a proud, arrogant, ungodly, blasphemous, and the very name of Antichrist. But in this sense the Council of Chalcedon offered not that name to Leo. For who can ever think that such a number of learned and holy Bishops would either be so wicked, as to commit such a sacrilege, or so foolish, as to deprive themselves, and to make themselves no bishops at all, only to extol and make one only man a Universal and only bishop of all the world. They had therefore undoubtedly an other sense and meaning in those words than that proud patriarch john of Constantinople usurped, or then holy S. Gregory and Pelagius his predecessor, so earnestly blamed, reproved, and condemned. They called the B. of Rome Universal bishop, as they called him the bishop of the Universal Church. By the which title in that Council he is oftentimes called, 
A●t. 13. & 8.  namely in the subscriptions of his legates. That is, either a Catholic bishop, and a bishop of the Catholic Church, (as M. jewel thinketh the word Universal to signify) or a supreme and chief bishop over the whole Church, as the Council off Chalcedon took and confessed Leo the bishop of Rome, to be. Which may easily be proved, not only by the whole Acts of the Council in the condemnation of Dioscorus and of Eutyches, but by the words also of their letters sent and directed to Leo the Pope for a confirmation of their whole doings in the Council. 
Concil. Chal. Act. 3.  The words of the Councils whole letters to Pope Leo are these. Si ubi sunt duo aut tr●● congregati in nomine eius, ibi se in medio eorum fore perhibuit Christus, 
The Bishop off Rome Called Head off the Council by the General letters off the Council itself.  quantam circa sacerdotes peculiaritatem potuit demonstrare, qui & patria & liberis, suae confessionis notitiam praetulerunt? Quibus tu quidem sicut membris Caput praeras, in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem, beneuol●ntiam praeferens. If when two or three be gathered in the name of Christ, he promised to be in the midst of them, what a special care hath Christ at this time had of his priests, which have left their country and their children to set forth the confession of him? Over the which multitude thou hast been precedent as the Head over other parts of the body, declaring to them thy great good will in thy Legates. In these words the whole Council of six hundred and thirty bishops assembled in Chalcedon, do call and confess Leo the Pope Head to them all. In this sense therefore as he was their Head, it is to be thought they offered the name of Universal bishop, that is, as the Head bishop over the Universal Church of Christ, not in the other proud and arrogant sense which long after this Council john of Constantinople usurped, and Pelagius and Gregory virtuous and holy Popes reproved and condemned. This sense also as the Council of Chalcedon understood, seemeth hereby to be all one in effect, with the title of bishop of the Universal Church: not the sense in which S. Gregory took those words. And thus M. jewel hath proved that by the meaning of S. Gregory they are diverse, which no man denied, but he hath not proved that by the meaning of the Council of Chalcedon they were divers, which D. Harding denied. So he hath (as in all his Reply over in a manner,) Replied, but not to the matter.  
Now that M. jewel for a surplusage hath found that divers other patriarchs were called Universal bishops, what hath he done thereby but declared his former ignorance and the fond rashness of his vain challenge? For if other patriarchs be so called, and yet of all other patriarchs the bishop of Rome by M. jewels own confession hath ever been the first, 
Pag. 286. The vanity of M. jewels Challenge.  how could he doubt but that the bishop of Rome also was so called? If he knew so before, what a vanity was it to make such a challenge of that title which other had as well as the bishop of Rome? And which no bishop of Rome ever used or desired? If he knew it not before, but hath learned it sense by farther search and diligence, then as he was deceived in the one, so let him not be ashamed to acknowledge his ignorance in the other. As it hath been found I say that john, Epiphanius, and Therasius of Constantinople were called Universal bishops, by his own confession, so let him confess and acknowledge that the bishop of Rome, Leo by name, was entitled and saluted an Universal bishop in four sundry letters of no Romans, nor of the Roman province, but of the Patriarkeship and province of Alexandria, in the presence of the whole Council of Chalcedon, in their humble suit and plea, where it is most likely, they would utter nothing but truth, specially in a matter which could nothing further them, but rather directly hinder than and make all those bishops their heavy Lords, if at lest they entitled the Pope Universal bishop in that sense as M. jewel imagineth, they did. Let him, I say, confess this, acknowledge his former ignorance, and Subscribe.  
Harding. The same title (of bishop of the universal Church) was used likewise after the Nicene Council by Felix, by Leo, and divers others before the six hundred years after Christ were expired.  
jewel. 
The 543. Untruth. Slanderous.  The 120. Untruth. For immediately before M. harding confesseth that Leo never wrote himself by that name.  
Stapleton. This a manifest and impudent Untruth, of M. jewel. D. Harding said before, In very deed neither Leo himself nor any his successor, ever called or wrote himself by that name, as S. Gregory saith, meaning the name of Universal bishop as the course of his text declareth evidently. But in these later words he speaketh not of the name of Universal bishop but of the name of the bishop of the universal Church. We need not spend words and paper to declare this. The text of D. harding may be seen both in M. jewels Reply, and in the other two editions of that book. Who so ever readeth the text, shall see to the eye, that M. jewel herein was either blindly overfene, or maliciously affected.  
