❧ A confutation of a sermon, pronounced by M. jewel, at Paul's cross, the second sunday before Easter (which Catholics do call Passion sunday) Anno Dni. M.D.I.X. By john Rastell M. of Art, and student in divinity.  
Miror quòd tam citò transserimini, 
Galat. 1.  ab eo qui vos vocavit in gratiam CHRISTI, in aliud evangelium. etc.  
I marvel that you be so soon carried away from him which called you unto the grace of Christ, in to an other gospel.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
moor antiqui obtineant.  
Let old customs prevail.  
Imprinted at Antwerp by Aegidius Diest 21. novemb. Anno. 1564. cum PRIVILEGIO.   

REgi● Maiestatis privilegio permissum est johanni Rastello artium Magistro, & sacrae Theologiae candidato, vtiper aliquem ●ypographorii admissorum impunè ei liceat imprimi curare, & per omnes suae ditionis regiones distrahere, librum inscriptum: A confutation of M. jewels sermon. etc. Et omnibus aliis inhibitum, ne eundem absque eiusdem johannis consensu imprimant, vel alibi impressum distrah●t, sub poena in privilegio contenta. Datum Bruxellae xvij novemb. Anno. 1564.  
Subsig. Facuwez.   

A PREFACE TO THE READER.  
TO testify my duty and service, which I own to the Church, and my country; and to satisfy my friends in these quarters, whose judgements I have not to discredit; to confute M. jewel in sundry points, whose challenge is so glorious and general; and to give fair warning to the negligent, that false Prophets do not deceive them; to continue the memory of the challenge; which never can be honestly maintained; & to move a further expectation; which part first shall show her weakness; to take the present time of speaking, even as there hath been time of silence, or recompense the former slackness, by reasonable and faithful diligence: to prove that M. jewel may be answered, by a mean scholar in divinity, that he need not to provoke the best of the catholics, which at this day are anywhere living: to show that all though, we be kept down and oppressed, yet we perish not for all that, nor be utterly confounded: I send that forth now, after four years, which so long before was made by me, and I make that now common to friends and to foes, which at the first I prepared for one friend alone, to avoid fear of foes. He that liketh this, let him thank God, and help me with his prayers. He that findeth fault, let him shame the dyvele, and tell me of it hardly. If any just one shall be found, (unseen of me and others) I trow, it will be omission in leaving of some things unanswered. Yet do I answer every matter, concerning the whole some of it, marry I was not so diligent, as to examine every witness. And whether I am bound so to do, I am not yet full persuaded, but ever I thought, that it was free, to write and fight, after my fashion. Especially where the number is great, and every one ready with his weapon, so that the enemy be beaten down, the captain alloweth their labours. Yet all they did not strike one way, but as they should see their advantage, so would they use or down right blows, or foins, or some other inventions. Some writers of these our days, men of great continuance and study, do late full load out of scriptures and councils, just upon the pates, and backs of our common adversaries, Other some be more sparer, in alleging of old authorities, and rather follow a sensible fashion, of reasoning, without book, against them. Again, some will persecute, the enemy so narrowly: that sentence by sentence, they examine his truth and fidelity. but some again, do so think upon the chief point of the question: that, for haste sake, they let much escape, which perchance, was well worth the noting. Let one example stand for all. M. jewel here in his sermon, to prove that the people did communicate and receive together with the priest, all the first six hundred years after Christ: beginneth with our Saluyor, and cometh to the blessed Apostle, going down by S. Clement, Denyse, justine, and other fathers, until he stayeth at S. Gregory, whom yet he reckoneth for a witness. But to what purpose and conclusion? to prove forsooth, that sole receiving, is not to be suffered, among Christians, because he findeth, by so many testimonies, that, of old time, there were made communions. Well then, go ye to, if this be all the matter, it is not hard or cumberouse, to give M. jewel an answer. Yet truly, he shall not be answered, after one manner by all men, but like as leisure, zeal, and learning, aboundeth or lacketh in any one, for the purpose: so, more or less, will be brought against him, and he that saith lest of all, will yet be good enough for him. For the lest is this, 
The first manner of answering.  to grawnt his authorities, and only to deny his argument bicawse, sole receiving, might be used in a thousand chapels, notwithstanding the daily communion, which was then, or may be now; ordinarily had in parissh Churches. On sundays also or solemn feasts, all might be charged to communicate▪ and when the people on other days are other wise occupied, the priest, might right well do his office, if none but the parish clerk, were present to serve him. 
A second manner.  But some other Catholic, is not fully satisfied, by ending this matter, so quickly, and therefore he goeth further, in trying M. jewels places, which serve yet unto no purpose, although they were truly alleged. And he objecteth against jewel (forgetting to call him Master) that the Apostle unto the Corinthians, meaneth not literally, so, as jewel taketh him. For, 
1. Cor. 11.  (Tari● ye, one for an other) which are the true words of the Apostle, are not properly, (he will say) to be referred to the Sacrament, but those other suppers, of common meats, which then among the Corinthians, were not charitably or discreetly ordered. He will tell him also, that he mistaketh Calixtus, and would say (perchance) Anacletus, and that he speaketh, only of the clergy, to communicate, and not (as M. jewel reporteth) generally of all the people, and so forth in other testimonies. 
A third mān●r.  Now some third one, will pass these two, and show by many examples, that sole receiving was not unknown, in the best times and most ancient. For which purpose he will bring out, Tertullian, 
Tertull. ad●xorem Cyp. ser. 5 de la●. hist. trip. li. 6. c. 44  S. Cyprian, Serapion, and Satirus, with many other, which in this place I need not tell of. What then shall we say? Truly, 
Ambros. de obitu fratris.  as S Paul was glad, to see Christ much set forth and preached, Sive per occasionem, and for an other purpose, 
Philip. 1.  Sive per veritatem, that is, uprightly and sincerely: so should an honest mind be well contented, when a false preachers vain tale is confuted, be it done either learnedly, abundantly, and deeply, or meanly, sufficiently, and by light passing over him. Therefore to conclude▪ as I wrote this for my friend, intelligibly and familiarly, so I leave it unto the Reader. nothing altering of that manner. If I l●●ke sinews and substance, such as is in old soldiers: by use and practise. strength will grow. If indifferency: favour these beginnings. And (as I have said) I think it no fault with a breath only (if I could) to drive back an enemy. And if with a penknife I diminish his lusty blood. let other use the great sword, and piekes, which shall kill his heresy. Let this be my excuse, unto the catholics. let this be my defence against the Protestants.  
Far well. At Lovanie. novemb. 20.   

A CONFUTATION of Master jewels sermon.  
THe time & world now being such, that there is made no sermon or treatise so vain & idle, but it findeth one or other to print it, and that, not without Grace & Privilege obtained: I do not mistrust ready pardon of you (my dear friend M.N.) if I dare write my mind unto you, in any kind of disputable question. For, if my sayings be allowable: they may be profitable to more than one, and be known of sundry persons for all the lack of print. & if they be not in some part altogether so exact and perfect: my forgetfulness or unskilfulness, may receive better advisement & instruction, when they shall not be past the amending, because they are not authorized Cum Gratia & privilegio ad Septennium. It moveth me also to write, that whereas, according to the blessed will & gift of God, I may perchance come, before I end this life, unto open defence & showing of my faith, it shallbe therefore profitable and necessary, to practise with my pen in the chamber, that, which may be and should be openly confessed with mouth, either in church or consistory. And further, my heart being so justly grieved, with the loud exprobration, that the called Bishop of Salisbury made, unto all the hosts of the ●od of Israel, although I be but a common soldier among the orders of divines, & must therefore keep my place, which is, to stand behind so many Bishops, Doctors, Bachelors, & Scholars in divinity, which in the fore front are set to fight, and although my course be not yet come, to meet with the party hand to hand, and face to face, yet, the heart being grieved, and desire of deface arising with in me, the hand is moved, & with such weapons as it hath, pen, ink, & paper, it doth what it can, to the overthrow of him, which standeth upon his own words, so steadfastly. And verily I do think, if M. jewel himself should presently understand, what I intend: and should hereafter see what I writ, he would be nothing at all displeased with my replying, except perchance because I am not cunning and learned enough to set upon him, which is so well prepared, that he provoketh the best of all the army of the Catholics, and so provoketh them, that if they can bring against him, but one sentence for example, out of all their armory of councils, doctors, usage of the primitive Church, or scripture, (that is to say) if they can fasten but one blow upon him, than he will yield utterly and give over in plain field, unto them.  
Which opinion, of thinking one Catholic to be to weak for him, if it can enter in to so noble a heart (as it is very hard to keep it out thereof) then, must he use some indifferency, and take no scorn, if a M. of Art and student of Divinity go about the practice, of breaking his blows and assertions, whereas the church of God, so well ordered with excellent men of learning & godliness, is constrained to suffer, cobblers, weavers, tinkers, tanner's, kardemakers, tapsters, jailers, fiddlers, and other of like profession, not only to enter into disputing with her, but also to climb up into pulpetes within her jurisdiction, and to keep the place of Priests & ministers of the mysteries of God, before her face. Which thing being tolerated (if not allowed) in these our blessed days, if M. jewel were Metropolitan of the realm, he should not disdain (as I think) to be set upon by a very mean scholar.  
But his wisdom is such, that he will not mark so much, what person it is which speaketh, as what matter it is, which shallbe spoken: and so desirous he is (as it appeareth) of one to encounter with him, that, rather than he will lack occasion to utter his learning, he will suppose in his mind one to stand against him with divers objections, which he is trymlie prepared already to answer, provided always that he will object himself no more, than he is able to answer. And when, somewhat is for a fashion sake rehearsed, then for the rest, that he will triumph solemnly, as though all were overcome. Wherefore being sufficiently moved to write, because first, so great licences are granted in these days. then, because of mine own exercise, and also for the easing of my mind in this challenge made unto Catholics. and last of all, for that I think, M. jewel himself would take this matter so well, (if he did know it) that he would nothing be offended with the occasion, whereby he may shewfurthe his manhood, I will therefore write, without all sparing of him, (for who can hurt not only such a Goliath, with a brazen head, but also such a preacher, with a brazen face), without all sparing therefore, will I write, as before the face of God, and his blessed Angels, and all holy Martyrs, Confessors, Doctors, and Bishops, not only which were six hundred years after the ascension of Christ, but also which have been these nine hundred years last passed, in which time God was known, as he promised to make his name great among the Gentiles, and that no power, no not hell gates themselves, 
Esa. 54. Psal. ●1. Malach. 1. Matth. 16.  should prevail against his Catholic Church. In the sight of this our God, and under the witness of so blessed, glorious, and divine company, I will declare your great flourishing, to be far from all kind of good fighting, and that all your talk, M. jewel, hath more of the word then of the sword, with much moving, and little proving.  
In the copy of a Sermon pronounced by the Bishop of Salisbury at Paul's cross, the second Sunday before Easter (which is by interpretation Passion sunday) in the year of our Lord. 1560. these words are prefixed: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
moor antiqui obtineant. 
jewel.   
Let old customs prevail.   
Would not a man think, that the person, which useth such a posy in the first side of his sermon, were one which did much embrace old customs? How can they be but very heretics, which appeal only to the written word, and refuse all other proof, which is not expressly in the lively scriptures of the Lord? Behold here is a testimony of the Council of Nice, alleged and allowed, by the Bishop that is called of Salisbury, set as a golden clasp, unto his precious Sermon, which he pronounced at Paul's cross, the second Sunday before Easter, and it is this, Let old customs prevail. But where is this saying, in all Scripture? begin at Genesis and read to the end of the revelations of S. John, and show the chapter where this commandment or counsel is? we know (except your own Prophets do lie) that all things necessary for salvation are written in the book of life the old and new Testament, we read him to be accursed which addeth or diminisheth to or from the word of the living Lord, we are abundantly content with the Bible in English, 
Apo. vlt.  we go no further, then to God his own word. Will you bring us again to hearken to old customs? and the sentence of the Council of Nice, which was but of men, shall that be our touch stone? O Sir, when you have caused all Sacraments, in a manner, and all Sacramental things to be taken away: when, of so many external signs and tokens, which represented the mysteries of our salvation, so few are left: when you have taken away the very orders of them, which lived after the perfectest way of Christ his religion, do you now speak of old customs? This doth so well become you to speak, as a Saducee to prove the resurrection. as an Arrian to be ruled by tradition. as a woman to wear a mitre. You would laugh or wondre at a catholic, or (as you term him) a papist, if he should set forth his work with this title, that nothing is to be believed, which is not expressly in Scripture: and shall Protestants escape the like judgement, when they speak sentences, for old customs and usages? But what mean you by this sentence: Let old customs prevail? what is that, which is against them, that the victory needeth to be given to them, by the arbitrement of the noble Council of Nice? except there be some battle, there can be no victory. there is no prevailing, where there is no resisting. and there must, at the jest, be two parts, when one singularly is preferred. I remember well, 
M. jewel mistaketh the words of the council of Nice.  that these words: Let old customs prevail, are in the beginning of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, where it is written, as concerning the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch, that the old custom, which ever before was used, should continu. But in that sense, it can not serve for a sentence, to be placed before M. jewel his Sermon, that, because the old custom shall stand, which hath been observed about the bishoprics of Alexandria and Antioch, therefore absolutely old customs should prevail. Wherefore understanding by these words, Let old customs prevail, such a general sense, as M. jewel would pretend, that the Council of Nice might use those words generally: I ask then now, what is this, which the Council speaketh of, Let old customs prevail? what might the occasion be, of that sentence? did it mean, that old customs must be preferred before new? this is not always true. Whereas the circumstances of time, person, age, and such like, may cause the old custom not to be refused absolutely as nawght, but to yield for just causes unto the new. Example whereof we have, in washing of feet, 
Io. 13. Act. 15.  and abstaining from the eating of blood, which was a custom of old, but in these days, the newer, and divers from that, is preferred and followed. Well then, did the Council mean that old customs must overcome new books and writings? Surely then M. jewel, from Luther hitherto, at one foin, unadvisedly, you have pricked so many authors of new inventions, as have found work, for a number of years, to a multitude of hasty printers. But if none of these senses please you, did the Council signify, that old customs must prevail, against the pretenced alleging of the very Scripture itself, and new doctrine of men? If this be true, 
M. jewel hinderith his own side, by the alleging, of the Council of Nice  yea rather because it is true, that they must prevail in deed, by your own allegation of this place, you have put that sentence for a defence unto your sermon, which being rightly understanded, doth at once overthrow your religion. Consider now therefore the state of the Church at those days, and the cause of that Council, if perchance we may find out the sense of these words, after your allegation:  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let old customs prevail, and ●ere away the victory.  
Arrius was a proud new-fangled man, a disobedient person unto his Bishop, which made much of him at the beginning, before he took heart of singularity upon him, and promoted him to the honourable room of a priest in Alexandria. Well may I use the word, honourable, for at those days, priesthood was so taken among all Christians. Alexander then which was Bishop of Alexandria a very meek and reverend Father, understanding his priest Arrius to busy himself with new inventions, first gently and fatherly, he warned him: and when Arrius proud heart and glorious, would be nothing the better for sweet words and admonitions: the wise and blessed Bishop gathering a Synod of his clergy justly did excommunicate, that singular and blasphemous heretic. But for all the excommunicating of the heretic, both he and his heresy had a great sort of evil partakers with them: so far forth, that it was necessary, to call a general Council, to the determining of the Catholic faith, and condemning of new found learning. In which Council the holy fathers against the new terms of Arrius, did principally allege, the traditions of the Apostles, and customs, manners, and laws of the holy writers before their days.  
And although they had Scriptures for them against Arrius, yet the chiefest stay of their cause, was grounded upon the catholic received faith. For herein consisted the unruliness of Arrius, that expounding the Scriptures untruly, according to his own fancy, he would not be reform, by the interpretation of old fathers, and submit his faith unto their judgements. Which if he would have done, the church of God had never been so much troubled, with that abominable heresy. 
●rid and 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉.  And that, not only Arrius, but all his fellows beside, were so affected towards themselves and their own devices, and against the expositions of fathers: it appeareth plainly by an Epistle of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, 
〈…〉 14.  written unto Alexander Bishop of Constantinople, in the which, towards the later end with in two leaves, these faults of the Arrians be declared.  
It is no wonder, that which I shall write (most dearly beloved) if I show unto you the false derogations and defacings, made against me and our devout people For they which pitch their tents, against the Deity of the Son of God: nothing fear they, to use spiteful ●launders against us, for because they think it not meet, to compare any of the ancient fathers with themselves. neither do they suffer them selves to be matched, with those masters and teachers, of whom we have been instructed from our youth. neither do they make any account of any, which are our fellow priests where so ever they be, as concerning the measure of wisdom: as though they only were wise, and had nothing to be said against them, and were the inventors of new decrees, and as to which only those things are revealed and opened, which are known to be understood of no other besides, under the sound. O mischievous pride, great madness, furor of vain glory, wisdom of the devil, which mightily hath invaded their most wicked minds. The exposition of Scriptures, which the well-beloved of God hath made, did nothing fear them from their purpose, the agreeable reverence, which their fellow ministers used towards Christ, did nothing tame their wildness.  
Thus then lo the Arrians, being so much self minded, what better remedy might the reverend fathers of Nice have against them, then to bring forth the former received doctrine and manner: to establish that with their decree? For, if natural reason shall prevail: the Christian faith can not be so well persuaded, or rather it can not be persuaded at all. If by Scriptures only, the truth shallbe decided: then shall theridamas never be found any end, where both parties allege the words of Scripture for themselves. 
why the heretics admit only scripture, and the father's old customs also.  Only therefore tradition, custom, and manner, is that thing, which killeth the heretics hearts (and therefore they will not be judged but by express Scripture only) and it is the thing, which defendeth the Catholic Christians, and therefore gladly do they follow the ways of the ancient fathers. Which thing is plainly proved by this honourable Council of Nice, about which our talk is. For, as it appeareth by the acts of the same Council, after long disputation and learned, between certain philosophers, (hired of purpose by Arrius, in defence of his cause) and most excellent fathers inspired with the holy ghost, for the uttering of the truth: It pleased (saith the history) all the fathers unto one, 
In 〈◊〉 Conc. Niceni  that like as it was delivered from the holy fathers and successors of the apostles: so they should decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which is to say the equality of substance in God the Son with the Father) and provide it to be put, in the Crede of the Church. Against which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and decree of the fathers, what did Arrius or any of his sect afterwards allege, to the reproving thereof? (And you in the mean time (my well-beloved friend. N.) think it not long which is not unprofitable, and chose out the time to read that quietly, which the cause requireth that I should write plainly.) What did the Arrians then (said I) argue against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? what was their chiefest & best reason? for soothe this only, that it was not in Scripture. O M. jewel, that your eloquence had not been born at those days: you would have stood greatly against them with your, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let old customs and manners win and prevail. But yet you may do good service in these days, to persuade with the multitude of them, which take themselves wiser than all other, which have been these nine hundred years, and which will believe nothing but the written word and bare letter: that old customs must be regarded and preferred also.  
I mislike not the saying, but it agreeth not with your person, as I believe. Catholics may, all the company of them, allege truly both scripture and custom. heretics, do pretend Scripture only, and that yet not truly, but custom they can never allege at all. This we have received from the apostles and their successors, saith the Council of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not in all the scripture, saith the heretic. And as every country, is distincted one from another, by proper and peculiar language: so doth the Catholic ever speak after the voice of the Church, and the heretic babbleth only after the letter of the book. Read you the fifth Chapter of the Tripartite history the fourth book. There it is plain, that Constantin the great, did put a chaplain of his in trust, for the delivery of his testament, 
Hist. trip. li. 4. ca 5.  to Constantius his son. which chaplain, being in deed an Arrian, and having access to the Emperor and acquaintance with him, by occasion of the testament, perceiving also the young Emperor his mind to be unstable and wavering, 
To refuse unwritten verities, the old w●nt of heretics.  what persuasion did he use first of all as you think?  
He said (as Theodoretus testifieth) they were to blame, which had put the word, consubstantial, among the articles of the faith.  
And why so? which word (saith he) is not written in all the Scripture. Lo here is his greatest reason, and such in deed as becometh heretics most of all. Let us go yet forward, and seek whether any more heretics will use that reason. And where shall you more plainly find this matter, then where the very pack of them is gathered together. In a confession of a faith, which was made at Sirmium, Constantius himself being present, with to many Arrian Bishops, after other things, this decree followeth.  
As for the word (substance:) because, 
Trip. hist. lib. 5. c. 20  being simply put forth by the fathers, it is not known of the common people, and it maketh a scandalum and offence: and because, neither the Scriptures have this word in them: it pleaseth us, it should be abrogated, and hereafter no mention at all to be made of substance in God, because the Scriptures divine, do in no place make mention of the substance of the father and the son. You may see what great price they made of this argument (it is no Scripture, ergo no matter of faith.) because that in so few lines, they do twice repeat the self same reason. Which undoubtedly was then, and is now, the very principal (but not most surest) stay, of all unconstant minds. As in the same book again, see what another company of schismatics do speak for themselves, against the Council of Nice? We (say they) which are gathered together in Seleucia, 
Trip. hist. lib. 5. c. 34  which is in Isauria. we have yesterday, which was the fifth before the Kal. of Octobre, given all diligence, according to the Emperor his will, to keep straightly the ecclesiastical peace, and to think earnestly upon the faith, as our well-beloved Emperor Constantius hath commanded, according to the sayings of the prophets and gospels, and to bring forth nothing, besides the Scriptures in the matter of the faith Ecclesiastical. This again doth prove my purpose, that it is proper to the heretics to appeal to the scriptures only, because they are quickly condemned by tradition, custom, and manner.  
To conclude therefore this place, Arrius being so proud, as we have said, having many texts of Scripture for him: as he understood them which took himself to be best learned, the Council of Nice defining the consubstantiality of God the Son with the Father: because they had so received it from the apostles by their successors, the same Council being always reproved of heretics, for that it defined that matter as an article of faith, which was not in Scripture: I ask now, what it is like that the Council did mean, when it should say, Let old customs and manners prevail? Can it well be understood otherwise, (if the words be taken generally, as you M. jewel do allege them) then after this sort? that for as much as heretics can allege for themselves Scripture, and will not be brought down from their private sense to understand those Scriptures, as old blessed fathers have interpreted them, that herefore to make an end, and to stop the mo●thes of all arrogant persons, we will and define, that old fashions, old customs, ancient interpretations, and so forth, shall prevail? For the question here in this Council, was not, of custom & custom, tradition & tradition, which should prevail: for the Arrian did meddle with no tradition, or former custom, or usage. Neither was the question, in comparing former usage with some late writer's invention: for Arrius would allege no one man's writing, taking him self to be better learned than all other. and if he would have alleged his own authority only, that had been so foolish and diueli●he, that it was to be reserved for Luther (or some other of the privy counsel of Antichrist:) Wherein then was the strife? not in those two points which I have named, but in this only, that whereas Arrius would be tried by scriptures only, and plentifully brought them out, for a show of his defence, and whereas under the letter of the scripture, he uttered his blasphemous spirit, and went against the plain traditions, and lessons of the apostles and fathers of Christ his Church. therefore (saith the Council) Let old customs and manners prevail, 
what the Council meaneth saying, let old customs prevail.  which is to say, we allow scripture, and we allege scripture, but after that sort, that we must not, ne will admit any thing contrary unto the Apostolic faith received, for as concerning your text, (Sir Arrius) where you say, 
johan. 14. Pronerb. ●  The father is greater than I am. And again, God made me in the beginning of his ways, with such like, they must be understood as our ●decessors, masters and fathers have delivered unto us. neither must you (bring you in never so many places of the old or new testament) think therefore, that you may conclude a sense and meaning contrary to the old faith. Away with this pride of yours, submit your understanding to the faith of the Church, leave of your new terms of extantibus and non extantibus, receive the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consubstancialitie (which word although it be not expressed in Scripture, yet it is in tradition,) Consent and agree with the Council of the whole world. These words lo and such like, do express truly, what the fathers should mean in saying, Let the old customs prevail. And this being proved, to be the very meaning of that worthy sentence, what hath M. jewel done, in setting it before his sermon in the first show thereof? is it put there, to be laughed at, or to be followed and regarded? If to be laughed at: the Council of Nice is not so simple a thing. If to be followed: why are the Catholics reproved then, for defending ancient traditions? and why are the heretics honoured which will have nothing but ●he bare text only, together with their private comment upon it? If customs, manners, fashions, usages (call it as you will) if they must prevail: wherefore do we all this while, contend with the Protestants, upon verities written and unwritten, upon traditions and uses of the Catholic Church? Every book almost which is of common places, hath the question of Scripture and tradition moved therein, which needeth no more to be any question, you being so well acquainted (M. jewel) with the Protestants, and having so great credit among them, as they lightly can give to such a person. For at one word you shall end the whole matter, persuading them, that old customs and fashions must prevail, which in my mind I think to be impossible, (but nothing is hard perchance, to you,) for this is clear even in sight, the last and third communion is preferred before the second, the second better esteemed then the first, and if a new one come forth, you shall (I warrant you) see it plainly proved, that, quite against your will, and against the Council of Nice, the old fashions shall not be preferred. And this much hitherto I have said, as concerning old customs, supposing and granting, that the Council of Nice might use that sentence, as M. jewel allegeth it, for a general conclusion and determination, whereas in very deed those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are only mentioned in the beginning of the sixth Canon as concerning one especial matter, about the prerogative of the sees of the Bishop of Antioch and Alexandria, and should not therefore be drawn unto a general sentence. But we shall meet again with M. jewel, upon this point, before the end, I think, and therefore now, will I turn over the lease, and consider his sayings, and apply some answers, and infer, so well as I can, some objections against him. When so ever any order, given by God, is broken or abused, 
jewel.  the best redress thereof is, to restore it again into the state that it first was in at the begnining. If you take the pains leisurly to consider the illation of this conclusion, you shall perceive the words of the blessed Apostle unto S. Timothe, the first epistle & chapter, to have in these our days the persons unto whom they may and must be applied. 