Who so ever travaileth in the reading of the Ancient Fathers, findeth that name (he meaneth Head of the Church) almost every where attributed to Peter the first bishop of Rome, and consequently to the successor of Peter, that name (I say) either in terms aequivalent or expressly.  
jewel. 
The. 54●. Untruth. Slanderous.  The 121. Untruth. For Peter only is so called, yet was not Peter then Bishop of Rome.  
Stapleton. 
The .545. Vnruthe. For Peter was B. of Rome, when he was Head of the Church.  What? Will. M. jewel defend now, that Peter was not bishop of Rome, and renew the old doting opinion of his Father Luther, holding, that Peter was never at Rome? M. jewel saith: Peter was not then bishop of Rome. What meaneth he trow we by this? Doth he mean Then, that is when those fathers wrote and called him so, he was not Bishop of Rome? Who is so very a dolt as to say that? If he mean, by Then, the time that he lived here in earth, by how many authorities might he be confounded? S. Hierom saith plainly: 
In Catalogo vir. illust. Ton. 1.  Petrus Romae vigintiquinque annis Cathedram sacerdotalem tenuit. Peter occupied the priestly Chair at Rome xxv. years, 
a lib. 3. cap. 3.  Ireneus, 
b ep. 165.  Optatus, and 
c Lib. 2.  Augustin reakoning up the Bishops of Rome, until their time, do reaken Peter for the first bishop of Rome. 
d Lib. 3.3. De excid. Haer.  Egesippus 
e Lib. 2. cap. 14 & 15. & 15.  Eusebius and Epiphanius do testify that S. Peter suffered at Rome. And will M. jewel forsake and gainsay all these learned Fathers of Christ's Church, the lowest of them well near twelve hundred years old? josephus a right approved historiographer saith, Illud veritatis certè signum esse, si de eisdem rebus eadem omnes conscribant. 
f Hier. 27. Lib. 1. ont●a ●pp●onem.  That is an undoubted token of truth, when all even of one matter do pronounce after one sort. Let therefore M. jewel bring any one writer before the age of that fond friar Martin Luther, that ever wrote the contrary. It is marvel that M. jewel avouching this matter so stoutly, and building his Untruth thereupon, would yet in all his text, bring no proof, no reason, no argument at all to confirm it. I wiss he could have told us much out of the story of his brethren of Meydeburge, 
Centur. 2.  had he thought their lies worth the telling. Therefore he thought better to avouch it by his own Sovereign authority stoutly, then to prove his most Impudent Untruth fondly. Now because M. jewel avoucheth that only Peter was called Head of the Church, and yet his assertion nothing weakened there by, let us shortly See a reason or two that may be Framed thereof.  
S. Peter by M. jewels confession, was called Head of the, Church of the Fathers.  
S. Peter was Bishop off Rome within the first .600. years. Ergo the bishop off Rome was Called Head of the Church within the first .600. years. Now because M. jewel saith that only S. Peter was so called, let us prove the like of Damasus an other bishop of Rome .400. years after Christ, by the argument that D. Harding made, and the which M. jewel in his Reply reproveth, because it was not solennelye made in mode and figure, 
Ambros. in 1. Timoth. Cap. 3.  as though for lack of that, it could not be made otherwise. The words first of S. Ambrose are these. Where as the whole world is Gods, yet the Church is called his House the Ruler whereof at these days is Damasus. Of these words I frame this argument, in good mode and figure.  

Damasus Head of the Universal Church.  Whosoever ruleth the house of God which S. Paul speaketh of to Timothe, ruleth the Universal Church. But Damasus the Pope by the verdict of S. Ambrose ruled the house of God mentioned in S. Paul. Ergo Damasus the Pope by the Verdict of S. Ambrose ruled the Universal Church.  
The Minor or second proposition is evident by the words of S. Ambrose alleged. The Mayor or first proposition is evident by S. Paul's very words, which are these. These things I writ unto thee (o Timothee) hoping to come shortly unto thee. But if I slack to come, 
1. Timo. 3.  (I have thus written) to th'intent thou mayest know how to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the Pillar and ground of truth. Lo this house of God which S. Paul here speaketh of, is that Church which is the Pillar and Ground of truth. Such is no particular Church, but only the Universal Church. For Particular Churches may and have erred many, but the Universal Church can not possibly err, and hath never erred. She is the Pillar, She is the Ground of Truth. Against her Hell gates shall not prevail. Thus the former Propositions being both evident and true, the one out of S. Paul, the other out of Holy and learned Saint Ambrose commenting upon S. Paul, the Conclusion must needs follow, which is, that Damasus the Pope Ruled the Universal Church, not only his own diocese, or patriarkeshipp of Rome. Now if the Ruler be not the Head, I would M. jewel should instruct us what the Head of a company or common wealth signifieth, other, than the Ruler of that company or common wealth. Thus M. jewel hath in terms equivalent the Head of the Universal Church. And a bishop of Rome so called far within his first 600. years. If therefore M. jewel made his Challenge at Paul's Cross for the honour of God, for bolting out of the Truth, and for the matter itself which is in controversy, he must according to his promise yield and Subscribe to this Old holy Father S. Ambrose. If he did but dally and to ye about certain terms and phrases, than the world may know and See, what trifling Sermons prelates and Preachers of this new clergy not only do make and pronounce, before their honourable and worshipful audience, but also do print and set forth to be Readen and preserved of their posterity.  