1. ad Tim. cap. 1.  The end of the commandment is charity, which cometh out from a pure heart, and good conscience, and unfeigned faiths from which certain men wandering a side, are turned unto vain talk, coveting to be teachers of the law, not understanding, (yet) neither the things which they speak, neither upon what things they make affirmations M. jewel here in the words which I have recited, maketh mention of an order given by God, and of order broken, and of redress of the same by return to the first institution. In which saying can he tell what he speaketh? or what, and wherefore he affirmeth? what order given by God, did he talk of before, to bring in the words thus, when any order given by God is broken? etc. In the third leaf he saith, that S. Paul had appointed the Corinthians as touching the Sacrament, that they should all eat and drink together. Doth he call this, the order given by God? I believe verily, that what soever S. Paul appointed, the same did come from God, as the principal governor of his church. But for all that, there is great difference, betwixt the commandments expressly given by God, 
A difference between th● commandements of god & the ordinances of men.  & ordres set by men as ministers of God. For with the one kind, none can dispense, without especial licence from God. and in the other kind, the heads of the church have the power in their own hands, without further question, to set and remove, plant and pull up, as they shall see it profitable for the present state of the church. Wherefore although the blessed Apostle did never make such orders upon his own head, as did not agree with the will of almighty God: yet (properly to speak) an order given by God, is so to be taken, that, without all exception, it must be kept and followed, without special revelation for the discontinewing of the same order. And orders which men appoint, may be changed again by men. What then meaneth M. jewel by these words, When any order given by God is broken? and let him plainly also show, wherein the order consisted, and who did break it? The order was this, (as it appeareth by the learned commentaries of the blessed fathers upon that xj chapter of the first to the Corinthians. 
Theoph. cap. 11. 1. ad Cor. ) On their holy days and appointed feasts, (according to an old custom of the Church) the Corinthians did use, rich and poor, altogether in common, to eat & drink. and that, of common meats and drinks.  
Which meetings and suppers were called in the Grek tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as other do write) because of their charitable sitting and eating together. Now (as S. Austen writeth) after the supper ended, they did receive the Sacrament. But as S. Chrisostom thinketh, they did first receive the Sacrament, and then set themselves to supper. But were the Sacrament received after or before, and to come to Theophilactus again, afterward, (saith he) Dissensions arising among them, that marvelous or excellent manner (which had much charity, and not a little Christian philosophy in it) was taken away, & kept no longer of the Corinthians. How was it taken away?  
Because they did now sit a sondre, as, ●che by themselves, or kindreds with kindreds, or by families, or other ways divided, whereby the poor folks, which before did put their hands freely in the rich men's dishes, whiles they sat Christianlike at one table together, they now poor souls in deed & hungry, were caused to ●itt by themselves, & had no benefit of their even Christians plenty. With which singularity of the rich men S. Paul was justly offended, and said, When you come together in one, 
1. Cor. 11.  this is not it, to eat our Lord his supper. For every one of you doth take his own supper before, and eat. In which words, our Lord his supper, is understood (as Theophilactus writeth) that meeting and eating together of theirs, which was instituted and received, as in following of that reverend and worshipful supper of our Lord in deed. Here upon now, S. Paul studying for the redress of this order, among other arguments (by which he would persuade them quietly, and without disdain or murmur to sit together as they were wont to do) he bringeth in for one principal argument, the doings of our Saviour in his last supper, saying, I have received of our Lord, that which I have delivered unto you, 
1. Cor. 11.  and so forth.  
As if he should have said more plainly: my friends, you do use in your meetings together, to keep separate tables and to put away the poor from you, through a certain contempt, perchance, or disdain of them. Which you are much to blame to do. For seeing our Saviour in his last supper giving his own body to be eaten, did not make parts thereof, and unequal division, that some should have all, and other should go without: and whereas you also do receive; at these present suppers of your own that very body of his: it is to absurd that towards your neighbours, and brothers, you should use this straingenes, as though they were not worthy to eat of your bocherly fleshly meat with you, or come nigh unto your tables: which a● made partakers with you of the body of our Saviour, and of the heavenly table.  
Thus than you may see, how the words of S. Paul depend orderly one upon an other, and what the order was with the breaking of which he was offended. And where upon then do these words of M. jewel follow I have received of the Lord? etc. 
1. Cor. 11  But let us now yet debate this matter more plentifully. The order once received was, that they should make there common supper all together, of such meats as they would bring, and either before (as S. Chrisostom his opinion is) or after 
Epist. 118. ●d lanuar.  (as S. Austen understandeth it) they should receive the Sacrament. Well this order is broken. But why did you break it, o ye Corinthians? why did ye let either envy, disdain, pride, glotome, or any other unclean thought, so to enter into your hearts, and so to take place there, that whereas before, to the maintenance of charity, your tables in the church were common: now, to the discomforting of the simple and poor, ye make to yourselves private and singular banquets? If you seek only for good cheer: you have houses of your own meeter for that purpose, than the church. But if needs you will sup in the church, after the old fashion: let your meats be common unto the rest, which shallbe there gathered as the old fashion was. We see a manifest disordre, and most lamentable. some be drunken, because of to much. other be faint, because of to little. Do ye contemn the church of god? Do ye confounded & make to blush others which have nothing? But what remedy? Marry, saith M. jewel, let us bring the matter to the first order given, & correct the abuse, by reducing of the case unto the first use thereof. Do so then as you say. amend this disordre of the Corinthians. tell them what they have to follow. show forth the true fashion, and order, 
1. Cor. 11.  which must be used. I have received of the Lord (saith M. jewel) that thing which I also have delivered unto you. that is, that the Lord Jesus' in the night that he was betrayed, took bread, etc. But to what purpose is this? we have showed before, that the disordre among the Corinthians consisted chiefly in this, that they did one contemn another, and would not sit together (as the old fashion was) but make strange one of another. for a redress hereof (sayeth M. jewel in the third leaf) S. Paul calleth them back to the first original, 
jewel.  and to the institution of Christ from whence they were fallen. If this be so, tell me I pray you, what one word is there sound▪ in the institution of Christ, which maketh for sitting together or sitting a sondre, for eating at church or eating at home, for particular banquet or common supper? Christ his institution doth here in consist, that, 
1. Cor. 11.  He took bread, he broke bread, he gave it unto his disciples, and said, take ye, eat ye, this is my body, which shallbe delivered for you, do ye this in remembrance of me. But our talk, is about the reforming of a custom which is broken, and I ask you, how you will amend this separate manner of eating and drinking, which the Corinthians do use in the church? I know that Christ did take bread, did break it, did give it. But answer me, how the good Christians were wont to meet together, and how they did use to sit and eat, whereas the Apostle doth ●ind fault with the Corinthians for their disordre of eating in the church: not eating only of our Lord his body, (which if they did mistake, than the words which you allege of the institution of Christ, would serve well for that purpose) but eating of their own supper, which they brought to church with them. When you speak of reducing things to their original, and when it is clear, that the Corinthians in their meetings together, did not keep the old custom and manner, I looked to hear of you, not the institution of Christ, what that was, but the old fashions which the Corinthians should keep, as for those words of the institution of Christ, which S. Paul rehearseth, they are written of him, not, as the original pattern of the reforming the Corinthians disordre: but in way of argument, (as Theophilactus saith) to prove his principal purpose, that because Christ, did not spare to give his own body unto his disciples and followers: therefore the rich Corinthians should not disdain to admit the poorer sort of Christians their brethren unto their table. for therein was the blessed Apostle occuped, to correct the stoutness & singularity which the Corinthians used then, otherwise than it was received among Christians. And therefore S. Paul being mindful of his intent & principal matter, he concludeth the chapter with these words: therefore my brothers (saith he) when ye come together to eat: tarry and look one for another. If any one be hungry: let him eat at home. Shortly therefore to conclude this matter, truth it is, that when any disordre is come into the church: the first order, from which the fall was made, should be reduced. The disordre among the Corinthians, was, that they did not charitably communicate together in their suppers. let this be amended. the Apostle doth it properly, saying. Therefore, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 
M. jewel understandeth not the● place which he bringeth out of the first unto the Corinthians ca 1●.  For so was it at the beginning, that the Christians did mere and sit altogether, and eat one of an others meat in their Churches, and either after such their meals, receive the Sacrament, or before them. All this agreeth well. But let M. jewel amend the disordre, and set every man in his place. Let them be called back again 
jewel.  (saith he) to the first original, and to the institution of Christ.  
Which answereth, as rightly to the question proponed as if in a deliberation, how the beggars & needy persons of England might be provided for, some great clerk would stand up & solemnly declare unto us, unto what value of our currant money the three hundred pence would come unto, for which the ointment that was poured upon our Saviour his head, might have been sold for, according unto judas his estimation. Or (as it is more familiar with English ears) which is the way to London? A pot full of plums. Yet do they glory still upon the institution of Christ, as though those words, Take, eat, this is my body, do this in remembrance of me, did appoint both time, and place, and vesture, and number of communicantes, and all things which they use in ministering of their what shall I call it? (truly I can not tell,) and which the true catholic church hath or may use, in the ministering, adorning, or defensing of the Sacrament. But let it be granted (which is to far absurd) that S. Paul did reduce the Corinthians from their disordre unto the first original & institution of Christ, and that he upon the original of Christ his institution did conclude, that one should tarry for another when they came to eat. How doth it now then so fall out, that according to the redress which the Apostle made after the original of Christ his institution, Christian men bring not their meats to the church, and the rich tarrieth not for the poor, and he which aboundeth, giveth not gladly unto him which lacketh? And when they are well refreshed with common meats, then receive the Sacrament? Yea rather, you, which appeal so loudly and rudely to the institution of Christ, 
The inconstancy of heretics.  why do ye not wash one another's feet, which have so express & evident a text for it? Where is now your original, and where is the institution of Christ? if both kinds be not received of the lay people: O than institution of Christ, how far are we departed from thee? say they. And the same Christ saying, 
joan. 13.  I have given you an example, that like as I have done so should you do, and wash one another's feet, they are content herein to let institution and original both go. And so, like as bells do sound in divers men's ears diversly, and diversly in one self same ear, as the mind is affected: so Scripture and custom are made to sound in these men's fancy, even as their 〈◊〉 is to have this or that opinion to go forward. When it pleaseth them: 〈◊〉 the bells shall go, With customs of p●●matiue church, examples of good men, testimonies of blessed Doctors. And when so great a sound doth trouble their study, then lo it pleaseth them to have one bell only to ring, With nothing is to be believed without express word of Scripture. But now let us go further. It was to be hoped, for so much as the glorious light of the Ghospel of Christ, 
jewel.  is now so mightily and so far spread abroad, that no man would lightly miss his way, as afore in the time of darkness, and perish wilfully. I could not but note this sentence, because it containeth so great a boast and so small truth in it. For where is the glorious light of the Gospel now so mightily and so far spread abroad? and what calleth he the darkness of the time afore? many new found lands, & the wild Indians are come to the faith of Christ in our days: but had protestants and heretics the ministry thereof? or else religious men, monks & friars, with other such of the catholic church? 
Note a most evident lie of M. jewels.  how many parts of Italy, of Spain, of France, of Germany, of ●laundres, of other countries of Europe, do acknowledge this glorious light which he talketh of? Yea, what one city can he name, in the which it is mightily blazed abroad? Frankford, doth it wholly agree within itself in one faith? Geneva, is it wholly overshadowed with this counterfeit light? In England, or London, or in Sarum under his own preachings, is the Gospel gloriously and mightily spread abroad? The kingdom of the Gospel of Christ, is in men's hearts. and then, of how many hearts is M. jewel assured? of those very countries, which are taken to incline to the new learnings, three parts, or more, shallbe ●ownd, in heart and will, Catholics.  
And yet grant him, that any one city is altogether turned from Christ and his church, so that no one Papist in heart, shall there remain: by & by is the Gospel mightily and far spread abroad? There is no more but one Gospel, but of gospellers more than six kinds in every country, 
There is one Gospel, but divers gospellers.  which the glorious light of the Gospel hath now overviewed. M. jewel himself doth he know any one, to be of the same faith of which he himself is? if he agree in all points with any other, how cometh that to pass? either they have one master, which keepeth them both under correction, that they shall not play the wantoness, but hold that, which he teacheth: or else voluntarily, and at pleasure they agree. If voluntarily and at will: then is not he sure of an others mind, which may be so often times changed in every day and hour. If they say one thing because of one master and authority: let him then plainly tell us, the name of that person his master. We have hard of Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, servetus, Suenk feldius, of the which every one did crack of the glorious light of the Ghospel of Christ, which they did bear abroad in their lanterns. But their light is not the light of the son, but such as we see in great tempests, when contrary flashings of lightning, come one against an other. They did not comfort and quicken by their doctrine▪ but destroy and burn up quite the green fruits of devotion, and pretty. And which then of all these, is your master & ruler? The word of God, ●f in these days it be come abroad out of darkness, it cometh not without hands and tongues. who then be your apostles? If there be none: 
Aedant Origines Ecclesiarūsuar●. Let them show the beginnings and first rising of their churches. Tertull. in ●script. adversus haereticos.  a great marvel certainly, to receive so great a gift and not to know, from whence it came, or who brought it. If there be any: then must you follow your Apostles. But they are all so well and highly learned, that they disdain to be any man's scholars, as a certain Doctor and called a bishop, persuading with one, that he should read the Doctors with judgement (meaning that in deed the doctors be plainly against them, except one take the place of a judge upon him, and define their verdicts, as it shall please the world, the flesh, and the devil) used this kind of reason to obtain his purpose. for I myself (ꝙ he) do read Luther with judgement. O miserable and beggarly religion. even Luther him selue, which like a morning, is said to have risen before the light of the gospel, for whom they bless the Lord, that in him he revealed his s●ne Ih●sus Christ (os impudens) yet is he to be readen with judgement. But whose judgement? The judgement of the church ●row you? or judgement of Melanchthon, Bucer, Calvin, or any other? no no▪ for all these are to be readen also, with judgement. And whose judgement? forsooth mine own. Behold than I pray you, is not the Gospel mightily spread abroad, when all this while no one person living, is found on the Protestants side, which is and must be taken for an undoubted true preacher of the Ghospel? 
the Protestant; hath no one ●●doubted true judge, teacher or faith.  Again, suppose that I have yet no Christendom, and that gladly I would come to the true faith, which is the true light of my soul: as far and as mightily as it is spread abroad, where yet shall I find it? Let me begin at Sarum church, and doth that agree in all points with the queens chapel? Let me go unto Geneva: and that church, doth it agree in all articles, with England? from thence bring me abroad in to Germany: and shall I see the same preachings used, as are in other countries and cities of them which are no papists? how shall I, which am not yet christened and learned, distinct the Lutheran, Zwinglian, Anabaptist, Arrian, and more such sects one from an other? For the blaze of the glorious light, which you talk of: is marred by the concurring, of all these flames, together. Wherefore I wonder much, at the vain hope of him, which in these most troublesome and controversious times, would look that every man should come to the licht of the Ghospel, which he saith is mightily spread abroad. whereas in deed, he himself which hoped for many incummynges, doth not yet readily know, whether he be in the right way himself or no. and can not prove to me, whether this which he holdeth, be the Gospel of Christ or no, or counterfaicted by some Pope or other, or by some one general Council or other, from whose hands we have received it. For if it follow well, and if we may build here upon our soul's health, that they have not, faithfully expounded unto us the Gospel: as easily it may follow, that they have delivered unto us a false Gospel. And if they may be trusted with the keeping of the Gospel, and that we nothing doubt, but they have delivered it as they received it, 
Consider, whether ● new Ghospel & ●aith may with any reason be trusted.  without interlining, rasing, blotting, and corrupting of it: why should we mistrust them, in the expounding of the same Gospel? If they had so good conscience, that having the testament in their keeping, they are believed to have suppressed or burned, or altered, no part thereof: shall we make them on the other side, so wicked and desperate that they would expound the same otherwise, than they had received? And if we do stand by it plainly and openly, that they were so corrupted and blinded, that they have sensed and interpreted the scriptures most untruly, and most against the glory of God: can we with out fear, receive the testament of God and writings of all our health ●rom them, and nothing mistrust, lest they have put in, and put out, for their own purpose and advantage, many things which God never uttered, or which he expressly commanded? Certainly, as mightily, as the talk of the word of God, and glorious light of the gospel is spread abroad, because of so divers sects, which declaim against the catholic and Apostolic church: yet, if we considre the case rightly, the very crackers of that light, know not for all that, in what surety of their faith, they be themselves. For they have forsaken the high way, and what by breaking of ceremonies, what by overturning of monasteries, what by false liberty of conscience, that they may do what they will, under the name of the cross of Christ and his passion: they have so crossed the ways, and broken down so many hedgis, and trodden down so much good corn, & so many fair pastures of all piety and devotion: that, except they come back to the beginning again, they can never come to good end. Whither be you posting Sir, and please you? unto heaven? you must ride then apace for company because by your own confession, these nine hundred years and more, none did ever take this way which you do follow. But, where will you bait by the way? At the sign of the book with seven clasps, which is the Gospel. Sir, than I beseech you, what call you the city where that sign is? Marry, Geneva where Calvin readeth. What, if Geneva be destroyed, and Calvin burned, or otherwise dead, before you come thither? Whither will you go then? to the sign of the gospel. And why not to Caluins' successors, which may sa●ly deliver you the Ghospel? And then, Geneva being destroyed, and Calvin both, what shall the next baiting place be, at which they may turn in, which look to be saved? or what shall his name be, which is goodman of the house? Certanly, at this point and turning, they are no more sure of their faith, than I should be of my way to the mount Tabor, if I were in the furthest and wildest places of all Egypt. Because they will trust none but themselves, and their own wittiness, and as themselves shall cast the way, so will they hear by leisure, what old good fathers do say, 
protestants will stand to their own judgements only.  but yet will they follow their own inclination, this being enough with them all, for the most part, that my mind and spirit giveth me, this should be the way: ergo this is likely to be the way. And again, the spirit of God, is not in the great scholars and high Bishops or rulers of the world, ergo happy are we the poor and ignorant, which have neither learning neither authority. M. jewel complaineth that some there are this day, 
M. jewel.  which refuse the communion and run headlong to the mass. whereas the holy communion, is restored to the use and form of the primative church. to the same order that was delivered and appinted by Christ. and after practised by the Apostles, and contineved by the holy doctors and fathers, by the space of ●iue or six hundred years, throughout all the catholic church of Christ. without exception, or any sufficient example, to be showed to the contrary. I could make short, and say, all is lies. And truly to make short in many places, I shall be constrained, the matter doth so increase, together with a just indignation. Which if I should follow to the uttermost, I might write a great volume, and yet not come to the end. But as for saying all is lies, without proving of it, although my negation be as free for me in familiar writing, as his affirmation is for him in open pulpetes and preaching: yet because I need not to use such extremity, I will prove, that all together it is falsely a●owched, which he writeth in this foresaid sentence. For how first doth this communion agree, with the order that was delivered by Christ? yea rather what order of celebrating, did Christ deliver, which you can tell of? 
joan. 13.  Christ did sit down with his twelve, and after the paschal lamb eaten, he arose again, he put of his robes, he girded himself with a linen cloth, he poured water into a basin, he washed his Apostles feet, he sat down again, he preached, he took bread, he blessed it, he broke it, he gave it, saying, this is my body, which shallbe delivered for you. 
Mat. 26.  And likewise he took the chalice and blessed it. (as the Gospel testifieth) and at the last, many godly and comfortable lessons being given, and grace ended, he said to his disciples, 
joan. 14.  arise, let us go hence. I. there any more about the last supper of Christ, that you can tell of? But how many things more, and how many things less hath your order in the communion book? 
Note the Protestants use many things in their communion which, are not found in script: to be by Christ his institution.  What Scripture have you for the linen fair cloth upon the communion table? Where hath Christ delivered unto you, that the priest shall sta●d at the north side of the table? Where found you the prayers, collects, exhortations, confessions, knelinges down, standings up, and such other fashions, as the communion book hath prescribed? I speak neither of nor on as concerning the goodness and allowance of these things, but only I ask where you had these orders of Christ? For these be your words. that The communion now is restored to the same order, that was delivered, and appointed by Christ. Now, as you have many things more in your communion, 
Also they have many points less, then war done by Christ at his last supper. as .1.  than ever you can prove by express Scripture, that hour saviour used in his last supper: so have you on the other side, many points less, than you ought to have by any dispensation, if Christ were your perfect example. For Christ our Saviour, as he was at supper with his disciples, first and foremost took bread. And how dare you to make your boast, of the exact following of the Lord, 
Matt. 26. Christ took bread in to his hands.  where as you be ashamed to take your communion bread in to your hands? I will not press you with the question, why you do not communicate at supper time (which one might think that you would chiefly do, being such obseruars and keepers of the actions and procedings of Christ) but this so reasonable and consequent point, that (I mean) he which intendeth to work about any matter should take it up in to his hand, and this thing, which Christ himself hath willed us by his example to do (in taking of the bread, which he minded to consecrate, in to his holy and reverend hands, why do not you remember to follow, and why give you not forth a general injunction, that every minister shall keep that ceremony and manner? For although you M. jewel (as I have heard say) do take the bread in to your hands, when you celebrate solemnly, yet thousands there are of your inferior ministers whose death it is, to be bound unto any such external fashion, and your order of celebrating the communion is so unadvisedly conceived, that every man is left unto his private rule or canon, whether he will take the bread into his hands: or let it stand at the end of the table. Let it therefore be well marked that first of all you either forget, or neglect, or be ashamed to follow Christ, in taking of bread in to your hands.  
It followeth in the Ghospel that Christ did bless. 
Christ blessed the bread.  but what did he bless? undoubtedly that which he took in to his hands. And why then do not you follow Christ, in this action about the sacrament? or leave craking, that you have brought your communion unto that perfect form and absolute, at which Christ left it unto us? if you will appeal in this place unto the jews, in whose tongue, blessing, is commonly taken for thanks giving, you must then expound unto us what thanks Christ did give unto the bread. For the accusative case, which is governed of the verb (Benedixit, he blessed) is not, Deum or Apostolos, that is, God or his Apostles, but panem, that is bread. Therefore he blessed the bread, and did not thank the bread. no he did not praise the bread. in which sense (benedicere, to bless) is oft times taken. For how could that holy mind of his, which always was occupied upon high matters, and which then was most especially fully and excellently directed unto the making of unspeakable mysteries, intent the right seasoning, or well baking, or fair locking, or any other thing worth the praising, in that bread which he took in to his hands? if you would or could for your cursed stomach & greatness of heart, follow with quietness and charity, the example and manner of the wholly catholic church, you should make the sign of the cross over the bread, and think that Christ his blessing of that creature: is well, so to be understanded. But as though a thing were the worse, for the sign of the cross made upon it, or as though Christ in blessing of the bread, blessed it not in deed, but rather blessed & thanked his father: so you ●lee, by all means possible, from all such action and gesture, which might seem to commend this bread unto us, and you have rather chosen to leave out all manner of blessing: than you would be bound to ceremonies, and come within order and canons. But whether this agreeth with your cracks and boastings, that you have brought the supper of the Lord unto his first order and perfection (which you, for all that do not bless the bread, as you should have learned by Christ his example and pattern) let any man judge, which hath but mean reason, and understanding.  
Further more, it is in S. Luke, that, likewise also the chalice, 
Luce. 22.  (understand) Christ gave. Which word (likewise) I note, because it importeth, that there was a certain especial manner, which our Saviour used in taking and giving of bread, the which he observed in taking and delivering of the chalice. And reason, undoubtedly, giveth it, that he, which at other times used, 
Matt●. 14.  most solemn and reverend gestures, (as in the feeding of five thousand with five barley losses and two fishes, 
joan. 11.  and in the raising of Lazarus he used blessing, lifting up of eyes, and loud speaking) would not in such a time, and towards such a purpose, either use a common attention, either a common expressing of his intention. especially where as the disciples, with whom he turned in at Emaus, knew him in the breaking of bread, 
what reverent gestures Christ used at his last supper  because he did it, after such a divine and solemn ceremony, as was not used of any other, such was his grace therein and his ordinance. O Lord, how affectuously did he take that bread, from the rest which was upon the table, of the which bread he appointed to make his own precious body? How reverently did he look up to heaven? How heartily did he thank his father? How abundantly did he bless and hallow the bread? either by using the plain sign of a cross, or by some other expressing of his goodness which he would to come upon that creature? How attentively did he break it? How heartily did he bid them to take it? How lovingly did he give them to eat it? how mightily and unspeakably did he turn and convert it? Like wise also he took and gave the chalice. Surely if there had been no matter in the taking and handling of it, neither the bread (I believe) neither the wine was so far from him, but that he might have pointed unto them, with his finger, or looked at the least way upon them, saying, Take ye, and eat ye, this is my body, this is my blood. Yet to declare the singular working of his, which is done in the bread and wine, and to make us the more attended and close in mind, 
why Christ used such reverent gestures at this institution of the Sacrament of his body and blood.  by the following of his outward gestures, he took it: separating it (as it were) from the rest of the like grain, he blessed it: by some special sign or sanctification, such as is not for our common meats, he broke it: to represent mystically, the visible tearing of his body, which the next day after followed. He gave it: to make them one together with him, not by faith only and charity: but in very flesh also and body. He said, This is my body, this is my blood: to teach them a true faith in those mysteries, and to confirm and establish us against the objections, which either heretics or our senses, 
1. Cor. 11  do make to the discrediting of the Sacrament. and to conclude. he said, Do this in remembrance of me: by which he gave full authority of consecrating unto Priests, and willed them to follow his example. But can you now (M. jewel) prove, that you keep all these things in your communion? Remember, I pray you, the order of it, and consider, that the bread and wine are laid down upon your table, where it pleaseth the sexton or the parish clerk to set them. 
The new ministers abuse and lack in celebrating Christ his last supper.  And when the time of consecration (if all things did proceed rightly) cometh, your book appointeth, no taking, no blessing, no directing of the mind to the bread. But like as a man should tell a tale: so the minister reciteth only the words of the Apostle, and when all is quickly done, he taketh the unconsecrated bread himself and giveth it to other, willing them to be thankful, and to feed upon Christ in their heart. In so much, that if a stranger should come in the mean time whiles you be at your communion, he might wonder, why at the end, you make so much of that bread and cup of wine, with which all the service long before you seemed to have had so little to do, or nothing. For neither by taking, neither blessing, neither direct and intentive looking, it appeareth that you work any thing in the bread. And all this not withstanding, have you browghte back the communion, unto that state and perfection, in which Christ delivered it unto his Apostles. May you not be ashamed of your vanity, which crack of the following of Christ, and condemn his holy Catholic church, yourselves neither taking, neither blessing, neither consecrating the bread and wine, as Christ himself did in his last supper show unto us? Well (M. jewel) this is one fowl lie of yowres.  
There followeth an other, namely, that you have the same order, 
another lie of M. juells.  which was practised by the Apostles. But it appeareth not either in the Acts of the Apostles, or any of their epistles, what order of communion they had, In the Acts of the Apostles it is written, 
Act. 2.  that they did break bread in their houses. 
Act. 13.  and again, that after the Apostles had fasted and sacrificed, they sent forth S. Paul and Barnabas to fulfil the holy ghosts commandment, and to preach abroad the Gospel. But of the order, which they used in breaking their bread, 
1. Cor. 11.  or in their sacrifices, nothing is declared precisely. Again, unto the Corinthians, the blessed Apostle writeth, what he received of our Lord, and testifieth therein the verity of the sacrament, but of the order, which is to be observed, he speaketh so little, that he endeth that matter with these words. As for the rest, when I come myself, I will set in order. here be, lo, two foul ones passed. there followeth the third, which hath many other underneath it. And that lie is, that, the holy communion is restored to the same order, which hath been continued, by the holy doctors & fathers (one) for the space of .v. or. ujc. years 
Many lye● of M. Iuel● in one 〈◊〉 ●e together  (two) through out all the whole Catholic church of Christ (three) without exception or sufficient example to be showed to the contrary (four) yet are there some this day (q, he) that refuse it, which is also the fifth lie, if he take this word (some) for a small some. Because in deed, there be very many persons, which do refuse it, and would gladly run to mass, 
wherein the Protestants Communion agreeth not with the primitive church and old fathers.  if there were any.  
But now to shame all these lies, I will bring forth a few exceptions, by which I shall evidently prove, many things yet to lack in the Communion, of the order, which in the primitive church, was used. First of all, you should torn your face towards the East in your common prayer. 
Prayer toward the East. justinue 118. quaest.  As it doth appear by S. justin the martyr .118. quest. Because (saith he) we should reserve the most honourable things for God, and by all men's judgement, where the son riseth, that is the worthiest part of the world. The same also is proved by S. Athanasius quest .37. 
Athan. quest. 37  Which allegeth for that purpose the testimonies of the Psalms and Prophets in answering to a jew & for the answering to a Gentil, he saith that because God is true light, therefore we look toward the sight created, and do not worship the light itself but the maker thereof. Thirdly to a Christian this he answereth, saying, For this cause the most blessed Apostles did make the church, of the Christians to look towards the East, that we looking unto Paradise, from whence we have fallen, (I mean our old country and land) should and might desire our God and Lord to bring us back thither, from whence being cast out, we are in this banishment. And of this judgement also S. Basil the great, is. And saith It is a tradition of the Apostles. 
Basil. de ●. 5. cap. 27.  And with these agreeth S. Austen saying, when we stand to pray, we torn unto the East. 
Lib. de servant in monte.  And why therefore is not this order kept in the communion book but expressly rather it appointeth the Priest to stand at the north side of the table? Is this your continuing in old fathers and doctors orders, that you be assured, no example can be showed to the contrary of that, which you do? if you say the standing maketh no matter: suppose it to be so, & wherefore then did you not let things stand when they were well? or why do ye crack before ignorant people, that you hau● the same order without example to the contrary, which was in the primitive church and five or six hundred years after used?  
Thus, first than you stand not rightly, no more do ye in the rest accordingly. For where is the water, which you should mingle together with the wine in consecrating the chalice? why keep you not this ancient approved and received order? S. Alexander bishop of Rome the fifth after S. Peter saith: 
the chalice ought to be mingled with water  Neither wine alone, neither water alone, but both mingled together, aught to be offered up in the chalice of our Lord. as we have received of our forefathers, and reason itself doth teach, because both they are readen to have gushed out of his side, when he suffered his passion.  
Item, 
C●●. Car. 3 ca 24.  the third Council holden at Carthage, forbiddeth that any thing else be offered, than our Lord himself hath delivered and appointed, that is to say, bread and wine mingled with water. Again, S. Cyprian, 
Cyp. ●p. 3. lib. 2  in one whole epistle, greatly rebuketh them, which offer up water alone, or wine alone. Because (he saith) that our Lord appointed it so, that water and wine should be mingled both together, to signify the joining of Christ, and his Church in one. 
Apoc. 17  For many waters do signify in the Apocalypse, many people: so that water mingled with wine, doth well represent the people tempered together, and united with Christ. How say you? be not these witnesses sufficient enough? they are within the five hundred years which M. jewel giveth us leave to consider, if perchance we may find any exception to the contrary, that the order in the English communion, is not according to the perfect example of that which it should be.  
I ask yet once again why, 
The sign of the cross ought to be used in the communion.  the minister of the holy communion, is not commanded to make the sign of the cross, when he should consecrate? This also was an old custom. For in S. james, and S. Basiles mass, there ys● a proper place and time before sacring (as we have called it) in which the priest doth make the sign of the cross upon the bread and wine.  
And Tertullian sayeth, 
Libro de corona milit●●.  that in his time it was a general custom, to make the sign of the cross in the forehead at every coming in to the house, at every going forth in putting on their apparel, in sitting down at the table, at candelltyde, at beddtyde. How much sooner then, did they use that sign in holy mysteries. S. Chrisostome also an ancient father, 
In demonst. adverssusgent. to. 3.  the head (sayeth he) is not so much decked and set ●urth with a royal crown, as with the cross. All men sign themselves with it, imprinting it, in the most noble part that we have. For in the forehead as it were upon a pillar the figure thereof is daily made, so likewise in the holy table, so in the making of priests, so again with the body of Christ in the mystical suppers, that sign doth flourish. 
Augustin. tract. 118. in Joannem.  Unto these .11. forenamed witnesses let us take a third verdict of the blessed S. Austyne, which judgeth of the cross in this wise, that, except it be put unto either the foreheads of the faithful, either the water with which they are regenerated and borne again, wither the oil with which they are anointed, either the sacrifice with which they are nourished, none of them all is well done. What then shall we say? if M. jewel hath not thorowghlie readen these ancient doctors, how hardy and hasty was he in reporting, that his communion and his fellows is restored to the form of the primitive church, delivered by Christ, practised by the Apostles, continued by the holy fathers? and if that he hath readen the holy fathers, and yet contemneth their sayings: what credit is to be given unto his preaching, which playeth the hypocrite so notoriously? But let us make other exceptions.  
In the primitive church, altars were allowed among Christians, 
altars used and hallowed in the primitive church.  upon which they offered the unbloody sacrifice of Christ his body: saint Paul manifestly saying, we have an altar, of which they may not eat, which communicate with Idols. The council also called Agathense, hath decreed it, that Altars should be hallowed, not only with the anointing of holy oil, but also the blessing of the priest. 
Concil. Agathen. se. cap. 14.  Yet your company (M. jewel) to declare what followers they are of antiquity, do account it among one of the kinds of Idolatry, if one keep an altar standing. And in deed, you follow a certain antiquity, not yet of the catholics, but of desperate heretics. 
Optatus contra 〈◊〉.  As Optatus writeth against the Donatists, saying: what is so wicked & theewish as to break, to raze, to remove, the altars of God, upon which once you did offer? Now if you be of no affinity with the Donatists, answer, for the pulling down of altars, what spirit it was which moved you there unto?  
Again, in the primitive church, incensing at mass, was, of most holy men allowed witnesses hereof, are S. james in his mass, saying: O Lord ●hesu Christ, etc. purge us from all spot, and make us to stand pure at thy holy altar, that we may offer unto the a sacrifice of praise, 
Perfumes ●incense used in the primitive church.  and receive of us thy unprofitable servants this present perfume for a sweet savour, etc. S. Device also is a witness, which among other things write, concerning the order of church service in his days, 
Ecel. Hierarch. ca 3  telleth, How the Bishop after he hath ended his folly prayer, upon the divine altar, beginneth at it to burn incense & so goeth round about the whole church. another witness (to let go the liturgies or masses of S. Basile and S. Chrisostome) shall be S. Ambrose, 
Amb. li. I. in csp. 1. Luca.  which in his contemplation of the coming of the Angel unto the high priest Zacharie, sayeth, And I would to god, that whiles we incense the altars, and bring sacrifice thither, the Angel should stand by us, and give himself to be seen of us. Now these testimonies M. jewel, being gathered out of the five hundred years after Christ, you were not so wise undoubtedly as you were bold, in saying your communion to be of that form and fashion, which the Apostles delivered and their next followers received.  
Furthermore in the primitive church goodly tapers and lights were used: 
Lights maintained in the primitive church.  how read you in the old doctors? were they not? If they were, how be you not a shamed of the darkness, which is generally in you, and your communion? If you can find no mention of lights in any good ancient doctor: read then S. augustine in his sermons unto the people, 
August. Ser. 7. de tempor●  declaring what is the best kind of vow. and uttering by that occasion the manner of good folk in his time, of whom, some did vow oil, some wax, to keep light in the night, some, a pall or rob, etc. Which although he alloweth, yet these are not the best vows sayeth he. 
Paulin. in nat. 3. ●. Foelicis.  Read also Paulinus, which upon S. Felix holiday, sayeth, Clara coronantur densis altaria lychnis. The altars bright: Are round I dight, With lamps thick set, and light.  
Read (to be short) S. Jerome, and not only read: but regard him. Read what he judgeth of Vigilantius, and read what the heretic Vigilantius judged of churchlightes and tapers. Did not he, like a singular and blind Protestant (all be it such then, were not called Protestants, but known well enough by the bare name of heretics) but did not he jest & taunt at the manner of Catholics, asking them why they lighted tapers at mid noon, the son fair shining? and asking further, whether the martyrs which dwell in heaven, need any of our tapers, which tarry on earth? Whose mad brain for these, and other like sayings, 
H●ero. adversus Vigilantium. ●oan. 12.  S. Jerome noted, to require some cure and remedy, and among other things he answereth Vigilantius with these words. Neither Christ needed the ointment (which mary Magdalene powered upon him) Nor martyrs the light of tapers: and yet that woman did that thing in the honour of Christ, and the devotion of her mind is taken, and who so ever do light tapers, they have their reward according to their faith. Again. Thorowgh all the churches of the East, when the Gospel is a reading, the tapers are lighted, even when the son now shineth. Not truly to put darkness away, but to show forth and declare a token of joy and gladness.  
For this matter therefore M. jewel, I will leave you unto holy S. Jerome, to see whether you and he in this ●●ynt can agree any thing together. and whether he can patiently suffer you, after so evident customs to the contrary, to crack that you have brought the communion unto that form which it had at the beginning.  
Shall I make any more exceptions against you, or have I said to much already for your profit and credit among the ignorant? Many surely will think and say unto themselves, that if my Lord jewel preached these things in open pulpit, he was well advised before, what he would say, and undoubtedly he hath how to answer, how so ever these papists allege the Doctors. Which fellows verily have to great an opinion of the man, and they may seem to offend of purpose, which will not see most manifest things, and such which are comprehended by the outward and carnal senses. Many heresies of old were very subtle, and of much show of virtue, in so much, that right learned and good men might have been deceived in them: but the heresies of this time are for the most part all, so gross, so unreasonable, so unnatural, so foolish, so much craking, so little performing, that it is a wonder, how any man of common sense, doth prefer the new before the old religion. For, to note two points more, which, the church observeth as delivered by the Apostles, and which the communion book hath not in it, for all the boast that is made of it, what honest heart can abide to here those bold words, that the communion is restored to the use and form of the primitive church, when he shall perceive that praying to the Saints, and praying for the dead, 
Of praying to Saints.  which the new gospellers do utterly neglect, was generally of old observed. Is it not said many times and oft, in S. Basils' mass, let us commend ourselves one an other and all our life, 
Basil. in sua Liturgia.  unto Christ our God, having in memory, our most holy and undefiled lady the mother of God, and always virgin Marie, with all the Saints? Doth he not make an express mention of our lady, of S. John the Baptist, and of the saint, whose memory is kept that day in the church, saying, Quorum postulationibus visita nos. at whose prayers and requests visit us? 
Chrisost. in Liturg.  Doth not Chrisostome in this article agree with Basile & the catholic faith? O Michael (saith he) which art the chief captain of the heavenly army, unworthy we beseech the to defend us by thy intercessions, under the shadow of thy wings. Again, O ye Apostles, do your message unto our merciful God, that he may give unto our souls remission of sins. The like prayer he maketh in effect unto S. Nycolas and to all the saints. And whereas holy Saints and Martyrs are mentioned in the rest of the mass, 
Chrisost. ●om. 21. in acta Apo.  especially yet they are at the time of oblation: for it is great honour to them, to be named when their Lord is present, when that death is celebrated, and that dreadful sacrifice, and unspeakable sacraments. Which was so ordinary and common a matter, 
Aug. li. de S. virgin. cap. 45.  that S. Augustine in few words sayeth, It is well known unto the faithful, at what● place the martyrs and religious women or Nuns departed, are rehearsed at the Sacraments of the altar.  
And again, 
Idem li. 22 de ciu. Dei cap. 10.  that we use not to offer sacrifice to Martyrs, but that in that sacrifice which we offer up unto God, the martyrs in their place & order are named. If you ask, to what purpose the catholic and true communion should use the invocation or naming of martyrs: (although it be argument sufficient against your communion, that it followeth not the like manner, which we find to have been received in the ancient church, yet to yield much herein unto you) I say either with Chrisostome in the place forenamed in the that it is the martyrs honour, to be remembered in the presence of their lord his precious body. 
Lib. 20. ca 21. contra Faustum  Or I say with S. Augustine, applying that to our purpose specially, which he spoke generally of all Martyrs, that, the Christian people do keep the memories and commemoration of Martyrs, with a religious and devout solemnity, both to stir up in themselves a following of them, and also to be made partakers of their merits, and to be helped by their prayers. But the practice of the primitive Church being evident, although the cause of it were not known, why use you not in your communion, an ordinary invocation of holy saints?  
Now if in all other things, no odds between you and the true church might be espied, 
Praying at mass time for the dead.  yet the praying for the dead, was in the primitive church so laudable, and in your religion it is so hated, that except, before judgement be given, you altar in that point your communion, no reason can bear it to be Apostolic.  
Consider by yourselves S. Basiles and S. Chrisostomes' masses, whether peculiar and proper mention of the dead, be not made in them, to obtain God his mercy for them? 
Conf. lib. 9  Remember, that S. Augustine desireth his brothers and fathers though priests, which should read of the death of his mother, to pray for her at the altar. And if you will be loath to turn to these places, and to consider them accordingly, I will pardon you of that labour, trusting that one testimony will be sufficient unto you, which seek nothing, but truth, and are ready to follow better council. The testimony is Saint Chrisostomes'. 
Chris. homil. 3. ad Philip.  It hath not been decreed for nought, by the Apostles, (sayeth he) that in the celebration of the venerable mysteries, a memory should be made of them, which have departed hence. For they knew, that much vantage and profit did come herebie unto them, etc.  
So many points therefore considered, which we find used in the primitive church, and which we lament to see contemned in your upstart church: can you, for shame of the world, either not follow that, if you know the state of it, or if you do know little of it, so boldly compare yourselves with it? You say, that without exception and authority to the contrary, you have the same order and fashion which was practised in the ancient church, through Christendom, and I do show you now half a score of just exceptions, of no small matters, or hard to find, but great and easy to be perceived. Who therefore might in this place and vantage against you, give for God his sake which is truth, a just and free sentence between us and you? Who might grant forth inquisitors and judges to sit upon it, which of us two doth follow the church, and which of us two doth bely her? how long is it that men halt on both sides?  
If our Lord be the God, follow him: if Baal be, follow him. 
Reg. 3. cap. 18.  If jewel say truth, let the Catholics continue in their infamy: if the Catholics prove him a liar, go upright, and halt not with a false leg. This communion of yours M. jewel, is no more like the mass, office, or service, which the Catholics used in the first five hundred years after Christ: then a four crabb is like a sweet orange. But as some man might foolishly say of an other, he is like King Artery the famous, because he sitteth at a round table, or hath perchance some part of a gesture, which (as he hath readen in Chronicles) becummed King Artery very well, whereas in all kind of manliness, he is more nearer a duck then a duke, so (that I may be quietly suffered, to compare things simple and temporal, with those great matters and everlasting) these obscure Protestants, because they presume all of them to receive under both kinds, as Christ did unto his Apostles only, deliver them both, (as teaching them how to celebrate that daily sacrifice) and because they will not receive, except they be a company of them together: lo, say they, we be the followers of Christ, and his Apostles, and of the primitive church as far as five hundred years go, (for there we leave them) and we have the light of the Gospel, after so long a night of nine hundred years and more, and our order of the holy communion, is the same which Christ delivered, (o good brothers) and the Apostles received, and the Doctors and Father's continued, without any exception, which can be made to the contrary. Whereas in deed, you may see, in how many, and how principal things, they forsake quite the true order of the primitive church. But shall they be so suffered for ever? True it is, the Sacrament is an holy thing, 
M. jewel fol. 8.  the ordinance of Christ, the mystery of our salvation. Yet, is there nothing so good, no ordinance so holy, no mystery so heavenly, but through the folly andx frowardness of man, it may be abused. From this place forward, many leaves together, he proveth that things may be abused: and reckoneth up certain abuses, which have chanced about the Sacraments. and if I take him ●ardie but in one, he must be guilty in all, because he allegeth all with like faith and integrity, and willeth himself to be taken as he is, if he be found overcome, but in one thing only. First then, as concerning those, which did baptize the dead, they are well reproved in the third Council of Carthage, the sixth canon. But here by the way, I note one great unreasonableness in those men, which at their pleasure, to serve their turn, do allege councils, and will not yet obey the canons of the same councils. The 17. canon of this very Council of Carthage, forbeddeth that no strange women, (that is to say) none, but either mother, grandmother. Aunt by the father or mother's side, sisters, and brothers or sister's daughters, either such as were of household, before they took orders, but besides these, none should dwell together with the clergy. And now, priests do take not only strangers to their household servants, but also to their chamber and bed fellows. The .27. Canon, commandeth water and wine both to be used in the sacrifice. The .36. forbeddeth utterly, that any priest should consecrate holy oil, for that was reserved to the Bishop only, with whose leave the priest might consecrate virgins. But in these quarters of the world, neither water in sacrifice, neither oil, neither virginity with consecration thereof, is allowed of the Protestants. Reason truly it is, to take a man's whole tale, and not to mangle an ancient Council. Which Council, if they do not credit, why then do they bring the testimony of that Council for proof of their purpose, against which, they bear false witness that it is not to be followed?  
But to let this matter to pass: A great abuse is attributed unto Tertullian, and Saint Cyprian his time, a thousand four hundred years ago, that the Christians took the Sacrament home with them.  
This was (●aieth M. jewel) an abuse, and therefore it was broken. But who did break it tell us? It was broken saith he. and how do ye prove this to be an abuse? it was an abuse saith he. And I say, it was not. and why not my nay, as good in reasoning, as your yea. For although the commendation of some person hath made you a Bishop, And, by order of the church, I am a simple priest: yet as good the legs of a lark, as the body of a kite. If we go to craking (in deed it is not good, but this yet they would constrain many to do) I will yield no more unto his authority, than reason will require. Yet I may justly crack, not in myself, but under the church's authority, and in the name of S. Cyprian and Tertullian. Was that, say you an abuse, to carry the Sacrament home at those days, and receive it before other meats? I understand what grieveth you in this example, of the primitive church. For it proveth plainly against you, that even in so nigh days unto Christ, there was no necessity to receive the Sacrament under both kinds. And whereas the persecution and hatred of Christians, was then so great, that they could not freely meet together in any common and open place, and so quietly serve God, and receive his benefices, as they desired: can ye blame them, if the clergy were content, to let the Christians carry home with them, that present comfort of their soul, (which is the body of Jesus' Christ) to have it always in readiness, and to strengthen their weakness therewithal, if suddenly they were called unto martyrdom? Be you wiser than S. Cyprian? and he writing not his private fashion and manner (which might be well enough corrected by great counsel) but writing of a certain fact of a woman, which reserved the Sacrament in her chest, whereby the custom of that time and most undoubtedly, the faith of that time may be gathered, do you reprove the odre of the primitive church, and have you forgotten so soon, 
It was no abuse in the primitive church to carry home the Sacrament, and receive it alone.  that old customs must prevail? where have you readen, in any old father, or doctor, or in any general council, or how can you show it, by any treu example of the primitive church, that the carrying home & reserving of the Sacrament, was an abuse? but let us hear what S. Cyprian writeth, in his sermon de Lapsis. 