Concil. Chal. Act. 3.  Leo in the letters of the whole General Council of Chalcedor was called their Head as hath before been alleged. But a general Council representeth the Universal Church and is the Chief Body of the same. Ergo by a good Consequent Leo was Called off no less then of a whole Council the Head of the Universal Church. Ergo not only S. Peter, but Damasus and Leo two other Popes have been so Called. Ergo M. jewel must Subscribe.  
Harding. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theodoretus in an Epistle to Leo, calleth the same in consideration of the bishop of that See his primacy, Orbi terrarum praesidentem, president or bearing rule over the whole world.  
jewel. 
The .546. Untruth Slanderous.  The 122. Untruth. Standing in untrue translation.  
I turn to your rext, and find you to prove this Untruth in these words.  
jewel. 
The .547 Untruth. For the Translation is good and True.  Yet Reply will be made, that Theodoretus calleth the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which words M. Harding (547) untruly translateth, Precedent, or bearing rule over the world. For he knoweth, that the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth, Sitting in the first place, and forceth not of necessity any rule or government over others.  
Stapleton. 
Ignatius in Epist. ad Rom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  You prove yourself but a vain trifler and a mere grammarian M. jewel, when you Reply after this sort. We know, both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek and Praesideo in Latin, doth sometime signify, to sit in the first place. But do not you know also that it signifieth to Bear rule, and to govern? Is not our english word Precedent, taken out of the Latin Praesidere a word of authority and government more than of sitting in the first place? Will you measure and limit the Office of the Lord Precedent in Wales, with the prerogative of only sitting before other, and having the first place? But that Theodoret calling the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉., Orbi terr●rum praesidentem the Church that is precedent and beareth rule over the world, meaneth a far greater prerogative, then of sitting in the first place, and that therefore this translation is true and you but a fond wrangler to find fault therewith, the whole place of Theodoret himself shall testify and bear witness.  
Theodoret that learned father and bishop of Cyrus beginneth his Epistle unto Pope Leo in this sort. Si Paulus praeco veritatis etc. If Paul the Preacher of Truth, 
Est epist●. praefixa commentar. in Pualum.  the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, ran up to the great Apostle Peter, to bring from him a determination touching the question which those of Antioch moved about the observations of the law of Moses, much more we which are abject and off small regard, do run to your Apostolic See, that we may receive from you some wholesome medicine to cure the wounds and sores of the Churches. 
Vobis enim per omnia primos esse convenit.  For to you it belongeth to bear the chiefty in all things. For your See is decked with many praerogatives, whereby you are Superior to other. For other cities are commended for greatness, for beauty, and for multitude of inhabitants. And many are noble for certain spiritual gifts peculiar to them: But God the giver of all good things hath given to your City a plentiful and abundant copy of all goodness. For that City is the greatest and noblest of all Cities, and it is she 
Et quae praeest orbi terrarum.  that governeth the whole world, and is full of inhabitants. Furthermore this City got that Empire which now governeth the world, and of her own name hath called her subjects. But chiefly and principally the Faith commendeth her, 
Rom. 1.  and the worthy witness S. Paul, who crieth out and saith. Your faith is preached through out the whole world. Thus far Theodoret in commendation of the City of Rome, and not so much of the City itself, as of the Church and See of that City. For these words to have been spoken of the Church not of the City M. jewel himself confesseth, changing the words. Quae praeest orbi terrarum, into Ecclesiam orbis terrarum primariam. The most Notable and chief Church of the world. For the chief City of the world at that time Rome was not, but rather Constantinople, which also was therefore called Nova Roma, New Rome. Again it s●all the better appear by the suit and request of Theodoretus in this epistle to Pope Leo, whether he called the Church of Rome, the precedent of the world, for pre-eminence of place only, or no. Theodoret in that epistle to Pope Leo being wrongfully deprived and deposed from his bishopricque by Dioscorus the patriarch of Alexandria in the Conventicle of Ephesus, of which we have often mentioned before, declaring first the injurious judgement of Dioscorus, the long continuance in his bishopric, having served therein xxuj. years, the largeness of his charge, having in his province (for he was a Metropolitan archbishop) 
* Octingintas' paraecias.  eight hundred Churches, his great pains and travail in preserving all that people from heresy, namely from the heresy of Martion, from the which (as he writeth) he had delivered above a thousand souls, converting them to the Catholic faith, declaring I say all these things to the Pope particularly, he cometh to his suit and saith, Et post tot sudores & labores &c. And behold after all this sweat and travail, I am condemned, being not so much at accused. But 
* Apostolicae vestrae Sedis expecto sententism.  I look for the Sentence of your Apostolic See. And I beseech and require your holiness, to aid me in this case 