Cyp. ser. 5. De Lapsis.  He proveth Wherein I confess he did vilely and damnably misuse the people and contrary the church. But it is to be noted, that this Marcus went about to win unto himself an estimation above all other priests, which could not but follow, when that at his consecrating, the people should see the wine turned as it were in to blood, and that the like did not appear, when other Priests did consecrate. And note, that except the faith of the church in those days, had been, that the very blood of Christ, was in the mysteries of the Christians, he could never have made any to reverence him the more, for that practice, but rather to have brought him, before the officers of the church, and examined him, saying: We do believe, that we receive Christ only by faith, which faith goeth up to heaven, and eateth him as he sitteth at the right hand of his father: but this man showeth us, very plain blood in the chalice, which is against our belief. And whereas this Necromanser, did turn his craft to the pleasing of the people, and so made blood to appear in the chalice: it followeth, that the whole people of the church, did rejoice in the blood of Christ, which they believed to be in the mysteries, and so he craftily served their faith an devotion, that he might win their praise and favour, and that he might be pointed unto, with, lo, there goeth a good priest, and a blessed man. But will you hear more abuses? Some take the Sacrament for a purgation, 
jewel.  against slander: some hang it before their breasts for a protection. S. Benet (sayeth he) ministered the communion unto a woman that was dead. Ergo what doth follow? Ergo the sacrament may be abused. I grant it may be, as when wicked and false conjures do make it a mean to bind the devil, or when heretics or infidels tread it under foot, or cast it in the fire, or prick it with knives to prove, whether God his word be true, that this is his body, which was delivered for us. But none of your premises almost doth infer rightly that conclusion.  
For whereby show you, that S. Benet did abuse the Sacrament in ministering it unto a woman that was dead? All your argument is this, Christ did not appoint, that the Sacrament should be hanged about one's neck, or put in chest, or given to dead women: ergo these be great abuses. Is this in deed good reason? that what soever Christ hath not expressly willed, 
A n●wghtye argument of authority negatively.  that may not be used? Sir, Christ did not bid us, that if there were not present three at the least, which would receive, there should be therefore no communion that day. Christ did not bid us kneel down, and say, Lord we do not presume to come to this thy table trusting in our own merits, Christ did not bid us, when one chalice is supped up, to fill it again out of the whole pottle or quart pot. Christ did not bid us, carry home with us the pieces of bread, or cantells thereof, and do what we would with it. Ergo these be great abuses in the communion book. no Sir no, the truth must be tried by other arguments, than these rhetorical repetitions and negatives of Christ did not appoint this, ergo it is an abuse. especially, whereas to many do think, that Christ will be content with no other things, but such only as are written: as though the holy ghost, the spirit of truth, were idle in the church all this while. how dare you to judge of S. Benet his fact, the like unto which, S. Gregory doth allege for a miracle, and for a notable matter. S. Austen so wise and blessed a man, whereas he disputeth in his book De Civitate Dei, of deaths which some have used towards themselves, and whereas he well remembered, that the precept of God was, 
Exod. xx.  Thou shalt not kill, & also remembered that the church doth honour for martyrs certain, which did run into the waters, and to keep their virginity lost their lives, in this so doubtful a case, wherein the church seamed to stand against God, and the precept of God, to be contraried by the holy day of the church, he dared not rashly to conclude, but stood herein, that the precept of God must have his force, and with what conscience and praise, those virgins drowned themselves, that must be left unto the working of God the holy ghost, and not curiously searched of men. for what if they did so (sayeth he) not deceived as women may be, 
Lib. 2. de●c●uit. Dei cap. 26.  but commanded by God, neither erring therein, but obeying? As of Samson, it is not lawful for us, to think any other thing. And we therefore (sayeth he afterwards) come to the conscience by hearing, but of secret things, we take not upon us the judgement. 
The doings of the church and of good men are not lightly to be judged.  Thus, Sir, it did become you to do, for asmuch as you confess Saint Benet for a Saint, and whereas by many miracles, that hath been well known unto the church, not hastily to judge of the spirit of God, with whom you are not so well acquainted, as Saint Benet was, but humbly and reverently, to hear the miracles of God in his saints, and to confess that M. jewel doth not know all things. Where you have it, that Saint Benet did give the communion, unto a dead woman, I know not verily, but Saint Gregory reporteth a like thing of him. 
2. lib. Dial. cap. 24.  that a lad of Saint Benet his monastery, departing unto his parents without the blessing of Saint Benet, and before his return departing also the world, after he was committed to the earth, the next day he was cast up again. Where upon Saint Benet, (after moon made unto him) sent the communion, and willed it to be put upon the breast of the lad. After which do●e, there was no more trouble. which thing being so sadly written by Saint Gregory, we may not well lawgh at it, and the same finding no fault with the matter, let not us murmur against the works and inspirations of God. In deed, it is not for every man so to do, but when so singular virtuous men, are moved thereunto, and when a great effect doth follow, we must judge, that God was the author thereof, and that the party did it not upon his own opinion and boldness. The which answer serveth also, 
In oratione funebri de obitu fratris sui Satyri.  that we be not to bold in condemning any one his devotion and faith, which useth the sacrament for his defence in any kind of cause. For S. Ambrose praiseth his brother Satyrus, which minding to go over the seas, did take of the Christians, which were in the ship with him, the Sacrament, and hanged it about his neck.  
whereupon afterwards, when a tempest did rise, and break the ship, he committed himself, to the defence of Christ in his Sacrament, and so miraculously escaped drowning. And like as Saint Peter, taking comfort and strength of the presence of Christ, 
Matth. 14.  said, Lord if thou be he, bid me come unto thee, upon the waters, and did walk upon them, as upon firm land: so the Catholics, which certainly believe, that this is he himself, whom they see covered under form of bread, (although he be always present) yet they are more out of fear, when they have him within their hands, and reach. And through the grace which cometh from him, they walk securely and peaceably. As contrary wise unto other, which doubt of Christ his words, and make such a sense of them, as they be able without difficulty to attain unto, saying that he is present by a certain conceived thought of ours, and remembrance only: I wondre not, if it seem folly unto such, to make any store of the Sacrament, or to reserve it for a stay of their wavering faith in jeopardies. For what is bread but bread, and what can it do more than comfort the body? But now again, because in S. Benet his time, more besides him (as M. jewel collecteth) did give the Sacrament even unto dead persons: ergo they certainly did confess a more lively, real, mighty, and blessed thing therein to be, than our protestants will admit. So that putting a side the question, whether they did well therein or no? yet this appeareth, that they took the Sacrament to be as Christ hath said, his very own body, and that faith was in the church within the five or six hundred years after Christ, which M. jewel receiveth for incorrupt. But alas, what if they, 
jewel.  which most of all defend the mass, themselves, find fault with the mass? as Albertus Pigghius by name, the greatest pillar of that part. First I answer, that the church doth not take him for the greatest pillar (in so much that in three or four points she noteth him to have had his errors) & a Catholic faith is not bound unto any private man's opinion. But you be accustomed to this kind. Then I say further, that it appeareth hereby, of what good conscience Pigghius was, who did not write for favour of his side, or hatred of the contrary, which if he had minded, he would never have yielded one inch unto an heretic, which have that manner of stoutness, that if one of them deny never so manifest a thing (as for example, that S. Peter was ever at Rome: upon which thing all writers agree upon, although they differ somewhat in the time) but, as I said, be the thing never so manifest to the contrary of that, which any of them doth affirm or impugn, yet will the rest defend him in their wise, not perchance in allowing the opinion, 
A difference between the Catholics and Protestants assertions.  but in saying that it is a disputable question: and so, that being granted, ergo say they, it is no matter of faith, whether the one part or other be taken. But the catholics, because they be plain, they do utter their own opinion, and noting dissemble with the●r fellows, if it be not true. Wherein, they are suffered, so to reason one against an other, that they be both of them obedient unto the church, whose voice we do hearken unto, & not what Albertus Pigghius saith. Thirdly then I answer, that more beside Pigghius confess, abuses to have crept into the service of the church, as it appeareth by the catholics, 
Cap de horis Canonicis.  which consulted upon reformation of disorders, in a certain meeting at Ausburg. Also ●●ofmesterus in the expounding of the mass, 
what abuses are crept in to the church mass, and divine service.  deemeth not, but some trifles have been put in. but what abuses & trifles doth he mean? forsooth, such as be in some proses, antiphonies, repetitions, and rehersalls of things not authentic. which be in deed in the compass of the mass, but are the outward garment, as it were of the body. Now, whereas you say, that Pigghius hath found out errors and abuses in the mass, it maketh a Catholic man to fear by and by, lest that, either by Pigghius opinion, Christ his body were not really present, or were not to be adored, & the sign of the cross were not to be used in the mass, or water and wine not to be mingled, or the bread not to be taken in the hand of the priest, when he should consecrate, or lest some other thing worth the talking of, were omitted or abused. As for a versicle, or lesson, or some one ceremony, there may be cause perchance to alter it, and yet the mass continue never the worse. And therefore truly, M. jewel seemeth unto me, not to play a bold part and upright. for whereas properly (as he can not but know, except he be to much unlearned) whereas I say, the mass is properly the sacrifice of the new law, 
what a mass is.  in the which Christ his very own body is offered, by himself through the ministry of priests, unto God his father, for the purging, preserving, and beutifying of his church: M. jewel yet, setting himself to talk against the mass. I will not speak (sayeth he) of transubstantiation, 
A timorous bragging and vain glorious weakness of M. jewel.  of real presence, of sacrifice, I am content to disadvantage myself at this time in those things, but I will talk of the communion in both kinds, of the Canon of the mass, and of private mass. As who should say, it is not good to come before the face, but I shall anger them well enough, in treading on their heels. It is the fashion of merry men, when they are disposed to spend good time idly, to find fault with the fashion of the apparel and gesture of them, whose manners they can not reprove. And so in this place, if they have any thing, to lay against the mass, let them reprove, either sacrifice or presence, or one of the substantial things. But if they will make great boast, of defacing the mass, and in effect meddle with nothing, but the circumstances thereof, truly if this be allowed, then (say I) he is no honest man's and if I be required to prove it, I will bid the judge to consider his crooked nose, or halting leg. Which, as they are no good reasons, to disprove a man's honesty: so doth most of M. jewel his talk, nothing pertain to the purpose. But M. jewel craftily perceiving, that of congruence in speaking against the mass, it should follow, that he did speak against the sacrifice and real presence, No (saith he) I will not talk of them, I will disavantage myself which is a marvelous kind of simplicity, to seek a praise of courage and strength in very fear and cowardness. This is once certain, The sacrifice and presence disproved, all the rest would quickly fall. but communion under both kinds, vulgar tongue, and taking away of private mass (as they call it) for a while permitted: the mass in deed is never the worse, the communion in effect is never the better. Yet, go to, let us consider, what he sayeth against the mass, even in those points, which he hath his most advantage in, which all (except adoration only) if he could disprove, he is nothing the nearer of his purpose, which is to withdraw good Christians minds from the mass, and make them hang upon the Communion. first as touching the straying and unknown tongue, 
M. jewel.  which hath been used in the mass. S. Paul his counsel in general is, that what soever is done or said in the congregation, should so be done and said, that the hearers may have comfort thereby, and yield thanks unto God, and say Amen. It appeareth that the store is spent, when such arguments are brought forth, or rather, that there was no store at all. For this objection of the unknown tongue, might have been uttered over night at Evensong tide, or early at matins in the morning, which both services are in the latin tongue, which he termeth an unknown tongue. But to keep it unto the mass, it is out of place and fashion. And behold, he pretendeth to talk properly against the mass, & that he might so do the more properly, 
Note how properly M. jewel argueth against the Mass.  and the more to the purpose, he dispatched his hands of many other questions, and disavamtaged himself, of speaking against the real presence and sacrifice, as who should say, I will only meddle with the mass, and yet his first objection against it, doth serve first, against Evensong or matins, if we should follow the order of time. And by this reason also M. jewel, you might have taken upon you to speak against the Pater noster. Again, this argument is good in the country, not in the town, among the lay unleardned people, and not in the university among scholars, unto whom the mass is not in an unknown tongue.  
Also this reason may be allowed, on this side of the seas, and not beyond sea, where the latin tongue in many places is commonly known. You have proved then, that a simple English man, should not allow the mass, but all Latinistes and scholars may use the mass still. And so the great labour, which you have taken in reciting of S. Paul, S. Austen, and justinian, is not against the mass, but against her cote only. how think you (master mine) if I should preach among the welshmen, and cry out to them, that the communion is nawght, and should say, alas good people, you lack the fruit of our Lord his supper, and the solacing of yourselves in the remembrance of Christ his death, and so forth. And if I did bring this principal reason for me, because it is in a tongue unknown unto them, would you not account me frantic, to make such a do against the communion, for the tongue only, in which it is written? would you not answer, that the communion in itself is good, but this little mishap, is leisurely to be amended? Even so then give sentence upon your own argument, and say, 
objections against M. jewel concerning his wil that all things done in the church must be understanded of the people.  that the mass may be good for all this, but only the tongue in which it is used, is to be amended.  
Before I go to another objection of his, I will make some against him myself, upon the place of S. Paul, which he triumpheth in. For if every thing is to be done and said so, in the congregation, that all may understand what is said: wherefore is all the Psaltar of David, appointed to be readen in the English church, whereas all English men understand not all the Psalms? why are there not appointed and selected, certain easy and licht to be understanded, but without choice, they be taken, in order, as they follow? Then, how many of the common people are there, which understand not, the most easiest chapter in all Scripture? for if all this while, in so great revelation of the Gospel, many yet do not understand the Lord his prayer: how should they attain to the Prophets and Psalms? Further yet, where singing is used, what shall we say, to the case of the people, which kneel in the body of the church? yea let them hearken at the chancel door itself, yet they shall not be much the wiser. Besides this, how will you provide, for great parishes, where a thousand people are? and if the person have but a small voice, is their coming to the church fruitless? how shall they all, say Amen, which do not all hear him? Certainly, your wisdoms must provide, that first the minister have a good voice. and that he have no more to his cure and charge, then may hear him. the chancel shallbe well pulled down, the church made round, like a synagogue of the jews, or like a dove house, welshmen by themselves, Cornishmen by themselves, Northern men by themselves, fine Londoners by themselves, brother speached men by themselves. So shall all, say amen, upon the things which are readen, so shall the church flourish. But yet, I had forgotten one principal thing, all Scripture must not be readen, neither of certain books all chapters. and then, for the better learned of the parish, one chapter, and for the poorer, an other. There would be no end of confusion, if we should provide, according to this devise, that nothing be readen in the congregation, but that which shallbe heard and understood of all, which are present. But the Apostle his purpose was of an other wisdom and discretion. For he, in the first unto the Corinthians, speaking of the gifts of the holy ghost, and comparing them together: correcteth thereby a certain vain glory of the Corinthians, among whom, some were proud, for the gift of tongues, and thought it a jolly matter, to speak in a straying language. But, sayeth the holy Apostle, 
1. Cor. 14  Follow ye spiritual things, and rather covet ye, for the gift of prophesying, which was to expound and open the Scriptures. And then afterwards, he doth not dispraise the speaking with tongues, but he preferreth the gift of interpretation, and of preaching the Scriptures. which is most true in deed, as S. Paul doth prove it most manifestly by the similitude of instruments and trumpets.  
For if one were never so cunning in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and would show a copy of those tongues, in open sermon and exhortation: an other were more worthy praise, and should bring more profit unto the hearers, which knew but his native tongue only, and would preach therein unto his country men, than he the thrice better learned man, whom none of the company could understand. wherefore properly, against such vain glorious men, is the meaning of Saint Paul. which seek rather to show their cunning in using of divers tongues, then to profit the church of God, in expounding the scriptures in that tongue which is known unto the audience. But if a parish priest say his service in the Latin tongue, which none of the parish beside do understand: is this priest in danger of S. Paul's words, which he speaketh concerning the use of a straying language? no truly. For it is written in the same chapter of S. Paul, that he which speaketh with tongues, speaketh not unto men, but unto God. 
1. Cor. 14  And again, He which speaketh with tongues aedifieth himself. and again, if one do bless and praise God with his tongue and voice, yea although his fellow be not edified thereby, yet he himself doth well in giving of thanks. Which thing being so, they be to foolish and scrupulous, which do admit no other prayer books, but such as are only in the vulgar tongue. And where now is this great fault? what so ever is done in the congregation (saith M. jewel) must be so done, as the hearers may take comfort thereof. And yet, say I, one may be in the congregation, and speak unto God, and praise God in a tongue unknown unto other, and be out of blame therefore. As S. Paul sayeth, 
1. Cor. 14.  that he which speaketh in tongues, aedifieth himself, and doth well to give thanks, altowgh another be not edified. And in the end of the foresaid chapter, if there be not an interpreter, let him which hath knowledge in tongues, hold his peace in the church, and speak unto himself, and unto God. But where then is the fault? only in this truly, if in such matters, as appertain unto the instruction of the people, an unknown strange tongue be used. as in Sermons which are to be made unto them, 
why it is not necessary the people understand all divine service.  and exhortations. As for matins and mass, what so heinous crime is committed, if the people understand not all things which are spoken? If the commons of any shear, would obtain of the Counsel of the realm, a certain benefit: and because it were to much, for all the whole shear to ride up to London, if they did appoint out, half a score of honest men, to travel in the common case, would not the matter be brought unto a good end, except every plowghman should hear, what those half score did say unto the Counsel? Or if among those half score, two were chosen by consent of the rest, and those two should declare their whole minds: were all the matter dashed and marred, if those two m●ns tales were not heard of the other eight? And yet, this is but a temporal matter, and it is done by them which may err● and brought before them, which do not see the heart, but judge of the external words and deeds. And yet no uproar is made, although two men declare the message, and take to their charge, the cause of the whole shear. How much more then, is all safe, when the people send their priest to almighty God, and maintain him with their costs, that he should apply their suit, and speak for them diligently? Shall a Carter or a Gentleman, because he is best in the parish, shall he come to the priest, and say, now Sir John, let us hear, what ye pray. We will understand whether you say well or no, we will prompt you if you say amiss, and you shall not deceive us with an unknown tongue? Whereas if the priest were never so unlearned, never so unreverent, never so 〈◊〉, or distracted with cares: the devotion of the people, and their good will, is considered of God. and he for his infinite mercy, and wisdom, doth take the priest his prayers in as great and hearty a sense, as any of the parish doth wish. These things being true, is there any hastiness to have all the service in English? Doth not god consider the har●is, not the priest the embassadeur betwixt the people & God, 
Chrisost. lib. 3. de Sacerd.  and the Angel or messenger of God unto the people? shall any more than Moses go up to the hill to talk with God? 
Exod. 19  should not the rest stand at the foot of the hill trembling and quaking, lest perchance, they be to malapert and draw to nigh? O what a world have we? here is a fault found, that the Canon of the mass is not in English, which (if it were possible) for the reverence of our mysteries, should be in such a kind of tongue, that none but priests might understand it, not because disdain is taken, that lay men should understand as much as priests do, but because the breaking of many arrogant fools heart, were to be provided for, in barring of their curiosity. Yet, Let all things be done in the congregation, sayeth M. jewel, that they may be understanded of the people. if all were reasonable men, yet for reverence sake, many things were to be reserved from them, or rather for them. But now, some be unclean, before whom precious stones were not to be cast, some be sucklings, which can not yet receive hearty strong meat, other be dainty, which can not away with common service, many more diversities there are to be found, and yet, as though all were one, without distinction of age, time, or person, it is not well, except all things be done in a common tongue.  
But how is that proved? Marry because S. Paul saith, that he had rather speak five words, that other may be instructed thereby: then ten thousand in a strange an unknown tongue. Truth it is, and yet S. Paul speaketh not of all service of the church, but of that part only, which appertaineth unto the instruction of other, in which the straying tongue is not allowed. For if the speaking in tongues (according to S. Paul) is to be understanded of daily service and prayer, 
1. Cor. 14.  why doth he appoint two or three at the most to speak in tongues and one to interpret and expound them, whereas daily service is and may be well done of more than two or three score? Again by their interpretation of speaking in tongues, all service must be in the mother tongue, and women thereat may sing. But S. Paul doth so take speaking with tongues, that he sayeth, let women hold their tongues in the church. One thing they might say with good reason, that the Epistle and Gospel, which are appointed for the instruction of the people, might be readen in the mother tongue, if they were first well translated. And yet also, even by Saint Paul, if the priest were able to expound it afterwards, he might read it in the mass time, in an unknown tongue, to the common people. For S. Paul doth not forbid to speak with tongues, so that one be present which can expound them. Ergo say they, when none doth expound it, there is a great fault committed. Go to, let me grant, that all is not so exact, but that heretics may peek a quarrel. Who shall amend that, which is not well? or who hath made you controllers in the house of God? why do ye not first, make a privy exposition of your conceit unto the officers? why do ye not then, cast your heads together, and make a most humble supplication? why go not you to Rome, and confer with Peter's successor, as Paul a●●ended to jerusalem to Peter, and the rest? Why do ye not pray to God, that he will help, when no peaceable request can obtain? And if God, for some cause known to himself, should differ his help, must you take the sword into your hands, or usurp the authority of Christ his church, and make yourselves leutenants under God? And yet, it is no greater fault, to read the Gospel in Latin unto English men, then to read the same in English unto Welshmen. But you will provide hereafter, that Welshmen may have i● in the mother tongue, or cause them to learn English. How say you then to Irish men, Northern men, and Cornishmen? There is no remedy, but every speech, must have a book of service, in their proper mother tongue.  
But yet, in the mean time, do those quarters, which obey the Kings of England, and understand not the English tongue, lack the fruit of their devotion, whiles they be at service? And shall we make foolish complaints, and exclamations, that the poor welshmen do lack the lively word of God, that S. Paul's will is broken, that the order of the primitive church is neglected, and so forth, as far as our rhetoric will serve us, because they understand not what the priest sayeth? Let it be an abuse, that the people three years sense, did not understand the Gospel, but only stood up at it, and bowed their knee at the name of Jesus', and did conceive wonderful high things to be underneath the Latin speech, and honoured God in their hearts. How much better is it now, 
Inconveniences by having divine service in English.  I pray you, when the simple folk, and those which are of the old making, understand the sentences but by halves, and either for lack of attention, or dullness of hearing, or smallness of voice in the reader, do bear very little away: and when those of the new making, do hearken to maintain talk there upon, or to appose the priest, or to judge the priest, or condemn the church of God, or to glory in their knowledge, deceiving them selves and weening, that they be able to expound the Scriptures, which are not able for lack of humility, to hear them only, as yet. Charity without science, is more to be allowed, than science, by which charity is greatly confounded.  
Yet for all this, 
the Canon of the mass ought to be secret  let the epistle and the Gospel, be in the mother tongue, what hath M. jewel to do with the Canon, In which, the priest doth, (as Saint Chrisostom sayeth) stand before God, 
Chrisost. lib. 6. de Sac●rd.  as a suitor for all the whole world. For whom, the people should pray, that his service for them, might be acceptable, and that he may have good success? What, if they understand not his speech all that while? The choir, according to the Latin and Greek church, is occupied in singing the angelical hymn of Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus. Whiles the priest, prayeth softly and closely at the altar, the laity were to be taught, 
what is the people's office at the mass time  to look for the consecrating of that body, which was borne, circumcided, presented, with fast debated, scourged, torn, crucified, raised up, and which at length ascended into heaven for their sakes. And that presence of Christ once believed, they should need no English tongue, or sermon, for that time, to bring him unto their remembrance, whom presently they know by the infallible faith of the church, to be upon the altar. What needeth then any English at this point? if one might speak with tongues of men and Angels: yet at the presence of those mysteries, all tongues are to like.  
And therefore good men forsake their tongues, and go to their heart, and there speak they after a more excellent sort, then Latinistes, Grecians, or Hebricians can do. Which speech of heart, (which soundeth in the ears of God almighty) good people had most of all, when they were lest busied, with the speech of bodily tongues: with which, they uttered mysteries, and thanks, and vows, and loves, and complaints, and requests, and all heavenly desi●es, and devotions.  
Out of the pulpit, they learned their fayth● out of the church, they talked of God: in the chancel, they appointed priests and clerks to praise God, and to pray for them. at the altar, there stood the priest alone, and there was their Saviour and ours, ready for them, And after this sort, service being appointed, there remained for them, consideration of the things, which were by external signs declared. The true religion consisteth not in tongues, which tongues are necessary for learning of the faith, but faith ones received and taken in the heart: the most perfect way afterwards, of serving God, is, to consider in our minds, the greatness of his benefits, which we comprehend by faith. And by this reason one plain picture of the passion of Christ, shall geue more devotion, unto him which already is faithful, 
Pictures are necessary for the faithful people  than a most eloquent learned sermon of M. jewel himself. Because, the end of the sermon, is, to leave in my heart, and mind, a picture of Christ, and the beginning of a picture, is, the Image of that, which I have printed in my conceiving. so that I may say, where a preacher endeth, there beginneth a painter, and hearing of sermons, is for those which are to be instructed, and beholdinges of external signs and pictures, is for them, which love in silence and closeness, to practise their belief. Wherefore, there is no cause to have the Canon of the mass in English: but cause there is, why the lay people should be instructed, what to think, in time of the Canon. And, again I say, it is no great matter, to hear what is therein said, but the only matter is, to believe, that which therein is done. And, as at the beginning it was necessary, to open my ears, that the word of God might entre by that way into my heart: so the word once by faith conceived, and the heart being now (through the goodness of the holy ghost) made as it were great with child there with all, I shall more evidently, behold the verity of God, in those mysteries (of which it is said, This is my body) if ears, and eyes, and all sense, were stopped: then, if I should intend the proper actions of those senses. But S. Austen saith, in the prayers, 
M. jewel.  which we make unto God, we must not chirp like birds, but sing like men. ergo we must not use an unknown tongue. Yea, with a further ergo, we must learn to understand the English, which we read in the congregation, which because thousands do not receive, therefore they be chirps and not speakers. Yet the English service doth remain, although every one doth not understand it.  
justinian also a Christian Emperor, 
M. jewel.  made a straight constitution, that the words of the ministration, should be pronounced with open voice, that the people might say Amen. ergo the service must be in English. yet for all that we say Amen, upon those words, which we understand not, when there is no mistrust in the faith and honesty of the person which pronounceth them. And also, if the people said Amen, to the words of the ministration, which I think (to speak more plainly) are the words of consecration, then doth it appear, that they confessed the words, which the priest did speak, to be most true in them selves. so that, when the priest pronounced these words, This is my body, the answering of Amen by the people, did confirm it to be so in deed, and excludeth quite all siguration and signification of his body. Touching the second abuse of the communion, he findeth fault, that the Sacrament is not received in both kinds: of which afterward we shall speak separately. And in the mean time this I say, that this objection maketh no more against the mass, then if I should disprove a good dish of meat, not for any vnsa●orines therein, but because the good wife of the house, for divers causes doth keep it away from the servants.  
For what is this against the mass, that both kinds be not ministered, in the which mass both kinds are consecrated, and both kinds may be received, if the masters of the house, do think it good? Were the law of M●●●●s, or the. Gospel of Christ, worthily to be reproved, because a few only were suffered, to read the law and Gospel? doth the Son lose any of his light, because the clouds come betwixt our sight and him, and keep his beams away from us? Suppose then, that it were most true (which is most false) that the bishops and heads of the church, did rob the people of one part of the sacrament, shall this robbery be objected against the mass itself, in which both kinds are consecrated? I grant unto you, M. jewel, that the sacrament hath been received, and may be received hereafter in both kinds, what do you conclude thereupon? ergo there is an abuse in the mass. Why Sir, doth the order of the mass forbid the receiving o●der both kinds? are not both kinds consecrated in the mass? do not the priests receive both? Yea, but the bishops and priests deliver unto the lay people one kind only. They do it in deed, and for just causes. But a Bishop, or priest, is not a mass, and the fault of men is not the fault of the service. 
The fault of men is not the fault of the service of God.  Reprove then the bishops, and speak not against the mass. and confess, that the mass is authentic, and godly. but that the ministers do not follow their book, which I say not, as although the Bishops and priests were in deed guilty, their doings being ground upon most just causes: but to show, that if there were any fault, it is yet more rhetoric than reason, to object that against the mass, which appertaineth only unto the men. The third point, that I promised to speak of, 
M. jewel.  is the Canon, a thing for many causes very vain in itself, and so uncertain, that no man can readily tell, on whom to father it. Lo, what a fault here is, no man can tell who made the Canon of the mass, ergo it is not to be credited. As who might doubt, whether the third and fourth books of the kings were to be credited, the proper author of them being unknown, or as although they were faultless which have denied S. Ihons' revelations, and S. Paul to the Hebrews, because it hath been a question, whether they were the true authors of those things. After like manner of folly it is said, no man can readily tell, what year of Nero his reign, S. Peter did come to Rome, ergo he was never at Rome. which liberty of babbling once granted, there may be found which shall make this quarreling argument: and say, the histories do not agree, what year of his age Christ suffered, ergo his passion is not to be believed. well yet, among all them which are named authors of the Canon, take him which was farthest of from Christ, and see, what a foul blank M. jewels cause must have. Innocentius tertius saith, that it came from the Apostles, 
The Canon of the mass came from the Apostles.  that is to high, thinketh M. jewel. Go to then, take him which cometh lower. that is S. Gregory the first. who living within six hundred years after Christ, it followeth well, that the Canon of the mass, is of great antiquity. And now because you glory, that for six hundred years after Christ, there can be found nothing, against your communion and religion, it is easy to number, that the very Canon of the Mass, 
M. jewel confuted by his own report.  which you speak most against, was in those days used in the church of Christ. Wherefore if the Apostles made not the Canon themselves, yet are you confounded, because they made it, which lived within six hundred year after Christ, by which years, you are contented to be judged. But you will say, that some write, how Gregorius the third, made the Canon, and that you believe, that to be most true. In deed it is the property of your side to take all things at the worst▪ for otherwise, why should you not believe rather, that one Scholasticus made it before S. Grego●●e his time, as you understand him, and other also before you, no evil men or protestants. Althowgh in deed it is worth the considering, whether he meaned, some one certain learned man, whose name should be Scholasticus, or else some of the Apostles and scholars of Christ. 
Gregor. li. 7. epi. 63  for his words be these in his epistle and answer, made in the defence of the order of the mass of his church, where concerning our Lords prayer, why it is readen after the Canon, It seemeth unto me an unseemly thing, (saith he) that we should say over the oblation, the prayer which Scholasticus, (or ●ls as I would translate it) which the scholar made, and should not say over the body and blood of our saviour the very tradition (meaning the Pater noster) which he himself did make. But how so eue● it be, he which reporteth that Gregorius tertius made the Canon, might well enough write so, according to his knowledge, and when it is written by S. Gregory, that one Scholasticus, or a disciple of Christ's, was the auctor thereof, this is nothing falsified by him, which wrote afterwards. And likewise it may stand, that it came from the Apostles, as Innocentius tertius writeth, for all that an other saith, that it came from Gregorius. except perchance you will say, that one may not read more than an other, an one see further than an other, both speaking according to their knowledge & evidences. But whosoever were the first deviser of it, it forceth not. sayeth M. jewel. Yes marry Sir, for this being proved by more authorities of writers, that the Canon did come from the Apostles, or that it was extant within. ujc. years after Christ, them it can be disproved to be of so great antiquity, great shame it is for us, not to maintain so ancient an order of the mass, and great forgetfulness in you, M. jewel, to jest at that, which is found to have been received, within the compass of six hundred years after Christ, 
Note the uncertainty of M. jewels mind where to find it.  of which years you make your self so sure, that for so long space you say, all went with you without exception. But now, if it forceth not who made the Canon (whereas before you made the matter so great, that it was against the scriptures, because of S. Paul, which saith, Sciocui credidi, I know whom I have believed, as though Catolikes had not a church to belove, but should hang upon the report of historiographers) well seeing then now, it forceth not who made the Canon, what fault have you found in the substance and meaning of the Canon?  First the priest in the Canon desireth God to bless Christ's body, 
M. jewel.  as though it were not sufficient lie blessed all ready. 
First you make a shameful he, that the priest desireth God to bless Christ his body. Bear it well away, I pray you, and remember it that I charge you, with making of an open lie, even at your first beginning which you make against the Canon. It is not I say, in our Latin and common Canon, that the priest desireth God the Father, to bless Christ his body. And I dare swear for it, although you may do much in Sarum, that no missal after the use of Sarum, hath the like as you do speak in the beginning of the Canon. Also if it should be said, so, as you report, in any part of the whole Canon, can you prove that the Catholics have prayed so, for this cause, as although Christ his body were not sufficiently blessed already? What a joannes divisar be you, to make so wicked and vile dis●urses, upon that which either is not said at all, or hath been spoken with much reverence, and great humility of the parties. In deed, such like words, have been used of the Grecians, 
Vide Bessanionem Card. de sacr. ●uch.  even after the consecration perfected, as appeareth by their writings. But what cause allege they for it? Marry, thos●, (say they) which are in great desire of any thing, use to speak of that which is most sure, as although they were not sure of it, nothing thereby mistrusting the effect, but declaring the vehemency, of their desire. As the Prophet david, when he had said: 
Psal. 4.  God my righteousness heard me when I called unto him, yet in the same very Psalm and verse following, he addeth, Have mercy upon me O Lord, and hear my prayer. 
Theodoritus in hunc Psalm. 4.  Lo sayeth Theodoritus, The just man is not satisfied in prayer, but making his petitions, and obtaining them, yet continueth ●e still in prayer. by which you see, how far a Christian and good commentator would be, from such devices, as you M. jewel do make upon holy sayings. But the Latin Canon, hath no such words at all. neither before nor it after consecration, that (I mean) God should bless Christ his body. In the beginning of the Canon the priest desireth God, to accept and bless those gifts, and presents, and sacrifices, or oblations of bread and wine, which may receive increase of sanctification, and are in deed made most holy, when they are turned in to the body and blood of Christ. Also, after consecration, the priest desireth God, to look mercifully down, upon those precious things, which are there present. But how? not as they are in themselves mos● acceptable, but as they are offered. for who can say, that his heart is chaste and pure? and who knoweth, whether God will not punish us, when we are not prepared rightly, to do that office. Considering therefore, the holiness of God, and vileness of man, the church desireth God, to accept our offering of Christ● body, our Lord▪ or (in other words to say it) to accept that body and those gifts offered. But of that place M. jewel speaketh afterward. I conclude therefore upon his present words, that he maketh an open lie and manifest. And if himself was not the maker of it, let him tell, of what author he borrowed it. Further the priest saith, 
M. jewel.  that he offereth and presenteth up Christ unto his father. True it is, and that you may wonder the more, not the priest only, but all the whole church doth offer Christ daily to his father. For as concerning the priest, either t●ere is no priest among us at all, or we be no sinners, or we must have a daily sacrifice, to make our God favourable unto us. A sacrifice, not of thanks giving only, which the law of nature teacheth us to offer to our chief Lord and Creator, neither of calves and sheep, as the old law did appoint it, but a sacrifice proportionable to a new law, and a sacrifice worthy and meet for a new testament, of Jesus' Christ. What say you then, good Sir, if the priest of the new law and testament offereth Christ unto his father? it is, say you, open blasphemy. So say they, which worship false Gods, which they have made to themselves, by licentious understanding of the Scriptures, and by cutting, hewing and pecing together of the verity. For wherein consisteth this blasphemy? do you, which are of the church by outward show of your degree, and manner of behaviour, think priesthood to be a pelting base office, as the worldly people do? But Chrisostom saith, 
Libr. 3. de Sacerd●ti●  That priesthood so far passeth kingdom, as the soul passeth the body: and we ought to reverence priests, not only more than kings, and princes, but to set them forth with more honour than our own fathers. Or think you, that Christ in his last supper, did not of●er up himself to his father? But the Prophet saith, yea rather God, not only saith it, but bindeth it with an oath, and it shall not repent him thereof, 
Psal. ●09.  that Christ is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. Can you say for all this, 
priests do●●●●er Christ.  that priests have no authority to offer him? But Chrisostom replieth saying, The holy oblation whether Peter or Paul do offer it or any other priest, 
In moral. Ho●●l. 2. in. 1. cap. 2. epist. ad Timot.  of what so ever goodness he be, is the same, which Christ did give, unto his disciples, and which priests even now to these days, do consecrate. 
Cap. 10. ad Hebr.  And S. Ambrose, He is (saith he) our Bishop, which offered the sacrifice, which purged us, the same we also now offer up, which then being offered, can not be consumed. Wherefore, seeing that priests, how so ever they be in their lives, are honourable for the sacrifice which they offer: And whereas Christ did offer up himself, according to the order of Melchisedech in his last supper: and thirdly whereas priests do the same very thing which our master did before, it is ignorance not to know these things, or dissimulation to pass by them, it is impiety to speak against the church, and it is blasphemy in deed to revile or taunt at Christ his body. But yet M. jewel 
M. jewel.  will prove his saying. For contrariwise, Christ presenteth us, and maketh us a sweet oblation, in the sight of God his father. Ergo (sayeth he) the priest offereth not Christ. which is open blasphemy, or else he should say, that he understandeth not the matter. For what contrariety is between Christ, 
See what a reason M. jewel bringeth.  and his church, or between the head and the body? All this which I shall say, is true. Christ offereth up us, Christ is the oblation itself, the church offereth Christ, and Christ doth offer his church, and in all this, there is no contrariety, witness hereof is S. Austen saying, 
Cap. 20. lib. 10. de civit. Dei  Because of the form of a servant which he ●oke, Christ is also a priest, himself being the offerer, and himself the oblation. Of which thing, he would the daily sacrifice of the church to be a Sacrament. whereas he is the head of her the body, and she the body of him the head, she aswell being accustomed to be offered by him, as he accustomed to be offered by her. So that every man may see, which what learning, and truth the Canon hitherto hath been reproved. But let us consider the rest. More over, 
M. jewel.  the priest desireth God to accept the body of his so●ne Jesus' Christ▪ as he once accepted the sacrifice of Abel, or the oblation of Melchisedech. And think we, that Christ the son of God standeth so far in his father's displeasure, that he needeth a mortal and miserable man, to be his spokes man, to procure him favour? Have you seen a man sometimes, for wantonness, or drunkenness, or plain 〈◊〉, to fight against his own shadow. 〈◊〉 M. jewel here, streketh that kind of men which I have not read of. and none, I think, which believeth in Christ, did ever dream, that his father was angry with him, and that he needeth to have, not only a mortal miserable man, but any most glorious creature to speak for him. Yet this preacher so soundeth, as though all the whole number of Catholics, which these nine hundred years (by his own confession) used the Canon, have prayed to God, for Christ his soul. Now, God have mercy on his soul, which so loudly belieth, so many blessed and learned men. This objection hath in part been answered before, yet I say now again, that the church desireth God to look down upon his sons body, and to accept it, either for vehemency of love and devotion, which causeth men to repeat again and again, that which they are sure of, or else, because all flesh is weak and unclean, and unworthy to come so nigh unto the most high mysteries, therefore, the church desireth, that God will accept at her hands, and look favourably upon the body of his so●ne, fearing lest perchance the wickedness of her be such, that God turneth away his face from her, even at that time, when his most dearest son is present. After which manner, (albeit the Gospel and the acts of Christ, be always liked of God) yet of some, it is said by the Prophet, 
Psal. 49.  Wy dost thou declare my righteousness, and takest my testament in thy mouth? Which men, well might pray, after this sort, which M. jewel so greatly wondereth at, and say, Lord behold with a merciful countenance the words of thy own Gospel, and turn not away they face from thy own testament. And so likewise that which followeth in the Canon, that God would accept the sacrifice of his sons body, as he accepted Abel, Abraham, or Melchisedechs' oblations, it is not spoken, as M. jewel feigneth, as although the body of Christ were to be received, no otherwise, than sheep or lamb, and bread or wine, but the church, declareth therein her wish, that, as concerning her service, not as concerning the price of the things, offered in the old time and these days of grace, it would please God, to receive at her hands, the sacrifice of Christ his body, so thankfully, as he received the oblations of those good fathers, And that her service in this part, may be no worse unto her, 
jewel playeth the Ethny●●es part  than those of old time were to Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech. But let us now consider by this objection, what one may do, which is disposed, and what evil example is given unto ethnics by the looks of Christians, to speak against the Christian faith. Arise o Lord, 
Psal. 43.  (sayeth the Prophet) why dost then sleep. Remember David, o Lord, 
Psal. 131.  (sayeth the same Prophet) and all his gentleness. and that David is Christ.  
And in an other place of the Psalms, it is written, 
Psal. 77.  that God did arise like one which had been a sleep, and like a valiant which had well drunk of wine. Yea it is expressly said for Christ, 
Psal. 19  I pray God to hear thee, in the time of thy tribulation. and so forth thorough the whole Psalm. Shall Christians in these places, play the ethnics parts, and ask, whether God be a sleep or forgetful, or well tippled? what do they mean, which pray to obtain any thing, for Christ his sake? do they not say in effect all this, behold, o Lord, how thy blessed sound take flesh upon him for our sakes, remember his obedience, remember the scourges, the pricks of thorn, the nails, the cross, the death which he suffered, remember and do not forget? how deep is S. Bernard, and S. Bonaventura, and thousands of blessed men, in the considerations of our Saviour his passion? what lamentations? what questions? what wishes? what thoughts have they? 
in consecratione cer●i Paschalis.  O blessed fault, sayeth S. Gregory, which deserved such a redeemer. what say we, to the ancient hymns of the church, which are sung in the lent? the sense I remember although I keep not all the words, 
Bow down thy bows o tall high tree,  
and slake thy hard stiff grain,  
That with soft stretching his body,  
thou ease the high kings pain.  what place is left for the fong of the three children, All the works of our Lord bless our Lord? 
Psal. 148.  And the Psal. Praise ye our Lord, which is in the heavens. in which Psalms, son and moon, thunder, lightning, hail, snow, hills, fields, rivers, seas, all beasts of the earth, all fowls of the air, and (to be short) all creatures are called upon, to praise God? may you, wisely now, object and say, the moon can not hear me, the wild beasts be never the sooner obedient for me, the birds will sing no louder for all me, with princes of the earth what is there to do for me? young m●n, and virgins, old men with younglings let them praise the name of our Lord, and who made me an officer to command so many? I will go no further, but briefly, will I conclude, there was never kind of argument more pernicious, 
How pernicious it is, godly men's devotions to be examined and judged by worldlings.  than this one: to examine the devotions and prayers of good men, by the rules of worldly civility, and to jest at the homlines and heartiness of Catholics, when they speak to God, as one friend would unto an other familiarly, or when they speak, according to the world, childishly, or according to the nature of things, absurdly, Off all which points you may find examples in the book of Cantica Canticorum, if ever you have either read them, or can with all your wit understand them, and then to bring those sayings before the people, to be judges thereof, which have no taste almost of heavenly things, it is most vain and unreasonable.  Besides this he dosireth God, 
M. jewel.  that an Angel may come and carry Christ his body away, into heaven. What a fable is this, that Christ should be born upon an Angel, and so carried up away into heaven? 
It is beside the person of him, which hath been brought up among learned men, and for opinion of learning and gravity, is called a Bishop, so to dissemble, and so to counterfeit the vice, in making of sport, with a fable of his own. And first the Canon, is not truly Englished in this part which he jesteth at. For the words of the Latin Canon be these, 
M. juells false reporting.  jube haec perferri, per manus Sancti Angeli tui, in sublime altar tuum. which is to say, command o Lord these things to be brought, by the hands of thy holy Angel, in to thy high altar. Yet M. jewel to make more sport, englisheth perferri, to be carried away, not to be brought or carried up, as the truth is. And because the Canon maketh mention of the angels hands, he fableth, as though Christ should be carried upon an angels back, or shoulders, or as though the Catholic did mean, that Christ should be borne upon an Angels back, and carried up away into heaven. But what a fable is this, sayeth he? for soothe a very foolish gross fable in deed, invented by the devil, and uttered by Melhoserus, and translated in to english by M. jewel. A foolish gross fable I say, because the church of God hath no such carnal base, understanding of the place. But desireth God, that by the ministry of Angels, which wait upon us and his mysteries, he would command the body of his son our Lord, to be carried up, not according to the changing of place, but according to his gracious acceptation of our service, in to his high altar, which is heaven.  
For, thinketh M. jewel, that when the Angels do carry up, good men's alms deeds, or their prayers, or fastings, or tears, or any such like, in to the sight of God, that they make those things up in farthels, and cast them upon their backs, and make haste to heaven ward, and there undo their packs? 
Of spiritual things man must speak and think spiritually  for the word of carrying up, soundeth in the ears of a carnal man, as though there were changing of place there about, or heaviness of a burden, or use of arms, shoulders, or back, or some stay upon which the carriage might rest. which members are not in Angels, and yet the scripture speaketh, after the fashion of men, testifying our alms deeds, fastings and prayers, to be carried up, before the face of God in heaven, and presented before his majesty, by the ministry of Angels. now if one did not understand the sense of those words rightly, it were wisdom for him, to hold his peace, rather than to utter his grossness, in understanding them so basely and folishelye. Especially, whereas Saint Ambrose, so blessed and learned a doctor, hath like words unto these, which M. jewel contemneth, saying in his book, which he made of the sacraments: 
Lib. 4. de Sac. cap. 6.  We beseech thee, and pray thee, that thou wilt receive this oblation, up to they high altar, by the hands of thy Angels, as thou hast vouchsafed to receive the gifts of thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and that which the high priest Melchisedech offered up unto the. Lo Sir, if it please you, to show the fineness of your wit, you may find fault with Saint Ambrose, and ask of your audience, more foolish than yourself. what a tale is this, that the oblation of the church, should be borne upon an Angel (on pick pack perchance) and so carried up away, into heaven? but see the good nature of the man? he confesseth his follies, and saith, he would not stand so long upon them, if force drove him not there unto.  
But what force trow ye? 
The Protestants preach to please their audience.  I think (because a wanton audience is most delighted with jesting against other, and because a gross audience, conceiveth things spoken after a carnal sort, and thinketh that preacher which so doth, to be a very 〈◊〉) that, to serve his audience, he could not leave of, so plausible a matter. Therefore saith he (after he had done his worst) I leave to speak farther of the Canon, 
M. jewel.  giving you occasion by these few things, the better to judge of the rest. Which words I note, because in deed as the whole Canon might have been mistrusted, if any certain faults had been noted in it: so when with all his power and cunning, he hath spoken the worst, and yet hath reproved nothing, but his own misunderstanding, an imagination, which he feigned to be in the Canon, therefore we may judge all well of the rest, when no evil is found in those points, which he took to be farthest from the best. The ●owerth matter that remaineth to be tow●hed, 
M. jewel.  is, the adoration. It is agreeable with the rest of their doctrine, and it followeth consequently, that no body of Christ being in the Sacrament, there should be no adoration used at all. So that the very sure way to disprove adoration, were, to disprove the real presence. Which because they can not do, against so manifest words of our Saviour, therefore how so ever the matter of the presence doth stand, yet will they assay to take away the worshipping or adoring of Christ in the Sacrament. But that is done with so light and unfit arguments, that they may serve, by changing of a few words, against all kind of orders in the church, and consequently of our faith. For what is it that you say, good master mine against adoration? Christ (sayeth he) which knew best what ought to be done, 
M. jewel.  when he ordained and delivered the Sacrament of his body and blood, gave no commandment that any man should fall down to it, and worship it. Ergo, your argument is this, 
The Protestants condemn all voluntary service of God.  that what so ever is not commanded to be done, is to be left undone. And where then are all customs which you have set so much by, as it appeareth by the first side before your Sermon? Also where is it in all Scripture, that Christ commanded his Apostles to fawle down and worship him, himself? The Magians, S. Peter as he was in the boat together with Christ, 
Matth. 2. Matth. 14. Matth. 20. Matth. 15. 10. 9  the mother of S. john and S. james, the straying woman the Syrophaenissa, the blind man, whom Christ healed by tempering of his spittle and earth together, 
Luc. 24.  the Apostles after the resurrection: all these fell down and worshipped Christ. but where read we, that he commanded them so to do? Is there no voluntary service of God, but that all must be obtained by way of commandment? It was enough (I trow) that he said to his disciples, 
An argument of authority negatively is naught and protestantlyke.  take, eat, this is my body, which shall be delivered for you. For to doubt thereof, whether Christ his body were to be honoured, it was for them which doubted, whether he were Christ or no. Christ did bid his Apostles to take and eat, but he did not expressly command them, to open their mouths, to soften the meat in the mouth, to let it down in to the stomach. for what need was there so to do, whereas he, which licenseth me to eat, licenseth me also to use all those means, by which eating is performed. So in like manner, our saviour said, This is my body, and this being received and believed of Christians, to what purpose was it to say, Arise Sirs, and fall down before your God. or to say, Adore me in your heart. When the king doth show himself in his robes and crown, or when he would in the dark, utter himself by speaking unto the lords of the court, is it to be required, that he must say precisely, put of your caps unto me, and bow down your knees, or else doth not every obedient heart straytewayes give all reverence dew unto his prince, without further warning. By like reason then, the king almighty hath spoken the word, This is my body, by which word, they which are accustomed unto his voice, are as sure of his presence, as if they should see him visibly, and shall we, if we are of the king his court, require yet to here and see more in this case, and may we wonder at others follies, which make low courtesy, where as they had no commandment? And yet, M. jewel, is so delighted, in this kind of argument, which proceedeth by negatives, that he goeth further therein, and sayeth, S. 