* justum vestrume et rectum Appellanti judicium.  Appealing to your right and just judgement, and to command me to come before you, and to show that my doctrine and belief followeth your Apostolic steps. And a little after, having reakoned up what works he had written, partly against heretics, partly upon holy Scripture, of the which to this day a great part is extant, he repeateth his suit, and saith. But I beseech you cast not of my humble request, nor despise not my door head, which after such painful travails is thus injured. Before all things I beseech you, I may know from you, whether I ought to stand to this wrongful judgement, or no. For I look for your sentence, 
* Si iudicatis mestare iusseritis staebo.  and if you shall command me to abide the judgement, I will abide it, and never trouble man here about any more, but abide the just judgement of my God and Saviour. Christ jesus. God is my witness I have no regard of my honour and promotion, but of the great offence that may rise hereof in the minds of many simple folk and specially of such whom we have before converted from heresy: Who having an eye to the See of Alexandria and other bishops which have condemned us, will perhaps judge, that we are not able to discern the true and right doctrine. Thus far Theodoret in his supplication and Appeal to Leo the Bishop of Rome, he himself being a bishop of Cyrus in the East, 
Concil. Chal. Act. 1.  and subject properly to the province and Patriarkeship of Antioch not of Rome. By this his Appeal, and by the Restitution also to his bishopric which ensued hereupon by Leo the Pope, as I have before declared out of the Chalcedon Council, and by the whole words of Theodoret it is evident, that calling the Church of Rome, Orbi terrarum praesidentem, or quae priest orbi terrarum, the Precedent and gowerner of the world, he meaned not a preferment only of sitting in place before other bishops, but a Superior authority and Primacy over other bishops, and such, as to whom from a patriarch and Council of Bishops, he might yet Appeal. Yet saith M. jewel.  
jewel. 

The 548. Untruth. For that Translation agreeth not with the Greek of Theodoret  
The 549. Untruth. For by justinian no such pre-eminence of sitting is in any Constitution alleged granted, as it hath before well appeared.   He might (548.) better have turned it: Ecclesiam orbis primariam. The most notable or ch●●s● Church of the wo●lde. And so would his translation have well agreed with the Constitutions of the Emperor justinian, wherein the pre-eminence of sitting in the first place in all Councils and assemblies, is by special Privilege granted to the bishop of Rome.  
To the Constitutions of justinian touching the bishop of Rome's prerogative I have answered before, in the 99 Untruth. 
Art. 4. Fol. 51.  And declared there the great untruth of M. Iewel● falsifying and corrupting the Constitutions of justinian. And now touching the translation of this place I leave it to every indifferent Reader, perusing the whole words of Theodoret's epistle, considering the cause and end of his writing, to judge whether the translation of Doctor harding be, (as Master jewel hath noted it) Untrue, or that which he bringeth, Of sitting before other bishops in all assemblies utterly False, being builded upon a former Untruth of justinian's Constitutions, and contrary to the whole Meaning, Intent, and Purpose of the Author himself, Theodoret in that epistle to Leo.  
Harding. What other is it to call the Church of Rome the Principal Church, respect had to the bishop there and not otherwise (wherein a figure of speech is used) as Ireneus and Cyprian do, and Precedent, or (123) set in authority over the whole world, as Leo doth, then to call the Bishop of Rome Head of the Universal Church?  
jewel. 
The 550. Untruth. Slanderous.  The 123. Untruth. Leo hath not one such word.  
This Untruth is soon justified, and Master jewel thereby expressly convicted, and forced to Subscribe according to Promise. 
Epi. 84. ad Anastasium Thessalonicensen.  For Leo calleth expressly the See of Peter, Head of the Universal Church. His words are. Ad unam Petri sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura confluit, ut nihil usquam à suo Capite dissideat. The charge of the Universal Church hath recourse to the only Seat of Peter, to th'intent that nothing may at any time Vary from their Head. Let now M. jewel or any man else pick out any other sense of these words, then that the Seat of Peter is Head of the Universal Church. The cause why the Universal Church hath recourse to the only Seat of Peter, is because nothing might vary from the Head. And is not then the See of Peter the Head thereof? If this place be not plain enough, take an other. Leo writing to Theodoret after the Chalcedon Council ended and finished, hath these words. Quae nostro prius ministerio definierat, universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensur, ut vere à se prodisse ostenderet, quod prius a Primae omnium Sede firmatum, 
Epist. 63.  totius Christiani orbis judicium recepisset, ut in hoc quoque Capiti membra concordent. That which God had first decreed by us, the irrefragable consent of the Universal brotherhood, hath confirmed, to show that it proceeded in deed from him, as the which being first confirmed of the most Principal See, had received also the determination of all Christendom, to th'intent that herein also the Parts might agree with the Head. In these words again Leo calleth his See (the See of Rome) the Head of all Christendom, and of the universal brotherhood assembled in the General Council of Chalcedon. And lest that this testimony of the Pope himself may seem to be off less Credit, call to mind in this place (gentle Reader) the words of this whole General of Council of Chalcedon calling this Leo in their letters unto him, their Head, which I have before alleged unto thee in the 119. Untruth. 
fo. 185. B.  Yet because M. jewel so stoutly avoucheth of this Universal authority over all Christendom in the See of Rome, that Leo hath not one such word, Behold yet a third place out of this Leo avouching most evidently the same. Speaking to the City of Rome, in a Sermon which he made upon S. Peter's and Paul's day, he hath these words. 