M. jewel  Paul took the Sacrament at Christ his hands, and as he had taken it, he delivered it to the Corinthians, and never willed adoration, or Godly honour to be done unto it. To which I answer, with asking this question, whether S. Paul commanded us to stand or kneel, to lie a long at the communion, or sit down? truly of these things there is no word or commandment, what then? may any man tumble at the communion, or lean upon his breast or upon one of his elbows, or do what please him, because nothing is appointed by S. Paul, as concerning adoration?  
The English communicantes themselves, do use to kneel (except perchance in some very stiff hearted men, there be no kneeling at all, because they stand in their own conce●tes) But Christ and S. Paul commanded not kneeling, and yet Christ knew best what he had to do, and S. Paul delivered that which he received of Christ. what strength then hath this kind of argument, to say, Christ or S. Paul commanded not these things, 
The Protestants argument.  ergo they are not to be kept or believed at all?  
Truly it hath so little against the catholics, that the argument is flatly denied. So great for all that, against the protestants: that it shameth all the order of their communion, as concerning apparel, place, standing, kneeling, confessing, thanks giving, and such like. Which all, I do not say or think, to be repugnant with Scripture, but I say, that as concerning the order which there is used, there is no commandment in Scripture, and no commandment being in Scripture of it, there is no just cause or reason, wherefore it should be regarded. Such is the protestants logyk. Well, if this argument which runneth by negatives, had been good, the authority and name of Christ or Saint Paul in that behalf had been sufficient: but now it is most weak and simple, and not worth the bringing, and yet M. jewel will be copious in it, saying: The old Doctors, and holy fathers of the Church, 
M. jewel.  Saint Cyprian, Saint Chrysostom, Saint Ambrose, Saint Jerome, Saint Augustyn, and others that received the Sacrament at the Apostles hands, and, as it may be thought, continued the same in such sort as they had received it: never make mention in any of all their books, of adoring or worshipping the Sacrament. ergo etc.  
This is a nowghtye lying argument. Nawghtye, by cause, if in all their works, they never do speak of adoring the Sacrament, that doth not disprove the adoration, which Christians have ever used. And lying, because in deed, they make mention in their works, of adoration. Never, is a long day (the proverb is) and also. Never, is a long way. And that those holy fathers in all their works (which be so many) did never make mention of adoring the Sacrament, it is largely and lowdelye spoken. It would have eased me very much, if M. jewel in speaking this great word (Never) and (in all their books) would have named the books, which he taketh to be the proper works of those holy fathers. For perchance he taketh no more for Saint Cyprian, Saint Ambrose, Saint Chrysostom, Saint Jerome, and Saint augustine's works: than himself hath readen and allowed. And by that way, he may quickly make good his word, if he shall according unto his pleasure, deny that book to be Saint Ambrose, or Saint Augustine's, in which any mention is made of adoring the Sacrament. But if he will be tried by the consent of Christendom, or by that severe and hardy notar of the holy fathers, Erasmus: quickly shall I prove, that either M. jewel hath not readen all the doctors (which is in him likely,) or that he hath not well remembered them in all places (which every man doth, as I suppose, generally,) or that wittingly he belieth them, (which sometimes is done loudly in their pulpits) or that adoration of the Sacrament, may be observed and found in holy Father's writings, (which is quite and clean contrary unto, Never to be mentioned in them.)  
There be extant whole treatiseiss, of excellent learned men, 
Adoration dew to the Sacrament  as concerning the proof and testimony of worshipping the hol●e Sacrament, but one place or two shall be as good for my purpose as a hundred, where cracks be made, that no mention of adoration, can ever be found in any one place of old doctors. S. Chrisostome therefore in the 
Chrys. ●o. 83. in Mat.  .83. homily upon S. Matthew sayeth: We are fed with that thing, which the Angels seeing do tremble at, and can not look upon it without ●ear, because of the brightness which reboundeth from it. Again the same blessed Doctor in the .24. 
Chrys. ho. 24. in .10. cap. Matt.  homily upon the .10. chap●ter of the first to the Corinthians showeth at large, that, at the least we should do towards the Sacrament of the altar, that which the Magians did, towards ow● saviour lying in the maynger, which did come unto him, with great reverence and horror. Which example he repeating in an oration of his upon S. Philogo●ius, sayeth, 
Chrys in Ora. in Philogonti●n.  As thou dost receive and entertain God here (meaning in earth) with much honour, so will ●e receive the there (undoubtedly in heaven) with much glory. 
Li 3. ca 12. de ●p. Scton.  Likewise S. Ambrose most plainly, reasoning with himself, how the Prophet Danyd in the Psalms willeth us to worship the footstool of God, which by the interpretation of an other Prophet, 
Esa. ca 66  is called the earth: at the length he concludeth: therefore by the footstool let the earth be understanded, and by the earth the flesh of Christ, which also at this day we worship in our mysteries, and which the Apostles did worship in our Lord Jesus'. Mark the word, which Saint Ambrose hath, That to this day, we worship Christ in our mysteries. Because M. jewel will have us to ascend up (I can not tell how) in to heaven, to worship Christ there, as although there were no ●ote stool of his, that is to say, no flesh of his in earth. For where as S. augustine hath these words manifestly, (Christ took earth of earth: for flesh is of the earth, & he took flesh of the flesh of Marie: and because he walked here in that very flesh, and gave that very flesh unto us to be eaten for our health, and no man eateth that flesh, except first he adore and worship it: it is found out, how such a footstool of our Lord may be adored, and that we not only do not o●●end in worshipping it, but in not worshipping of it we do offend) M. jewel doth expound him after this sort, that the eating of him, 
M. jewel.  and worshipping of him, must join together, but we eat him in heaven (saith he) ergo we must worship him there. But how much better doth it follow, we eat him on earth, ergo we must worship him on earth, where we eat him: or else to join both sayings together, we eat him in heaven and in earth, ergo we must worship him in heaven and in earth. For as concerning those testimonies, which are alleged by M. jewel, 
M. jewel.  that we must lift up our hearts. And, If we be risen again with Christ, 
Coll. 3. Philip. 3.  let us seek those things which are above. And again, our conversation is in heaven. By which testimonies he would conclude, that Christ his body is to be sowght for, only in heaven: verily, as the words do sound divinely and truly, so is the conclusion inferred very madly and miserably. Because those texts do no more disprove, Christ his body to be on earth really, than they prove our bodies to be now really in heaven. As in this short example. our conversation is in heaven. sayeth S. Paul, and yet, when he spoke those words, was he not on the earth, in presence of body? Doth M. jewels heart go out of his body, when he doth lift it up to God? Or when I am commanded to seek those things which are above, must I make a ladder for my body, to climb up to heaven?  
All blessed men do counsel, the receivers of the Sacrament, to ascend in their heart, to look up to heaven, to worship Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father. Which, they do not therefore counsel, that we should not believe our Saviour to be present in his mysteries: but because they covet to withdraw our imaginations from all earthliness, and to give us warning, that we do not make reckoning to see with our e●e, or perceive by taste or smell, or grossly to conceive by any bodily sense, the manner, of Christ his being in the Sacrament. For even then also, when our Saviour hanged visibly upon the cross, it might have been well said to the faithful, lift up your hearts, and ascend with your minds, in to heaven, not fastening your eyes so much upon this present form, most pitiful, but rising with your faith, to apprehend that infinite majesty, and divinity, and wisdom, and power of Christ, which is the glory of his Father in heaven, and comfort of all the holy Angels, and thus presently yet now, is tormented and defaced upon the earth. As S. augustine sayeth very wys●lye in the Psalm which I have forenamed, entreating upon the adoration of Christ his flesh: It is the spirit, which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. 
Aug. in Psal. 98.  And therefore when thou dost bow down thyself, and ●al prostrate before any such earth, (meaning the flesh of Christ) look not upon it, as it were earth, but look upon that ●oly one, whose footstool it is, which thou dost worship. So that the body of Christ, being present upon the altar, because we are all very prone to gross cogitations, and sensible loves, therefore may it be said most justly unto us, lift up your hearts, go up towards heaven with them, there let your thinks be occupied. As who should say: because (good people) you here, that this is his body, and you see it yet in a simple form, as lying upon an altar, and carried in men's hands, 
The tru● meaning of lift up your hearts.  broken also and divided, you may perchaunse, have to base and low cogitations.  
But, I tell you, ascend in your minds, dilate your hearts, and enlarge your thinks. This is his body, in deed, as he hath spoken himself the word, which can not be false, and this is his blood.  
But whose body and blood? life up your hearts now, The body of the second person in trinity, the only begotten of the Father, the maker of the world, the wisdom of God, the overlooker of all creatures, good and bad, angels and devils, men, and beasts, the searcher of hour hearts, the disposer of times, the judge of the world, the felicity and joy of the good, the terror and fear of the condemned. life up your hearts I say. Think you that here is present, a body or flesh only? And that, as in diseases some whott meats do cumfort the body, so that you have but a lively piece of his ●lessh only? Or else, do you conceive the matter after this sort, that as one fond sendeth to an other a morsel of good meat, which the other had not: that so Christ in this banquet giveth unto every man a taste, or else a portion only of his precious body, as it were a most excellent gift, but yet base, than his soul and divinity? O, lift up your hearts. You must not seek Christ so grossly, look not to have him so upon the earth. Christ is one perfect person, God and man, maker of all times, and borne according to flesh in time, everlasting life, and yet put to most shameful death, reigning at the right hand of God his father, and present among men upon the altar. Stick not therefore I say unto the body, let not your thoughts and desires rest in the flesh only: but go higher by your faith, and consider that blessed soul of his, so chaste, patiented, wise, charitable, bright, glorious, and yet higher and higher, in to the very heavens, and above all heavens, beholding and wondering, how the maker of them all, whom thousand thousands, and ten hundred thousand thousands do wait upon: is present here for us, to be received of us, and to incorporate us in to him selue.  
This lo● have I spoken more largely, because M. jewel hath no other way, to answer S. Augustine, but to declare (as we deny it not unto them, but which they have learned of us) that we must ascend with our hearts, in to heaven, and there honour Christ. Which being most true, and grawnted unto him, he doth untruly and ignorantly to say, that Christ is not to be honoured also in earth, in the sacrament of his very body and blood, because he is to be honoured in heaven. For we do not divide Christ, and make one Christ to be in heaven, an other to be on earth, one body in heaven, an other in earth: but men worship him in heaven one God, and the Angels worship him in the Sacrament here on earth, (as S. Chrisostome 
Chrysost. lib. 3. de Sacer.  proveth,) And men worship him, as he lieth upon the altar: and Angels worship him, as he sitteth at the right hand of God his father. And so both Angels and men, 
Angels & catholic m●n worship Christ both in earth and in heaven.  do worship Christ, both in earth and in heaven, and that, not with two kinds of honours, one for holy days, an other for working, but with one self same honour and worship. The protestants would be seen to say much, when they appeal so often to heaven, and receive Christ, sitting at the right hand of God, as who should say, the papists minds, go no higher than the priests hands, when he showeth the Sacrament unto them. And when they have supposed, that this is true, then lo they triumph, in reciting S. Chrisostome, S. augustine, S. Jerome, and then are they sorry, that old holy fathers be not regarded. But the answer unto them, is ready, that they have sa●ed therein very well, but nothing to the purpose. for catholics do believe, that they must lift up their hearts, and seek for Christ in heaven, and worship him at the right hand of his father but protestants deny, that Christ is really present in the Sacrament, or that he is to be worshipped therein: which I shall disprove, a little more.  
S. augustine, 
August. in Psal. 21.  upon the .21. Psalm: The rich of the earth, (saith he) have eaten also the body of their Lord, but they have not been fulfilled, as the poor men were, in following of Christ, 
That Christ is to be adored in the Sacrament  but yet they did worship him. Now, M. jewel confesseth, that where we eat Christ, there we worship Christ. ergo these rich men, of whom the Prophet and S. augustine speak, which did eat Christ on the earth, did worship him also on the earth, for in heaven they did not eat him, because they followed him not, as the poor did, which worthily did receive him. Again, how could the gentiles have misreported the Christians in the primitive church for honouring of Ceres and Bacchus (the false gods over bread and wine) except they had given some argument thereof in deed, 
Aug. li. 20 x ●austum, ca 13  by reason of honouring Christ in the Sacrament? For if an Ethnyk should behold a Christian, after grace said, to eat his meat savorlie and soberly, he could not think, that he worshipped Ceres and Bacchus therein. But when the panymes hard say, that the Christians did eat the flesh of their God, and when they could see nothing but bread and wine, which were received with all reverence and devotion: they might not say, that is was only bread, because of the honour, which at the presence thereof, the Christians exhibited unto it: and they could not say, it was the body of Christ, because, that being yet infydells, they were not instructed in our mysteries: it remained then, to think and to report, that undoubtedly, Christians did worship Ceres and Bacchus. Which proveth, that the Sacrament was then adored and worshipped. Besides this, it is gathered out of the same blessed Doctor, that, 
In lib. sint. prosperi.  we do honour things invisible, I mean flesh and blood, under the form of bread and wine, which we see. And we do not take these two kinds, after like sort, as we did before the consecration: whereas we confess faithfully, that before the consecration, it is bread and wine, which nature formed, but after the consecration; it is the flesh and blood of Christ, which blessing hath hallowed. But yet for all those testimony, what sayeth M. jewel? It is a very now devise, 
M. jewel.  (quoth he) and which as it is well known, came but lately in to the church, about three hundred years past, Hono●us being Bishop of Rome, and commanding the Sacrament to be li●●ed up, and the people reverently to bow down to 〈◊〉. After him Vrbanus the fourth appointed 〈◊〉 holydaie of Corpus Christ, etc. Thre● hundred years are, 〈◊〉 but, a very little 〈◊〉 with ●ow; when we ●alke of the adoration of the sacrament but if we come to the glorious setters furch of the new found Gospel, thirty years lacking 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 computationem Eccelesi● Anglica●●) do ●●●ke a grea●● antiquity. And then, 〈◊〉, or after him Zuinglius, must be named fathers and apostles, when very blessed bishops, Honorius, and Vrbanus, whom all Christendom assented unto, are named contemptuously as who should say, I knew them, whem they did stand without the church doors, and could not read any letter in the b●ke. But go to, when Honorius did command the adoration of the sacrament, did any country of all Christendom, or City or godly man, speak against it? Or when S. Urban appointed an holiday for it, is it written or extant by any argument, that it was refused in any place? The pope's, I am sure, were not without counsel. the universities, were not without great scholars. religious houses, and orders, were not then destroyed. the holy ghost in true catholics was invincible. the wicked spirit in heretics, would have been venturous. a good man with the danger of his life, would have spoken the truth. an heretic to win a fame, would not have passed upon death, the devil also being his comforter, and in these so many causes why the truth should not be suppressed, is it possible, that without open contradiction, 
〈…〉  a false honour of God, should be received among Christians, therough the whole world? if the adoration of the Sacrament were in deed blasphemous being so received, as it was in all Christendom, so many people running headlong (as you ween) in to their damnation, did the holy ghost stir up no one good man to call them back? That holy ghost, which was promised before, and is now performed unto the church of Christ, which is an invincible, immortal▪ and coaeternall God, with the father and the son? which giveth sevenfold graces, and among those seven, one especially of fortitude: would he suffer all his church, to be beaten down, and would give strength not so much as to one, against whom all his adversaries, should not be able to prevail? In the time of the synagogue, and in that night, when a general Idolatry was committed: our merciful God, ever did use to raise up some one Prophet, or other, whom he would not only to speak, but whom he would also maintain, both to speak and to be hard: if not to the people's profiting (because of their infidelity) yet to their condemnation (because of his justice and equity) and that posterity of them might know, how to fear God, and him alone to honour. And although isaiah, jeremy, and other Prophets have been slain, yet have their words still continued in memory and writing▪ for who can resist God almighty, and let, that his will go not forward? And now in the time of grace, when Christ liveth never any more to die, when the son of justice shineth, and men walk honestly, as it were in the day: is it not beside, not only all faith, but all reason also, that an universal Idolatry, should be committed and authorized in the church, and that by no prophet or preacher, it should be presently controlled? Behold, when Nicolaus, one of the seven first Deacons, when Arrius, Eunomius, Martion, Donatus, or any other heretic, did begin to spring, straightways the church hath noted him, although because of the violence of princes, she hath not been able, straytewayes to oppress it. And were the pain never so great, and the power and number for maintenance of the heresy never so outrageous, yet God never left himself without testimony: and valiant catholics were found, which would not shrink in the cause of truth, not for the Emperor, and all his soldiers. Athanasius the great, is alone, example strong enough for all. Yea there is so great strength in a spirit, that when a very true cause, is set upon and invaded by falsehood, the person whom the devil doth possess for that purpose, will utter himself and be known, if all the world fay nay, and come against him. Example in Luther, whom neither Pope, neither Emperor could make to hold his peace. And when he is dead, yet will his scholars, although they can not maintain his doctrine, preserve yet his name, that it may be said: Doctor Martin Luther began to set● up the Gospel in the year of our Lord M. D. XVII. a worthy man, and grievous against the pope: All be it in the greatest matter, his scholar was better learned than he, and fowght against the master. How then standeth our case? Vrbanus a blessed pope appointed an holiday in the honour of the body of Christ and it was joyfully received thorough the whole church, without any open contradiction, and could it be Idolatry? No, if it had been against the glory of God, not only it should not have been universally received, but not so much as particularly suffered without some evident resistance. And there would have been found in a thousand religious houses, and in universities, and in well ordered cities, and (I believe) in very mean howseholdes, some, which rather would have died, then have committed idolatry.  
Especially, whereas it hath been promised unto jacob his seed, which is performed in the church, Non est idolum in jacob, Nu. 23. there is no Idol in jacob: and whereas God so expressly sayeth to us by Ezechiel, ca 36. I will cleanse you from all your Idols. Then lo, what a shameful pride is this, a weak head, not agreeing with other, not knowing himself, behind so many in years, above so few in learning, to make so light of the concord of Christ his church, and of her majesty, that with a light word, he dareth to condemn, two blessed governors of her, Honorius, and Vrbanus, with all Bishops, Doctors, divines, religious orders, secular priests, such which lived in good order all the time sense, and to condemn Emperor, Kings, Princes, counselars, with all the devout laity of those times and after? But what doth he say? Honorius (quoth he) was about three hundred years past. why Sir, is not three hundred years a fair age? This argument 
A weak argument of M. 〈◊〉  soundeth as consequently, as if one striving with an other, upon a question of learning, would answer him, with tussh man, I know this better than thou, for I am thirty years younger than thou. Well Honorius was three hundred years past or there about: and he was deceived, (say you) or he is not at the least much to be regarded, as I can tell you for sooth by that I have lived these forty years or there about, and am now Bishop not of Rome but of Sarum, in much wisdom and authority. But may we so safely ●lude the answer of God, and reject his blessed will uttered by the mouth of holy men, that the cause itself shall be accounted childeysh, because they, which promoted it, were not fifteen hundred years old, but men of three hundred years only, as it were childerie of three years, in respect and comparison of the reverend john of Salisbury? It is not the age, which maketh verities, but the word of God, and the consent of the church, whose voice especially, is much to be considered. Vrhanus (say you) was after Honorius. 
M. jewel.  What of that? be these later years so accursed, that there can be found no good men in them? I find no fault with Luther, because he is of no antiquity, but because, he addeth thereunto, the breach of good order and unity. And in Saint Vrbanus, I do not so much observe, that he made a new holy day, but this is much to be marked, that all Christendom did keep it with●owt any murmur, and rebellion. And again, his decree did not make that, which was before profane, to be holy, but the holiness of the Sacrament, and the enemy Berengarius, whom the devil stirred against it, did cause him, to appoint the time, wherein it might b● celebrated and honoured, with especial memory. Christ his birth, was to be worshipped, before the holiday was thereunto appointed, and the consubstantiality of the father and the sound, was before the council of Nice, and when orders begin to decay, new statutes are made for the rapayring of them, not, as who should say, they were never used before, but that it should not come to pass, that they might be quite forgatten hereafter. And therefore it is false, that the adoration of the Sacrament, was never before Honorius decree and S. Vrbanus holiday, of whom, by the protestants judgements, it is to late to say, God have mercy on their souls, because they are already condemned for their idolatry, as the heretics can term it.  
O S. Thomas Aquinas, whose labours in the making of the service for Corpus Christi day, I can not but remember, the octaves of that feast now being present, are they all lost, and art thou thy self together with them condemned? It was not for a man alone, to compile out of both testaments so many testimonies, for the sacrament, and so compile them, that like two Cherubins, the old should look upon the new, and the new answer the old: It was not of flesh so to do, but of the spirit of God. Read over the antempnes, the respondes, the versicles, of that blessed day, and by the very sound and sense of them, they declare plainly from whence they proceeded. The first respond out of the old law is this: The numbered of the children of Israel, 
Exod. 12.  shall offer up a kid, at the evening tide of their passover, and they shall eat fl●sh and unleavened bread. The versicle answering the same, out of Saint Paul's epistle, is this: Christ our passover is offered up, 
1. Cor. 5.  therefore let us eat in the unleavened bread of sincerity and verity. Again, an other respond is: Helias looking back, 
3. Re. 19  did see at his head a cake, and rising, did eat and drink: and with the strength of that meat, he walked unto the hill of God. This is the respond, but what is there in the new testament to answer this? It followeth out of Saint john his Gospel. 
Io. 6.  If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. It is written in job: The men of my tabernacle have said, 
job. 31.  who might give us of his flesh, that we might be satisfied? and the respond is, that whiles they were at supper Christ took bread, and broke it, 
Matt. 26. Mar. 14.  and gave it, and said, take ye, and eat ye, this is my body. What could have been devised more agreeable and comfortable? Then, in other parts of the service, how plainly is the faith of the church, in how few words, declared? and how effectually be the effects of the sacrament proponed? O holy feast (sayeth the anthem of the later evensong) in which Christ is received, the memory of his passion is repeated, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of the glory to come, is given unto us. The heretics say, that we must remember Christ his passion, and that, that is the very some of the institution of the Sacrament. But they forget three parts of the whole: because, we not only remember his passion, but we receive him also in deed, and grace presently is given unto us, and a pledge of the glory to come hereafter. The church taught them, even that verity which they hold (as it appeareth in the prayer of corpus Christi day) 
Of Corpus Christi day and of the service of that holy day.  O God which hast left unto us the memory of thy passion. under a wonderful sacrament (but than she sayeth further) Grawnt us, we beseech thee, so to honour the holy mysteries of thy body and blood, that we may daily feel in our selves, the fruct of thy redemption. So then, she grawnteth the memory of his passion, but she holdeth the verity of his body: she pelteth not with God, denying this to be his body, because she is commanded to do this in remembrance of him: but she doth best remember him, when she hath the body which suffered, before her. She calleth the sacrament, the mysteries of his body and blood, & yet she doth plainly adore and worship his presence, which is covered. I may seem to be to long in my service, but certainly, if we should consider the marvelous wisdom of almighty God, and the multitude of mysteries, which by the mouth of S, Thomas, were uttered in that matter, it were argument enough that it come from God. And is all this gear lost now? And where as most manifest miracles, have testified unto the world, that our saviour accepteth him, and hath taken him in to heaven, shall the spirit of pride & lying, with one word, condemn him, everlastingly? Thanked be God, that ever the holiday was made, in the worship of Christ his body in the sacrament. for this argument is so evident, that both he, which can read no letter in the book, & an other which will read no good thing, & the third which for honest necessary business, can not well intent it, all yet be sufficiently warned, what to think of the Christians sacrament, because they have counted it worthy, of an especial holiday. And where as, no text, can be alleged so plain, for adoration (no not out of this very service which is for corpus Christi day) but the heretics, will put it out of strength by spiritual and mystical understanding (which words they understand not themselves, but like smoke vanish away, in their cogitations) yet the appointing of an holiday in honour of the sacrament, is so manifest an argument against them, that they have no other remedy, but to say, Vrbanus was not ancient enough for them. Which holy pope, if he had written a whole book, in the praise and honour of the sacrament, 
Isichius li. 6. ca 22. in levi. Ambr. li. 6 de Sacra. Damas. lib. 4. cap. 14.  calling it (as the holy doctors have done) the bread of life, the bread of divine substance, the bread united to the divinity, the pledge of everlasting ly●●e, the body most holy, precious, save, inestimable, with an hundred other such titles, they would have escaped by leing or denying.  
But now, what can they say? not only S. Vrbanus, 
of the adoration of Christ his body present in the Sacrament.  but all Christendom, not only do speak, but command, and prove by sensible and visible argument, that the very body of our Saviour, is in the Sacrament, and that they adore it, with a proper holiday. But Christ (sayeth M. jewel) and his Apostles, 
M. jewel.  the holy fathers in the primitive church, the doctors, that followed them, and other learned men, whatsoever for the space of a thousand and two hundred years after Christ, never heard of it. Never? will you abide by it? 
M. jewel.  Yea (sayeth he) once again I say, for the space of a thousand and two hundred years, after Christ his ascension in to heaven, this worshipping of the Sacrament, was never known or practised, in any place, within the whole catholic church of Christ, within the whole world. Here I am at a stay, I tell you troth: because I can not tell, by which way I might begin to answer, so vehement an asseveration. For were it best (think I) to tell him, he lieth, and to prove it? or to wish him shame only, and to permit the matter to the hands of God? or to reason with him, as if he were present? or what way might I take? I have alleged S. Ambrose, and S. Augustyn before, and if those two be not sufficient, Theodoretus sayeth, that the mystical signs remain in their former substance, and figure and form, 
Theod. dial. 2.  and they may be seen and felt as they were before, but they are understood to be those things which they are made, and they are believed and adored, as being those things, which they are believed to be. Euthimius also sayeth, in the 64. chap. upon S. Matthew: Let us so do●, in the worshipping of the mysteries, not only looking on those things, 
Euthi. cap. 64. i Mat.  which are set before us, but believing, his words. And whereas be sayeth, this is my body, this is my blood, let us obey him, and believe him. Further more Eusebius Emissenus in his fifth sermon of Easter, he saith, Behold, with thy faith, honour and wonder at the holy body and blood of thy Lord. 
Eusebius. Emis. ho. 5 〈◊〉 pascho.  But none of these are plain enough for M. jewel. I do ask him therefore, what S. james meant, in his liturgy or mass, when that, lifting up the gift (which is the consecrated host) he crieth out holy things, for the holy.  
If he said (holy) in that respect only that Christ sitteth in heaven: 
jacob. in Litur. sua.  why doth he then lift up the Sacrament? Again, in S. Basile his mass, 
Of lifting up of the sacrament.  at the time of receiving, the Bishop lifting up the bread, sayeth, Look down o Lord 〈◊〉 Christ our God, out from thy holy tabernacle, and come to sanctify us, thou which sittest above together with thy father, and art together with us here invisibly. Vouchsafe, with thy mighty hand, to give unto us, 
In Missa S. Basil.  thy holy and undefiled body, and precious blood, and by us sinners, unto the whole people. And what meaneth S. Basile, by lifting up the bread, and by so devout a prayer, and by that which followeth, when, with a great voice he crieth, holy things, for the holy?  
Also, how is it said in S. Chrisostome his mass, that the priest, after the like prayer made as S. Basile hath, taketh a portion of the host, which is on the holy paten, and lifting it up a little, sayeth, holy things, for the holy, the clerks and the people answering, one holy, one Lord, in the glory of God his father? But to let these questions go, I will come more nearer, and be certified of M. jewel, whether Christ were the very sound of almighty God or no? whether his body is to be worshipped or no? whether he be really and truly, in the Sacrament of the faithful? M. jewel denieth, that in any place in the whole world, twelve hundred years after Christ, the worshipping of the Sacrament was used. But I ask, whether any doctor or good man, in the space of twelve hundred years after Christ, did believe, that Christ was really in the Sacrament? It can not be denied, but that holy men did believe so. As S. Damascene witnesseth, 
Damase. li. 4. orth. fid.  sa●eing: Bread and w●ne are not the figure of the body and ●loud of Christ, (God ●●●bead) but the very body, endued with the Godhead: whereas our Lord himself sayeth, this is my body and not a figure of my body. And likewise Algerus in his book de Sacramento altaris, is very manifest. And again, B●●●engarius, which denied the verity of Christ his body in the Sacrament, and would have nothing but a figurative body there, he was condemned by a general council, in which Lanfrancus Bishop of Canterbury was a chief doer against that heresy, and wrote a book, by name against Berengarius. therefore it can not be denied, but that these men, which (again I say) lived within the compass of twelve hundred years, after Christ his ascension: did verily believe, as the catholics and papists do at these days. If then, Lanfrancus archbishop of Canterbury, believed, that Christ was verily and really (not as Berengarius the heretic said, 
who can save M. Jewel in this place from a pla●●e lie.  figuratively only) in the Sacrament: ergo he did worship our Saviour there present, ergo a learned blessed man hath worshipped the Sacrament, within a thousand two hundred years after Christ his ascension, ergo some man hath made a foul lie. certainly, you can not escape here, master mine. For if Lansrancus were one of that council which condemned Berengarius, and if Berengarius heresy was, that these words of Christ, This is my body, are no otherwise to be taken, than those other of his, I am the vine, and if no Christians heart can choose, but honour the body of his saviour, and if Lanfrancus lived within twelve hundred years after Christ: ergo, there was honouring of the sacrament, before three hundred years last passed, and therefore the memory hath ●ailed the preacher. But yet, there was no lack of memory, and the proposition did not escape M. jewels mouth unware, for he stoutly repeateth it, with. once again I say, that a thousand two hundred years after Christ his ascension, the worshipping of the sacrament, was never known. Well Sir, the presence was known, if you answer, it was not: whithen was Berengarius condemned, which denied the presence? If it were confessed: how could it, but be worshipped? I had rather one should answer, that Lanfrancus and the council called Vercellense, did not believe the presence of Christ in the sacrament (which were very ignorantly and untrue spoken, they condempning Berengarius, for an heretic) then to say, that for all his presence, they did not worship him. For that is not only ignorantly, but also wickedly and blasphemously spoken. Lanfrancus then was within twelve hundred years next after Christ, 
He lived An. Do. 1052.  and he believed, with all the catholics of that time, Christ to be really present in the Sacrament: ergo the worshipping of the Sacrament, was known within the compass of the years, which M. jewel reckoneth upon: so that all is not the Gospel which he spenketh.  
But will you here now a pretty conjecture of his? for conclusion I can not call it, which maketh to no purpose. After the people began (sayeth he) to worship the sacrament with godly honour, 
M. jewel.  the learned men, and school doctors, that then were: saw, it could not stand, without great danger, and confessed, that the ignorant sort might be leaden in to Idolatry. And what of this? if there be danger in worshipping an host not consecrated, how then? Shall the honour due to Christ his body, be taken away? In the beginning of your sermon, nothing to the purpose, it was proved, that abuses; have crept in to the sacrament▪ would you therefore, the sacrament also to be abolished. if a lewd priest (with whom you were well acquainted, or else you b● light of belief) hath been known, for many years space, not to have consecrated the host, shall honest priests therefore, which do consecrate, be suspected, and the true sacrament dishonoured? The learned men, of whom you speak, did never doubt, but the sacrament was to be honoured, but some of them did cast the worst, saying, what if, by malice of the priest, or other wise, there should be no consecration at all? how then shall we think (said they) is there any idola●e committed of the ignorant people? But you suppose, they made this argument, It may chance, that an host not consecrated be lifted up, and honoured of the people, which thing is dangerous: ergo it had been better, never to have made corpus Christi day, or it were well done to take away the sacrament. For this must be your conclusion, to prove, that even by the very schoolmen, adoration is taken away, or not allowed. For if this be not proved, you are fallen from your matter, and you talk of schoolmen, besides all learning. Yet grant that there is danger (because the devil hath his chapelaines) it is easily remedied, even according unto them, which thought good, that the sacrament be worshipped under this condition, if consecration were performed. But according to the truth, there is no danger at all. As I will prove, which yet needeth not (because danger or danger not, adoration is due unto the host truly consecrated) yet, for the more plains, I will show, the people to be safe, without all question. for the vulgar and true catholics, allthowgh unskilful in knowledge, yet steadfast in faith, when they believe once, that our saviour left his body unto his well-beloved church, in form of bread, and gave the power unto priests, of consecrating the same his body: or if the people be not able to make such distinction, yet if they believe, what so ever the church teacheth, and if they agree to the ordinances of her: then lo they, in hearing of mass, and adoring the Sacrament, 
the intention of the priest is not to be searched of the people.  are not bound to make search of the intention of the priest, but under this faith, that all is well done in the catholic church, and that Christ is to be worshipped under form of bread, their devotion is harmless unto them, and acceptable unto God. 
Matth. 5.  If thy eye be simple, sayeth our Saviour) all thy whole body is lightsome, and therefore, the intention of the people, being good, & directed unto that first verity, that Christ our Saviour hath left his body unto us, in form of bread: what so ever knavery or dyvelishnes, be wrought of man, in some particular host, it hurteth not the piety, of the good and denote people. And god, which is the searcher of the hearts, doth receive unto himself, that honour which they have appointed for him, in the Sacrament. For they see, the priest to revest himself, to go to the altar, to make crosses and signs, to kneel down, to show unto them the Sacrament, they see the form of bread, and what should they do then, but worship the Sacrament? Except perchance, any man will require more than a man his knowledge in a man. For I would ask the question, of that scrupulous conscience, which feareth where no cause of fear is, and say to him: Good fellow, why dost thou not kneel down, at sacring, and worship the body of Christ? It appeareth, by thy plain countenance and apparel, that thou fearest not hurting of thy knee, or breaking of thy hose, as some straight pointed gentlemen do lean unto a pillar of the church, for such like causes: but some earnest matter there is, which moveth the▪ Yea for sooth Sir, for (and if it please you, a little to come a side,) I heard a preacher once say: that some priests, do mock the people, and do not consecrated the bread. And then, if there be no consecration, I heard the same preacher say, there is no adoration due unto it, which thing he also proved, out of I can not tell, what old doctors & learned men's books. If I were therefore sure, that the priest doth consecrated, I would then truly, worship my maker. How then wilt thou be sure? hath he not vestments upon him? is he not at the altar? doth he not all things as good priests should do? Yes, but I would know his intent and meaning, by his own word. Why, would his word quiet thee? or might not he think one think and speak an other? Marry therefore (as the preacher noted) it were good, never to worship Christ in the Sacrament, for fear, least through the priest his dissimulation, I should have nothing else there but bread, and so commit idolatry. Nay, good fellow, that was not the wisest preacher, that ever thou hast heard: because, sure I am, thou honourest they father and mother, with all obedience and service, (if they be a live) and with thy daily prayer (if they be departed:) but art thou sure, that they are thy father and mother, which are said to be? what discretion haddest thou, before thou were begotten? how sayest thou then? if that preacher shall rule thee: not only, not thou thy self, but no man at all, shall worship any man or woman for father or mother. Because we are not otherwise sure of them, but that we believe the whole parish, which doth testify it. And then, if authority shall prevail, the whole world testifieth, that in the mass time Christ is present, in form of bread: so that thou needest not, to make any more question hereof, then whether thy father, be thy father or no. And this I speak, to declare, that as long, as we be in the world, we should seek for no further proof of things, than may be gathered of hearing, seeing, and other senses. And therefore, perceiving by all external signs, that any priest at mass, doth as the church hath appointed, I should not desire, to creep in to his bosom, and to withstand or withhold the worshipping of the Sacrament, which the church teacheth me, until I know the priest his thought and intention. Well Sir yet▪ (would the fellow say) albeit I must believe, that in the Sacrament, Christ his body is present, and sold require no further proof thereof, than the authority of Christ and his church: yet, (me thinketh) the case with us poor people is hard, when we worship Christ in the Sacrament, if he be not in the Sacrament because of the lewdness of the priest, 
Quis vel insanus ●ūculpandum putet, quieis o●ficia debita impenderit, quos parentes esse ere diderit, etiam si non essent? Quis contrà, non exterminā dum iudicaverit, qui veros fortasse parentes minimè dilexerit, dum, ne fall sos diligat, metuit. August. de utilit. credendi ad Honoratum.  which made no consecration▪ No, no, good fellow, 〈◊〉 harm is done at all unto the. For suppose this, (which is possible inowght, that there wer● one so like thy own father, that 〈◊〉 could not be discerned, which of the two, were thy true father in d●●d, If thou shouldest honour the counterfeit, thinking him, to be thy true father, might thy natural father (trowest thou) justly be offended there withal? or because thou couldst not have any certain mark, in this doubtful case, wouldst thou honour no father at all? They, which stand behind a pillar in the church, or behind their neighbour's backs, or which at the time of elevation look down upon the ground, do not they worship (if their mind be good) Christ in the Sacrament? And yet they behold not that host, which is present, ne bind themselves unto those singular forms, which they might behold, for the looking up: but simply and plainly, they worship the true body of Christ, which is under the form of visible bread, when it is rightly consecrated, as they take the host upon their parish church to be. And if it be otherwise, it is a private and deadly sin of the priest, and a particular error of theirs, nothing hurting or letting the proper object and stay of their faith, unto which their devotion is carried. And, to let him go now, with whom I seemed to talk all this while, and to return unto M. jewel, the learned men did, in deed, make objection, as although there might be dawnger in worshipping of an host unconsecrated: And therefore (sayeth Master jewel) they gave warning of it. 
M. jewel.  which words, import so much, as if the schoolmen should say, take heed good people, what you do: you may be poisoned, the host may chance not to be consecrated, and then, 
M. jewel understandeth not the school men whom he alleged  there is danger of idolatry. And so, the people should be dismissed with scruple of conscience, as M. jewel understandeth the schoolmen, which is nothing so▪ for the conclusion of schools, and answer unto that objection, which Master jewel allegeth, is, that the people are without all danger, in so much, that the opinion of worshipping the Sacrament under a condition, is refused of the best learned.  
Now, as concerning Duns and Durand Master jewel, reporteth of them by these words. That they thought it best, to remove away the bread, 
M. jewel,  and to bring in transubstantiation (for it were remained the substance of 〈…〉 and how 〈◊〉 unto 〈◊〉? What is he, which ●●●ring 〈◊〉 words, and knowing, neither the places where Dun● and Durand say 〈◊〉 or any good learning beside, wol● not 〈…〉 Duns and Durand, did so cast their heads to gather, as although they were able to bring th●●● opinions, in to the articles of our Crede, and as although transubstantiation were invented and authorized by them, and not rather confirmed by the whole church of Christ. It is a shameful kind of lying, when, the true orderers of Christ his church, shall be suppressed with silens, and when the ve●●tyes of the catholic faith, shall be attributed unto the disputation's of schoolmen. Saint Thomas indeed, hath this argument, 
D. Thom. 3. part. qu. 75. art. 2.  that it is against the worshipping of the Sacrament, if any crea●ed substance, which may not be worshipped with godly honour, should be there: ergo (sayeth he) no substance of bread remaineth. Against which reason of his, Duns and Durand both, do argue very busily. and they do think, that the substance of bread, might be granted to remain, and yet the body of Christ might be worshipped in the Sacrament, without all danger of Idolatry. 
Note.  therefore, M. jewel, as cunning as he maketh himself in Duns and Durand, doth so far and fowlie, go ●●de of their meaning and opinion, that they argued the plain contrary unto that which he reporteth of them. For, whereas he interpreteth then sayings after thi● manner, 
jewel.  that, for avoiding of idolatry in the Sacrament, the substance of bread must be removed: they reason a plain contrary way▪ and argue (their obedience unto the church always reserved) that for all the remaining of ●read, 
Duns and Durand.  yet the body of Christ might be in the Sacrament, and without danger honoured. But they speak therein like schoolmen, and also like adversaries of Saint Thomas, whose arguments▪ whiles they discussed to the uttermost▪ they have fallen some times in to the suspicion, either of envy, or curiosity. And see again, how little it hangeth together, that, which M. jewel would father upon them? If there be any substance of bread in the Sacrament, 
M. jewel.  (sayeth master jewel in his commentary upon Duns and Durand) there must be danger of idolatry: ergo by transubstantiation let us take the substance of bread away, and then will all things be safe and su●e, and the people shall be clean void of jeopardy. But how can this sense and conclusion seem agreeable to a school man? For if (as M. jewel hath told us out of their writings) there be danger of Idolatry, when consecration is omitted, how much hath Duns helped the people, by bringing in of transubstantiation, where as the substance of bread never so much taken away, yet there may lack consecration: and that failing, (as master jewel weeneth) idolatry may be committed, and Duns and Durand should miss of their purpose, for which they devised transubstantiation.  
Wherefore I wonder at the liberty, which master jewel taketh upon him, in making, as pleaseth him, free reports upon the learned, as although they were easy to be understanded, or he had ever great mind to read them, or as although his report were of such authority, that as he sayeth, so it must be in them.  
Now, as concerning Saint Thomas, which proveth that no bread doth remain in the Sacrament, because godly honour is given unto it, the authority and present practice of the church did move him thereunto. As though he should say on this wise: The church doth give godly honour unto that, 
Of transubstantiation.  which is under the forms of bread and wine, but no godly honour is due unto any pure creature, ergo except the church should commit Idolatry (which is impossible) no other substance besides the body of Christ, can be contained in the Sacrament. In which his conclusion, the honour, which the church gave to the Sacrament, was sufficient unto him, to infer, that no bread remained, and not his desire, to have the Sacrament worshipped, was the motive and occasion, to invent that no bread remained. For, to speak the truth, the schoolmen, as they were, for the greater part, men of excellent wit and holiness: so, thorough the ghift of understanding and cumpassing weighty matters, they went very far in searching out the treasures of all divinity, and yet, thorough the grace of holiness, which qualified their deep inventions, they always submitted their conclusions unto the authority of the catholic church. In so much, that if a thousand Dunces and Durandes, should so decide this question and matter, as master jewel reporteth of them: yet needeth not the catholic, for that cause, to be troubled, or the heretic crack of any victory, against the practise and faith of the church. But let us behold, how master jewel playeth the school man, and uttereth such an insight in the Sacrament, as the greatest doctors for subtility, have never marked through their dullness. For upon this, which he supposeth Duns and Durand to say (the Sacrament is to be worshipped, ergo no bread must be remaining) he inferreth a contrary conclusion, 
M. jewel.  as, that (there is bread remaining, ergo it must not be worshipped.) Wherein both the argument concludeth not, if he will follow Duns and Durand: and the former proposition is heretical, if he would submit his understanding unto the catholic church. The argument (I say) and the consequence is nawght, because for sooth, by his doctors Duns and Durand the school men, for all the substance of bread remaining yet might the Sacrament be adored and worshipped. But that is one doctor's opinion. Then also, his antedent is false, because the church hath so received and taught us, that the substance of bread is clean converted. And as concerning master jewel his profess, of his antecedent, where as he allegeth Saint augustine in a sermon of his ad insantes, saying, that which you see upon the table, is bread, it doth conclude that the other thing which we believe to be under those forms of bread is not Christ his natural body. And, I trow, Saint augustine did not mean such bread to be there, as children spread their butter upon. For it is written by the same blessed doctor: 
In lib. sent. Prosperi.  We honour things which we see not, that is to say, flesh and blood, in the form of bread and wine which we see. The church also herself feareth not, to call the Sacrament bread, 
why the Sacrament 〈…〉.  which yet condemneth all Lutherans and Zuin gleans. And she calleth the Sacrament bread, because the Sacrament hath the form of bread, and because bread in the Scripture signifieth any food, and because Christ his body is, in deed, true bread, and bread of life, and heavenly bread. Therefore, because it is called bread, upon that only to conclude, that it continueth bakers bread: it is the argument of thinkers, tailors, and cobblers, and not of learned scholars.  
Then, as concerning Gelasius, which sayeth, that the substance of bread, or nature of wine do not cease to be, (in the Sacrament,) he expoundeth him self, by that which followeth straight after in th● same sentence, adding these plain words, But they remain in the proprieties of their nature. Which proprieties are these following whiteness, thickness, breadeth, weight, taste, and power to nourish and feed the body, with such like, which he calleth the substance of bread and wine, and more plainly the properties of their nature. The like is to be answered unto Theodoretus, which sayeth, that Christ honoured the bread and wine which we see, 
Theodor. Dial. 2. contrahaerese  with the names of his body and blood, not chainging the nature of them. (that is to say, the natural proprieties, because in all points it appeareth unto our eye, to be even as it was before consecration) but joining grace unto that nature. Over and above all this, a most true and ready answer is, that the faithful do consider always, not, what one or two do say, but what the whole company of learned men, or the greater part do testify. Again, before the church had expressed it, and opened by her sentence, the manner of Christ his being in the Sacrament, it was no heresy (if proud obstinacy did not make it) to say that bread remained, or that it vanished in to nothing. Because both opinions did hold with real presence, and the authors of them were contented to yield unto their betters judgement. And so, if we should grant unto the heret●kes, that which they do require about Gelasius or Theodoretus, they both defending the real presence, it is no small matter against the heretics other opinions, and it is nothing at all against the catholics. But in these dares now, when it hath been decreed according unto scriptures, 
Concilium Lateranese  and ancient fathers, in a general council, that the substance of bread is converted in to the body of Christ: now, to deny transubstantiation, and to revile the decree of the Catholic church, this is greatly against the faith. and this is it, which maketh heretics. S. Cyprian, which defended the rebaptizing of them, whom heretics had baptised before, was no heretic in so doing, because the question was not then determined by the church, unto whose judgement, he submitted his learning and authority. But now, if it should come in to an idle head, to bring that blessed martyrs reasons, and to withstand the Catholic church, he should do nothing else, in wise men's judgements, but declare his own vain glorious folly. And yet, I do not, ne will not use this defence, but plainly answer, that Gelasius and Theodoretus, do mean well, and speak as papists may do, that the substance or natural property of bread remaineth, that is to say, the same quantity, virtue and quality, which it had before the consecration. wherefore to conclude the clean contrary, unto Master jewels assertion, I say, that neither the ancient doctors do affirm, that the substance of bread remaineth (understanding by substance the essential and internal form or nature of bread) neither Duns and Durand do say, that if bread remain, there is danger of Idolatry.  
Farther yet the schoolmen say (quod M. 
M. jewel.  jewel) that if a man happen to worship the accidents of bread? Idolatry may be done to the sacrament: No good Sir; not to the sacrament, but to the accidents; wherein if fault should be committed, it is not the fault of the institution of Christ, but of the silence of priests, or simplicity of the people. Neither is adoration therefore to be forbidden, but the manner of adoration is discretely to be opened. whiles our Saviour himself, walked visibly upon the earth, if one should have worshipped his very face or garment, not able to distinct between the two natures of God and man, neither in what diversity and degree, the face and the garment appertain unto one self same person, (whereas in truth, it were idolatry to worship that face with godly honour, in that respect and consideration as it is only an holy and gracious visaige of a right excellent and perfect man) because, herein may be danger, should we not worship Jesus' Christ at all, or not worship him before we understand the distinction between Latria and Dulia, that is, honour due and proper unto God: and honour, which may be given unto any holy creature? O miserable people (sayeth master jewel) that thus are lead to worship they know not what. For alas, how many of them, 
M. jewels needles & foolish piety.  understand these distinctions, or care for them? How many of them understand, after what sort accidentia be sine subiecto? etc. But o miserable world, say I also then, and alas alas, that any wise man should be so taken, to think that what so ever is concluded in schools, should be opened in the pulpits.  