Leo Serm. 1. in Nat. Petri & Pauli.  Isti sunt qui te ad hanc gloriam provexerunt, ut sis gens sancta, populus electus, Civitas sacerdotalis & R●gia, per sacram Beati Petri sedem Caput orbis effecta, latius praesideres religione divina quam dominatione terrena. Quamuis enim multis aucta victorijs ius imperij tui terra marique protuleris, minus tamen est, quod tibi bellicus labor subdidit, quam quod pax Christiana subiecit. These are they (he meaneth Peter and Paul which have promoted thee (o Rome) to this glory, that thou shouldest be a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and princely City, and being made the Head of the world by the holy Seat of blessed Peter, shouldest bear a far larger government by Godly Religion, then by worldly Empire. For although thou hast enlarged thy Empire by sea and by Land, with manifold victories, yet it is less that warlye power to the hath achieved, than that Christian peace to thee hath subdued. Thus far learned Leo, whom M. jewel avoucheth to affirm not one such word, as may prove the Church of Rome set in authority over the whole world. You have Heard Leo say in this place that Rome through the Seat of Peter hath been made the Head of the world, and beareth a larger government by Religion, than ever she did by Empire. And therefore Prosper loinge before the time of Leo affirmeth Romam per Apostolici sacerdotij principatum ampliorem factam esse arce Religionis quam solio potestatis. 
De vocatione gentium li. 2. cap. 16  That Rome by the Primacy of Apostolic priesthood was of a larger authority in the pre-eminence of Religion, then in the Throne of Empire. Thus Leo and Prosper with Ireneus, S. Cyprian, and S. Chrysostom, whom D. Harding alleged do uniformly call the See of Rome, the Principal Church, of more Principal power, the Head of all Christendom, the Mast●● of the world: But Leo most expressly above other, the Head of the Universal Church, as you have heard and seen 〈◊〉 his own words at large.  
M. I●●●ll to answer all these places, bringeth the like to have been 〈…〉 Paul who suffered at Rome with S. Peter: Whose authority had no other successor but the Bishop there. Who was a Chosen Vessel, beside all the other Apostles, 
Ser●●. 1. In Nat. Pe. & Pau.  whom Leo calleth consor●em gloriae Petri the fellow in honour to S. Peter, and whose Privileges therefore and prerogatives do fortify much the authority of the See of Rome, but debaceth it not in any point.  
And in an other place S. Augustin saith. 
Lib. quaest. vet. & notestam. q. 75.  salvator quando pro se & Petro exolui jubet, pro omnibus exoluisse videtur. Quia Sicut in Saluatore erant omnes causa magisterij, ita post salvatorem in Petro omnes continentur. Ipsum enim constituit Caput omnium. Our Saviour (saith S. Augustin) when as he commandeth payment (for the Emperor) to be made for himself, and for Peter, he seemeth to have paid for all. Because, as all were in our Saviour for cause of teaching, so after our Saviour all are contained in Peter: for he ordained him Head of all.  
jewel. 
The 551. Untruth. For there is no wilful falsifying: and in the Sense no falsifying at all of S. Aug.  The 124. Untruth, standing in the wilful falsifying of S. Augustine. S. Augustine saith Caput eorum, not: Caput omnium.  
This is the most apparent Untruth of all (except on●) that hath hitherto been brought. And yet M. jewel calling this a wilful falsifying of S. Augustin Dealeth not only uncharitably, but also hath avouched an other most manifest Untruth himself. For what wilful falsifying can here appear, where no advantage his had by the exchange? consider the whole sentence gentle Reader, and thou shalt See that S. Augustine affirmeth Peter to be Head of all. He saith in the same sentence. As all were in Christ. so all are in Peter. And for proof thereof he sayeth. For Christ made Peter their Head. Whose head M. jewel, by S. Augustins meaning, but the Head of all? For of all he speaketh, not of some. And to prove that all were contained in Peter, he calleth Peter the Head of them (how but of?) all. Thus the matter being true, the words by error altered, can make no wilful Untruth, if they make any Untruth at all. For I take an Error or Escape to differ from an Untruth.  
With all, I have proved, that which M. jewel denieth that the Bishop of Rome within six hundred years after Chris●, hath been called the Universal Bishop of no small numbered of men of great credit, and very oftentimes Head of the Universal Church, both in terms equivalent, and also expressly.  
jewel. 
The 553. Slanderous.  The ●●5. Untruth. For (Peter only excepted) either of these Titles resteth yet unproved.  
Stapleton. But Peter was bishop of Rome (as hath been proved) Ergo these Titles have been proved according to M. jewels Chanllenge. Ergo M. jewel must Subscribe.  
Again the Title of Universal bishop hath been proved in Leo a Bishop of Rome beside S. Peter both by the testimony of S. Gregory and by the Council of Chalcedon itself. Ergo again M. jewel must Subscribe.  
Thirdly by the very last testimony alleged of D. Harding out of Victor, the Church of Rome is called Caput omnium Ecclesiarum. The Head of all Churches. If there be any difference between all Churches, and the Universal Church, or if the Church of Rome, be Head in any other respect, then in respect of the Bishop thereafter M. jewel with all his cunning show it. If there be 〈…〉 none in the world can be devised) then again 〈…〉 is brought of the primitive Church (for the 〈…〉 is of things done above the year 〈…〉 shortly after the Death of S. Augustin) in 〈…〉 is called Head of the Universal Church, and so this other Title hath been proved in a Bishop of Rome beside S. Peter. Ergo M. jewel must Subscribe.  
fourthly Damasus (as hath been proved) was called of S. Ambrose Ruler of the House of God, which S. Paul speaketh of, which is as much as Head of the Universal Church, ergo ones again M. jewel either must protest to the world he sought not for truth but trifled upon Terms, when he made his Challenge, or else according to promise he must Subscribe.  
fifthly Leo the Bishop of Rome was Called of the whole Chalcedon Council, Head of the Universal Church, 
Concil. Chal. A ● 3. Idem quoq●● Leo. epist. 63. ad Theodo●●●  when they confessed him their Head, they then bearing the persons of the whole Universal Church. They said in their letters unto him of themselves. Quibus tu, quasi Caput membris praecras. Over whom thou haste been the Chief or precedent as the Head is Chief over other parts of the Body. And in the same Council he is Called diverse times Pope and Bishop of the Universal Church. 
Act. 4.6. & 8. Cod· de Sum. Tri●. et 〈◊〉. Cath. Tit. 1 No● Reddentoes.  Therefore to the Chalcedon Council, calling the Pope their Head, you must Subscribe M. jewel.  
sixthly justinian calleth john the second, the Bishop off Rome in his time, Caput omnium Sanctarum Ecclesiarum, the Head of all Holy Churches. Here is an other bishop of Rome beside saint Peter so called: Therefore you must Subscribe.  
Seventhly learned Leo confesseth, 
Leo ubi supra.  universalis Ecclesiae curam ad Petri sedem confluere, ut nihil usquam a Capite suo dissid●at. That the Charge of the Universal Church hath recourse to the See of Peter, that nothing may at any time vary from their Head.  
S. Gregory in like manner calleth the 〈…〉 off Rome, Caput omni●● Ecclesiarum. 
〈…〉  The 〈◊〉 of all Churches.  
Farther as it is alleged in the second edition of D. hardings Answer to M. jewels Challenge, 
In libel. de Ingra●is.  Prosper calleth the See of Peter, Pastoralis honoris Caput, The Head off Pastoral Dignities, as much to say, of all Pastors and shepherds in Christ's Church.  
Athanasius also in his epistle to Marcus the Pope (which Epistle M. jewel hath in vain impugned) calleth the See of Rome, 
Athanas. in epist. ad Mari●um.  Mater & Caput omnium Ecclesiarum. The Mother and Head of all Churches. If Head of all Churches and Head off the Universal Church be diverse, then, it is because the one word, is mere english, the other is a Latin made English. Other difference in good sense I trow, will not be found. To these therefore so Clear and so Many, all within the Compass of your 600. years, if you think your Challenge good and wise, Yield and Subscribe.  
These later allegations of D. hardings second edition, M. jewel in his Reply hath utterly dissembled. To the place of Victor thus he Replieth.  
jewel. 
The 553. Untruth. For Victor writeth a Story of things passed long within the first● .600. years  Touching Victor, that wrote the Story of the Vandals, he is neither Scripture, nor Council, nor doctor, nor writeth the Order, or Practise of the Primitive Church.  
This later sentence is a Manifest and lewd Untruth, avouched for a shift to avoid an Inconvenience. An Inconvenience I say of Subscribing. For if the Story of Victor were of matters passed in the Primitive Church, than the Example alleged out of him, Calling the Church of Rome, Head of all Churches, should be an Example of the primitive Church, and then M. jewel should be forced to Subscribe. To avoid this Inconvenience, M. jewel thought good flatly to deny his Story, as not writing the Practice of the Primitive Church. But you may not so Abuse us M. jewel. You requiring in your Challenge Any one example of the primitive Church, do after expound and limit the Time of the primitive Church by the term of .600. years after Christ, admitting all Examples within that time. Now Victor writeth a Story containing the practice of that Time. He writeth the persecution of the Vandals, Arrian heretics in Africa, which befell immediately after the Death of S. Augustin, as in his life written by Possidonius it is easy to See. 
Read the Story of Victor joined to the Tripartite. Tu●. 1. oper. August.  For he yet living and lying in his death bed the Wandales besieged his City Hippo. But S. Augustin died not long after the year of our Lord 400. Therefore Victor wrote a Story of matters passed more than a hundred years within M. jewels 600. which he limiteth for the Primitive Church. Therefore this Example is of that Time. M. jewel unrrulye denieth it, because he will not truly and honestly Subscribe unto it.  
jewel. Nor is it well known, either of what credit he was, or when he lived.  
Stapleton He is alleged of all learned writers, occasion serving. Only M. jewel doubteth of his Credit. And why? Because he maketh against him. As for that the time he lived, is not well known: no more is the time of many other learned writers, who yet be of right good authority.  
jewel. Nor doth he call the bishop of Rome the Head of the Universal Church. 
The 554. Untruth. In missereperting the words of Victor.  Only he saith (. ●54.) Rome is the Chief or Head Church of all othe●s, which thing of our part is not denied.  
M. jewel to extenuat the sayieng of that godly archbishop of Carthage Eugenius, reported by Victor the Ecclesiastical writer, hath altered and falsified the words. For Eugenius that Catholic Prelate convented before Obadus a Captain of Humerichus the Arrian king of the Vandals, called the Church of Rome, meaning thereby the Bishop of Rome, Caput omnium Eccl●siarum. The Head of all Churches, He saith not: The Head Churthe of all others. But, The Head off all other Churches. Between these two sayings is great difference. As for example. The Church of Caunterbury is the Head Church of all others, respect had to England. For no Church in England hath so Ample and Large a jurisdiction as that hath. Yet is not the Church of Caunterbury the Head of all Churches in England. For beside divers Peculiars exempted from the jurisdiction of Caunterbury, even within the Province of that Archebishoprike, the archbishop of York and all of his Province are not subject to any jurisdiction of the Church of Caunterbury. Thus Master jewel for a just Reply to Sufficient authorities, weakoneth the Author's Credit, Altereth his words, Missereporteth the time of his writings, and so by Multyplying Untruths thinketh to overthrow the Truth, to abuse his Reader desirous to learn, and to deceive God's People glad to be instructed. God grant you M. jewel the love of Truth, and grace to reform these your Untruths.   

The Conclusion.  
HITHERTO I have (good Christian Reader) For the love of the Truth, and for the Zele of God's honour, and of his Church, justified the Untruths which M. jewel in the former half of his Reply, the four first Articles hath Charged D. Harding with all, to the number of one hundred and xxv. which is the half of the whole number through out the Reply, two excepted, and have Returned them every one (One only excepted) upon Master jewel for Untruths on his part, and that Slanderous. Now how thoroughly I have answered M. jewel in this fourth Article, it shall appear by the Conclusion which himself maketh, at ●he end thereof. Thus he Concludeth.  
jewel. 
Pag. 3●4. The 555. Untruth. For D. harding knoweth no such matter.  Now briefly to lay abroad the whole Contents of this Article. First, M. harding hath wittingly alleged such testimonies under the Names of Anacletus, Athanasius, and other holy Fathers as he (.555.) himself knoweth undoubtedly to be forged, and with manifest Absurdities, and Contradictions, do betray themselves, and have no manner colour or show of truth.  
Stapleton. 
Ari. 4. fol. 26. & seq.  To the absurdities and Contradictions, with which M. jewel chargeth the epistle of Athanasius unto Marcus, we have Answered and proved them none. The authority off Anacletus is defended by D. harding in the Confutation of M. jewels first Article. M. jewels other Fathers have no names.  
jewel. He hath made his claim by certain Canons of the Council of Nice, and of the (.556.) Council of Chalcedon. 
The .556. Untruth. For D. harding spoke not one word of any Canon of the Chalcedon Council. fol. 29.  And yet he knoweth that neither there are, nor never were any such Canons to be found.  
The Canons of the Nicene Council alleged by D. harding, were alleged by julius and Zosimus above a thousand years ago, and their authority is defended against all M. jewels proofs, and reasons, wherein he laboureth to prove the Pope a Forger. His whole Reply in that behalf is awnswered. As for Canons of the Chalcedon Council, D. Harding alleged none. M. jewel flatly belieth him.  
jewel. 

The 557. Untruth. Slanderous.  
The 558. Untruth. For that Sentence followed, and was not in the midst.   He hath dismembered (.557.) and mangled S. Gregory's words part contrary to his own knowledge,. he hath cut them of (.558.) in the midst, the better to beguile his Reader.  
It hath been at large declared that D. Harding hath in no part mangled S. Gregory, but alleged his full Sentence, that which followed, and was omitted, not appertaining any thing to his purpose that then he had in hand. And the Sentence, which is presumed by M. jewel to have been guilefully cut of by D. Harding, followed immediately his Allegation, was not in the midst thereof, as M. jewel both there and here most Impudently and Untruly avoucheth.  
jewel. 
jewel. The .559. A burden of Untruth s●l● Slanderous.  He hath violently and perforce drawn, and rack the Old godly Fathers, Ireneus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Cyrillus, Augustine, Theodoretu●, hieron's, and others, contrary to their own sense and meaning.  
Stapleton Of all these Fathers, M. jewel hath noted Untruths only upon certain places of Cyprian, of Augustine, and of Theodoret. D. hardings Dealing in all those places hath been proved upright. If the other Fathers have been so rack, and violently drawn (as M. jewel here pleadeth) why made he not before his Accusation, why noted he not there Untruths? Think we that Master jewel having noted so many untruths, and all well near untruly, hath yet left other in store which of Courtesy he omitted? Then what luck had M. jewel, having choice and of so many, to prove so few and to speed so il? Shall we not rather think (to commend M. jewels discretion) that he hath in deed chosen the best and most likely, and that if he had noted more, he would have sped the worse. These multiplying therefore of Fathers decked, avoughed but unproved, I leave it, as it is, for a Slanderous burden of Untruths.  
jewel. 
The .560. Untruth Slanderous.  Touching Appeals to Rome, the government of the East part of the world, Excommunications, Approbations of Orders, allowance of Councils, Restitutions and Reconciliations, he hath openly (560) missereported the whole Universal Order and Practise of the Church.  
Stapleton That Appeals were made to Rome from the chiefest patriarchs in Christendom, that the Bishops of the East were subject to the Bishop of Rome, that the Pope Approved the Ordering of bishops, Confirmed Councils and had the patriarchs and Bishops of the East Reconciled to him, it hath at large been proved, and M. jewels whole Reply in these matters hath been at long and stitch by stitch confuted. As for Excommunications and Restitutions, if M. jewel had noted there any matter of Untruth, those questions also had in like manner been debated. But the Discourse of D. Harding in that behalf was so true, that M. jewel therein could find no matter of Untruth to note, though here for a brag he say, that he openly missereported the practice of the Church. It is marvel that M. jewel keeping so good an Audyt of D. hardings untruths, in such Open missereporting could not score up one.  
jewel. All this notwithstanding, 
The .561. Untruth. For both these Titles have been found.  he hath as yet found neither of these two glorious Titles, that he hath so narrowly sought for: notwithstanding great pains taken, and great promises, and Vaunts made touching the same.  
D. Harding hath found them both, the one in the Chalcedon Council both four times in four several supplications expressed, and also conffessed by S. Gregory, the other in Victor a writer of things passed within the 5●0. years 
* In the second Edition.  in justinian, in Prosper, in Athanasius, and in the Chalcedon Council also. But M. jewel must deny all this, because he will in no wise Subscribe. For thus now he Concludeth and endeth this Article.  
jewel. Therefore to Conclude, I must Subscribe and rescribe, even as before. That albeit M Harding have travaiied painfully herein, both by himself, and also with conference of his friends, yet (562) cannot he hitherto find, neither in the Scriptures, nor in the old Councils, 
The .561. Untruth. As before.  nor in any one of all the ancient Catholic Fathers, that the Bishop of Rome within the space of the first 600. years after Christ, was ever entitled either the Universal Bishop, or the Head of the Universal Church.  
Stapleton This is heresy, and this is the fruit thereof. An heretic (saith S. Paul) is suo judicio condemnatus. Condemned in his own judgement. M. jewel knoweth himself certainly and undoubtedly that in the Chalcedon Council Leo the Bishop of Rome was Called Universal Bishop in four sundry Supplications. For he said before himself. True it is that M. Harding said. Leo in that Council of Chalcedon was thus called. 
jewel. pag. 298.  The places be known and may not be denied. Yet now he denieth him self, that any such thing hath been showed, or that ever he was so Called. Is not then this Man in his own judgement condemned? Again he knoweth certainly and undoubtedly that Eugenius the archbishop of Carthage in Africa Called the Church of Rome, Head of all Churches, which is but in diverse English, Head of the Universal Church, as Victor in his History reporteth. The authority and saying it self he could not possibly deny. 
Lib. 2. de pers. Vand.  Therefore in his Reply thereunto, he altered the words of the Author, and laboured to extenuat the Credit of the Historiographer, as hath before been declared. Yet being not able to Reply to the matter, but with a Couple of Untruths cavilling only, now he denieth flat, any such thing hath been showed. And what Man can be or ever was in his own judgement condemned, if you M. jewel be not that Man? Yet now these Matters, being by this Return of your Untruths, more enlarged, and forced upon you, in such sort that every indifferent Reader may see to the eye and behold the clear evidence thereof, though now, you Subscribe and Rescribe as b●fore, yet I trust hereafter, you will either Subscribe and yield, or Rescribe and Clear your ●elfe better. What ever of both you do, your Untruths remain Notorious and Evident and Inexcusable. God give you Grace to acknowledge them, and other Grace to Beware of them.  
I aus Deo qui dedit velle, & dedit perficere.  
Quando quidem Volumen istud perlectum, ac approbatum est à viris Sacroe Theologioe & Anglici Idiomatis peritissimis, quibus merito credendum esse judico, puto tuto & utiliter ewlgari posse.  
Ita judico, Cunerus Petri, Pastor S. Petri Lovanij. 17. Aprilis. Anno. 1566.