Alas, alas, the church doth teach openly, that the Father is unbegotten, the Son only begotten, the Holy ghost proceeding, and this who so ever doth not believe, shall not be saved. O miseserable people, that this are lead to believe they know not what. For what know they, or what care have they, of proceeding or begetting? or how can they understand those mysteries of the school men? as for example, Christ took the nature of man, he took not the person of man, as concerning Christ his person, God died for man, as concerning the divine nature, God can not die, and he which believeth not those things shall never be saved. O miserable people, that this are l●●d to believe, they know not what. for which of them understandeth the distinction, between substance and person? But what shall we say? must the learned men of the church (O master jewel) believe no more, than the people are able to conceive? or because the people understand not, what is accidence, or what is substance, or what is quantity, or quality, relation, or action: is it therefore no matter, whether it be fish or flesh, square or round, white or black, worldly or everlasting? for the 〈◊〉, this is sufficient to believe, that Christ is in the sacrament, under form of bread and wine, the bread b●●ng changed by his almightiness, in to his bo●●e, and the wine, in to his blood: or if some can not bear away all this, let him clean to the catholic faith, and hold up his hands at sacring as others do, and believe more excellent things to be present, then him selue can see or feel, and be content to be reform, if perchance he should be in any error: and God will 〈◊〉 ask him (flare you none) what is 〈◊〉▪ or what is s●l●ctum, oh how is my body founded in the Sacrament. Now yet, if the plains of faith doth best serve the simple man, shall the learned be forbidden, to search out the uttermost of the mysteries, and to meditate upon the works of God, praying and studying always, for more knowledge and understanding? By this kind of reason, the study of logic and philosophy is neglected, the pride of the ignorant is maintained, the comments of ancient fathers are not followed. And whiles master jewel showeth unto the people, which can not judge of divinity, the true but subtle conclusions of the divines and schoolmen, and whiles he pitieth their case, because the school doctors do talk of accidentia sine subiecto, and of substantia and accidens, which the common lay people can not understand, and where as he would make them believe▪ that according to the conclusions of the same schoolmen, they shall never be saved, except they credit and believe those matters, they are made to abhor the schools as cruel, or to contemn them as sup●●ssuouse. Whenas the truth is, that if they believe in one some, all that which the church teacheth, although they never ask for every part of it, and be not curious in things which pass their capacity, they yet be out of all danger. O pitiful heart, Alas sayeth he, how many of the people understand these distinctions? why Sir, no harm is done, where it is not required, that they should go to school to learn them, for give me a faithful man, which believed verily, Christ to be really in the sacrament, as the words of This is my body, do sound: and there shall need no teaching, that he kneel down, or knock his breast, or call for grace, or behave himself as it becometh a creature, in the presence of his maker. And such a one needeth not, to be talked with all, about accidens and subiectum or other such verities and yet mysteries. But when the priest sayeth unto some one in the world, you must believe that Christ is God, and that his words be true, and that he said of bread, This is my body which shall be given for you, which body, the catholics have in the Sacrament if a pedlar now, or pelting craftsman, would ask, how it is his body, and make forth straightways arguments, which first were devised in ale houses, or shops, and afterwards received in some schools, (as in example, Christ is ascended, ergo he is not in the Sacrament, or, can a priest make God? or, 
Arguments of the ignorant people.  can one body be in more places than one, at one time? or, if a mouse eat the host doth he eat Christ his body?) in this case silence (I think) were best, & ecclesiastical correction for such a person were necessary, so that to talk to him of accidence and substance, it were clean out of the purpose. But now if a learned man, and expert in liberal sciencies, were convented perchance, and examined upon the Sacrament of the altar, and if he would use the cobblers argument, and say, Christ his ●rue body is in one place, but the Sacrament is at one time in a thousand churches together, ergo Christ is not in the Sacrament, here lo● were good occasion, to persuade and prove to him the contrary, because of the nature of a substance, which occupieth no place, & so afterward to declare, that Christ is in the Sacrament, not as in a place mccallie, but as under form of bread substantially, and that, by the turning of bread into his body. Or, if an ethuyke being learned, were to be converted unto the faith, it is for the honour of God and his church, to prove unto the ethnyke, that although the mystery of our faith do pass all reason, yet the principles of God his omnipotency, and the incarnation of Christ once believed: they are so agreeable unto the high wisdom of God, that no absurdity or shamefulness shall ever be concluded of them. In these cases then, the distinctions do serve, and in these occasions the church must not be to seek, of the finest points of all learning and mysteries. In the searching of which, she hath laboured from Christ his asconsion hitherto, and daily doth study, the holyghost; the scholmaster, eue● teaching her more and more, and ever leaving her many points to be learned, until she come at length unto, heaven, where all truth and verity shall be most manifest and open. Wherefore the schoolmen (as the word itself doth import) are especially for schools, and they are for learned men, not for common pulpits or merchants ears, which as they be most rich of other, so they take themselves most wisest, and by a short way, look what they can not understand, that are they ready to contemn. Now also, if the schoolmen have many things not necessary at all, it is no true part to make the cause of the church and them one. As M. jewel here doth, which reciting Duns and Durand, and S. Thomas, and Alexander, and Holcott, would make men believe, that the church can not tell what to do, because in certain points and articles, these men vary the one from the other. Thinking perchance that as Lutherans must follow Luther, and the zwinglians clea●e fast to Zuinglius: so that some sect of us must follow Duns, some Alexander, and some S. Thomas.  
Unto which men yet, the catholics are not bound, but as the church doth direct them. And where the church hath not de●iaed some matter, there may I hold one day with one sense, an other day with a contrary, losing nothing of the integrity of my faith. I perceive, that is any just matter, might be found out against the church, it should be exaggerated, seeing that the private opinions of certain, be turned to the defacing of the whole catholic faith.  
Holcot sayeth, that it may so chance, that one should merit by the worshipping of the devil, master, jewel thinketh it unpossible: Let us than suppose it, that master Holcot lieth, the church (I true) is not to be abhorred therefore, as although she exhorted her children, some times to set up a candle before the devil. And you also M. jewel, if you would remember, what difference there is betwixt a thing done materially and formally (which terms the schools know well enough) you would never have found such fault with Holcot, without showing of the particular case, in which the worshipping of a wicked spirit, might be unto some one meritorious, for in deed, if one did know for certain, that Luther or any of his followers, were a very devil, in form of a Doctor of the new Ghospel, you should not (loved you the setting forth of your procedings never so well) give any reverence unto him: But if he seemeth unto you to be a third Helias, and a man of excellent prerogative in knowledge of all truth and holiness, were he a devil a thousand times, your brethren would never condemn you, for giving of reverence unto him. For when the outward person is mistaken, and good will showed unto it: the error happening, is quickly forgiven, and the inward affection is justly considered. But let us go further.  Loath I am here to ●●pp up and to open unto you the high mysteries and secrets of their learning, 
M. jewel.  and the force and strength of their reasons. Yet at this time, the importunity of them, forceth me, so to do, etc. 
These be his words. But I will tell you Master jewel, if you will be ruled by counsel, and do as wise and learned men have done here before, never go front your purpose, and make an end of that, which you have taken in hand. And if any be importunate: answer them that you will be at leisure an other time, and then talk at large of their objections. But now it is out of your purpose, to entreat of any thing which doth not appertain unto the mass. But contention hath no ears, and when all is set, in and upon the tongue, out it must, that which burneth in the stomach, although it agreeth no better than Germans lips, whose tongues we see, by experience in this world, how far they sound one countrarye to the other. Loath I am (sayeth he,) which is very seldom in men of his religion, which take it for a great perfection and zeal, not only to dally with men's arguments, but also to deface their lives, and to speak the worst they can of the highest priest in Christendom. But thanks be unto God, that there is one shamefast man in their side. And then good master jewel, if in deed you be loath (as you seem to speak) let all extraordinary matters pass by, and follow only your purpose. For why will you encumber yourself with the high mysteries, mysteries, and secrets of their learning, the mass alone having sufficient argument, to make .20. Sermons upon it?  
Well, there is no remedy: although he be loath to open the secrets of our learning, yet the importunity of them (sayeth he) forceth me so to do. Wherein, although I nothing doubt, but that he preached without trouble, and that he might have done, what he would, and have preached (in the lent especially) of the passion, or some matter parterning to pretty, without bringing of question, or controversy: yet let us suppose, that some one was importunate, and let us hearken how properly master jewel doth answer his appetite. But remember Sir, that you keep promise, lest you be thought to have gone out of your ware for nothing, and remember that you rip up and open the high mysteries and secrets of their learning, not skoffing like a benchewhistler, but reasoning like a preacher.  
first then, 
M. jewel.  to begin with the head, mark you well (sayeth he) and weigh this argument. God made two lights in heaven, the greater to rule the day, the less to rule the night, ergo there be two powers to rule the world, the Pope, that resembleth the son, and the Emperor, that is less than he, and likened unto the moon. This is an argument of theirs used by Innocentius tertius.  
Sir, I pray you, before Innocentius, who used this argument or conclusion? Then I ask, whether this text of Genesis, was the cause that the Pope should be greater than an Emperor? if you can not tell what to answer to the first, you are not skilful enough in our mysteries, how great also is your knowledge and reading, that before Innocentius tertius, you dare well say, that no man ever used the same very argument or similitude? And if to the second you say, that the son and Moon were the cause, for which Christians did make the distinction between Pope and Emperor: you may go to school again, and learn your Catechism, for any knowledge or understanding, which you have in secret mysteries, whereas before Innocentius days, the Pope was higher than the Emperor, the argument of the son and Moon, being not alleged for that purpose. If you were Cicero, and for love of your client, would make a pretty lie and me●ie, to delight my Lord the judge, and deceive therewith his circunspection and gravity: the ethnics, for your so doing, might dispense at their pleasure, with you, and give that praise and name unto you, that you be a trim fellow, of a goodly fine wit and a pleasant, and such a one, good jupiter, send me (might they say) at my need: but, among Christians, in so great a question as the soul cometh unto, in open pulpit, a famous scholar, a Bishop by calling, to move earnest expectation, as though he would rypp up the high mysteries of the Catholic faith, and to recite but an argument of Innocentius only, (which he rather for garnisshing of his letters, to the Emperor, than strength of the similitude in itself and by itself, did roundelye allege forth unto him,) and to make, as though that were the best argument, and most secret mystery, of the papists it is not for a sage person, matter, place, or audience. Unto you M. jewel, if one should talk of this question, how much the dignity of a pope were better, than the room of an Emperor, he should never allege Innocentius tertius, or the gloze. Not because, they are to be contemned in themselves, but rather because you do set so little by them. And yet, it may be proved unto you, all that which Innocentius would conclude, by the alluding unto the son and moon, which God made at the beginning. Therefore I do grant unto you, that Innocentius argument is not of great good force against an ethnyke and heretic, and yet I save, the conclusion of the church standeth, for all that this argument may fall. But if it were an high mystery, it could not be so easily let to fail, ergo than you have declared or confuted yet, no mysteries of hour religion.  
Now, 
of the two rulers of Christ his church on earth.  that there be two states of ruling in the church of Christ, it is plain by this, that the one which is temporal, every man doth see: of the other, which is spiritual, the psalmist doth prophe●ie, saying, 
Psal. 44.  in steed of my fathers, their ●ounes are borne unto the (meanying the Apostles, and Bishops their successors) them shalt thou appoint princes and rulers, over the whole earth. And this is proved also by the Apostle, commanding the Bishops of Ephesus, to take heed unto themselves, and also the whole flock, in which the holy ghost hath set and made you Bishops, 
Act. 20.  that you should govern the church of God, which he hath purchased by his blond. Then how much not only pope or prelate, 
The dignity of priesthood.  but every simple priest is higher and honourabler, than the greatest Emperor of the world, not only the words and writings of holy men, but their facts rather and behavyors, do give an euidon● testimony. As S. Martin being invited with much a do unto Maximus the Emperor his table, and having the cup first given unto him, that he should begin unto the Emperor, not withstanding the exceeding great feast and honour, 
Sulpit. lib▪ 1. 〈…〉  which was he stowed upon him, by one of the chiefest then in the world: yet he, (to teach the Emperor a true lesson, and to prove that his majesty is not the highest) began above all other, unto his chapelaine, declaring that he knew none there, to be better. Of like courage and fortitude was Eulogius an holy and constant priest, which being required of the Emperor Valens chief officer, 
Trip. hist. li. 7. ca 33.  to communicate with him, which held the empire and kingdom (which, in our English tongue at these day's, is to say, Follow the Kings procedings) answered peaceably and gently, saying, And I also have my part of a kingdom and priesthood.  
Such men were, 
Hist. tri. li. 7. ca 3● & li. 9 ca 30.  holy Basile, Ambrose, Chrysostom, noble and reverend bishops in deed, which little regarding the glory of the court and the world, spared not, to tell the Emperors, their own, and also to show them that a bishop his office, is not given, with goldon crown or purple. And not only in their doings, 
the superiority of the 〈…〉 the Emperor.  but in writings also, they declared this verity, that the Emperor, rul●th in the court; the bishop, in the church: the Emperor, over men's goods and bodies, 
Ambros. de Sacerdotio. Chrisost. libr. 3. de Sacerd.  the bishop, over souls and consciencies; the Emperor, in things transitory: the bishop in things everlasting.  
These conclusions being therefore true, if Innocentius would sweetly and misticallye allude unto the beginning of Genesis, and say, that the two great lights, which God made to rule the day and night, do signify the two powers, of the spiritualty and of the temporalty, of which the one is so brighter than the other, that the least of them both yet, doth direct and guide men in the whole world: is this so unproperly spoken or childi●●●lie, that any father of this generation, may honestly contemn it? As, on the other side, if there be no strength and force in this argument, is the highest mystery and secret learning of the catholics, thereby uttered and confuted? When friends confer together familiarly, many things come and go, to & fro betwixt them, which if they were examined, by the severe judgement of some controllar, would seem to be spoken triflingly. yet consider the time, place, and persons, they may stand well enough with charity, my meaning is this, when Christians writ unto Christians, in great peace of conscience, and silence of heresy, they are more bold with the Scriptures, alleging the texts of them▪ towards their purpose, although it be not according to the first sense, and meaning of the place. Alluding (as sweet S. Bernard doth man thousand places) unto some history, verse, sentence, or other like thing in them, playeing, (as I might say) and refreshing themselves with the Scriptures, as isaac did play with the fair Rebecca his wife in the garden of Abimelech the king, secretly, 
Gen. 26.  as he thought himself, and honestly, is a good and virtuous man, lovingly yet and familia●lye, as with a most true and beautiful wi●e. All which things, 〈◊〉 colerated ●mong friends, and they agree well enough with cha●●● as long as they disagree not with honesty and veri●ie. But, when peekers of quarrels 〈…〉 do appear, and heretics begin to louvre, then in deed, other kind of writing and arguing is to be used, not to the utter disallowing of the familiar manner and fashion (which hath his time and place,) but to provide against the coming in of strangers and enemies, which seek only how to find faults with the Catholics. S. Paul writing to the Corinthians, among other things, he willed, that women should be covered in the church, and among other reasons, this was one, which he wrote very sadly: Doth not nature (sayeth he) teach you this? 
1. Cor. 11.  for you see, that long hear is given unto a woman, to cover herself withal. This now, in a Christian man his ears, doth sound right well and probably. But let a quarreler stand against him, and say, my masters, Paul here hath written unto you, that your women should not be bare headed in the church. And why so? Loath I am, to rip up the secrets of his learning, and the force of his reasons. But his importunity driveth me thereunto, mark ye therefore well, and weigh this argument. A woman, by nature hath long hear, ergo they must were byggins in the church. Should not such a scorner then, speak as right as master jewel doth? alleging that for a principal or singular argument, which in deed, is not so? and afterward, by disgracing of that argument, to bring the whole matter in to question, or else contempt? for the blessed Apostle used that reason, as in way of persuasion, and as a probable and convenient argument, which if one would deny, saying, it did not prove his purpose, his conclusion is sure for all that, where he sayeth, in the end of that question. If any man seem to be contentious, 
1. Cor. 11.  we have no such custom, nor the church of God. After which sort, it may be well answered, that if Innocentius did not thereby well prove, the superiority of the pope above the Emperor, because the son is bigger than the moon, and if there were no other reasons of force and strength, among the catholics, for that purpose, (as contrary wise there be whole books of ancient doctors, which prefer priests before all other, what so ever, creatures, for their order sake and authority) yet, 
Ambr. & Chrisost. de Sacerd.  it might be well answered to heretics, that, if you be good and cunning at jesting and lying, understand ye, that we have no such custom, neither the church of God. And so I answer not only for Innocentius, 
A general answer for all the reasons of Gloss or doctors which M. Jewel jesteth at.  but for Isidorus also, and Gerson, Bonifacius, the Gloze, and for all others, which master jewel reckoneth up. That if they, like good men, abunding in their sense, have alleged scripture, for proving of those things, which were used before they were borne, and if unto contentious persons, those good men's reasons are not sufficient, yet none should be so hardy, as to take away orders or articles, generally of the whole church received. Because, it is enough for a Christian man to allege, that we have no such custom, neither the church of God.  
wherefore as concerning shaven crowns, and purple sandales, holy water, or praying in one tongue, they were never taken for secret mysteries in the church, and if the sentences of scripture, which holy men have applied unto them do not abundantly prove them good, there is no great harm taken. 
Of holy water.  As for holy water, although that the words of the Prophet Ezechiel, may very well be applied unto it, where he sayeth: I will sprinkle upon you clean water (which words being a prophecy of the baptism of Christians, 
Eze. ca 36  I can not devise, in what part of the seven deadly sins it may be numbered, to speak them also by holy water, which in one signification, doth bring us in remembrance of our baptism) yet, granting, that they make no more to the purpose, than master juells talk here of the supremacy, and purgatory, and priests crowns, and purple sandales, do make against the Canon of the mass: holy water for all that, is not to be cast out of the church, which was instituted by S. Alexander Bishop of Rome, and Martyr of Christ, fowrtene hundred years ago.  
Then also, in the matters of weight, if that, 
Luc. 22.  Ecce duo glagij hic●▪ behold here are two sword. Doth not prove the Bishop of Rome his both spiritual and temporal power: 
The Pope hath both spiritual and tempe's rall power ever all Christians, although ●e use not both, at all times.  yet must you not make him an Antichrist, or the temporal prince's page, and servant. And if our saviour would not use in his humility the temporal sword and jurisdiction, you will not therefore, I trust, deny, that he was Lord of Lords and king of kings. And so likewise, he making his Apostle S. Peter his lieutenant, and ruler of all Christians, both sheep and lambs: although he put up his sword in to his sheath, yet doth it not follow, that he hath no such sword at all. For as concerning the spiritual sword, no wise heretic denieth that unto the Bishop, the Scripture saying most plainly, whose sins you forgive, 
Matth. 18.  they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they be retained: But the temporal, if he will not use it always, you may not therefore in all cases take it from him. Whereas, for the commodity of the whole church (if cause so require) he may as swell forbead, (concerning the Emperors own person,) that no man salute him, or regard him, as he may excommunicate the basest man in a whole city, for a fault which deserveth it. which is true, in a Christian Emperor, that hath submitted himself by promise unto God, and the church: For of them which are without, 
1. Cor. 5.  what doth it appertain unto me, to judge? do not you judge of these which are within? Therefore, the temporal power, is so included in the spiritual, as a less figure Mathematical, of never so many corners, is compassed within a circle. It is fynche said of Saint Bernard, 
Bern lib. 4. de consideratione  Lib. 4. de consideratione, where he speaketh of the temporal sword, which the Pope hath in his sheath: Is this sword, (sayeth he) did pertain unto the by no right, when the Apostles said, behold, here are two sword: our Lord would not have answered, it is enough, but it is to much. And therefore, both are the churches, I mean, the spiritual sword and the material. But the one, is to be exercised for the church, the other, of the church: the one, with the priests hands, the other with the soldiers. But yet truly, at the beck of the priest, and bidding of the Emperor.  
A, see now master jewel, Low much Saint Bernard made of that argument, which you think worth the lawghing at. And this is that Bernard his testimony, whom you in pulpits, do much bring forth against the pomp and vice of Rome, which as he was in deed, no flatterer at all, of the Bishop of Rome, so much the more, you should allow his testimony, which he hath brought forth, for the supremacy. But, why should (Behold here are two sword) more offend Christian ears, when one goeth about by all means, for to prove and declare a verity: then the argument of Saint Paul doth, 
Gal. 4.  where he unto the Galathians (in disputing of the old law and proving it to be void) telleth us, that Abraham had two sons, the one by his maid servant, the other by his wife, which (sayeth he) are the two testaments. Against which argument, if master jewel should use one of his deep and witty confutations, and bid the people mark, with, see I pray you, what a worshipful argument this is, Abraham had two sons, and the elder, played the boy with the younger, and the good wife Sara, away (quoth she) with this old lubber, he shall not be heir with my child: ergo, the old law, must be thrust out of doors: no doubt, but this would sound so untuneablie, in the rude worldly, or fine courtly ears of many, that soon they might be brought unto irreligion, and contempt of the Apostles writings.  But let us come nearer (saith M. jewel) & see the arguments, 
M. jewel.  upon which the mass is luylded. 
You say well, of coming nearer, for hitherto you have gone very far of, and very far wide. Yet, what bring you against the foundation of the mass? I wonder at the liberty of the man. he maketh as though he would overturn the mass, & he talketh of nothing, but of the Latin tongue, the corporal of linen, the altar of stone, the roundness of the bread, the mettle of the chalice, and such like things, which appertain only to the comeliness, and worship, and signification, of some good thing, about the ministering and consecrating of the sacrament. Are these the things which you number, among our high mysteries and secret learning? And which you were loath to speak of, as although there had been some shameful dishonesty in the matter? Or do you call these things, the foundations of the mass, upon which it was builded? Are these the points, by uttering of which, you have gone about to procure us shame? Grawnt unto the Catholics or papists, that which they do bring in, by their high mysteries, secret learning, and strength of their reasons. grawnt it, I beseech you good master jewel, for a while, to see what will follow? Truly, no dishonour unto God, no diminisshing of Christ his passion, no occasion of lewdness, no breach of commandment, no thing which a quiet man should mislike. But these things will follow, which you were loath to rip up and open, that, in the celebration, the chalice be of silver or gold, that priests wassh their hands in the mass. that the clothes be of fine linen, that the priest lift up the paten, and look in to the chalice, as the angel did in to the grave, that the priest fetch a sight, in a certain place of the Canon of the mass, and knock his breast, with remembrance of the thief which repented himself of his wicked life, with such like more, which may and do bring many meanly disposed, in to the remembrance of sundry points of Christ his passion. O heaven and earth: what faults be these? How much is master jewel to be esteemed, for ripping and opening of such privy mysteries, which once being known, no man would ever love the mass any more I trow? It is wonder that Saint Paul's church and steeple were not strooken with lightning from heaven, when the fierst mass was said within it, in which mass, such absurdities as the preacher telleth us of, were permitted. O excellent jewel, thou hast not thy name for nawght. This day, thou hast confounded all papists, this day, thou hast so ripped their copes, and opened their bosoms, and englished unto us their observations and rubrikes, that they must needs be ashamed for ever. O the living Lord (will the folissh say) how have we been seduced of the papists? how much were they themselves heavy laden with men's traditions? and how little virtue was in all their doings, if a man should take away, the number of popis●h ceremonies?  
But alas for pity, and fie for shame. A learned man and brought up among honest studies, so for to abuse the ignorance of the unlearned and unsteadfast people, that they should think, nothing else, to be in the sacrifice and oblation of the Catholics, but an observation of a strange tongue, linen cloth, altar of stone, chalice of gold, or other such matters? Although I would not suffer a suspect person, to cut my hear, and would not trust him with paring of my nails, and no man (that wise is) permitteth his enemy to do with the making of his apparel, or the prescribing of a diet and order unto him: yet the life itself, is an other thing, then hear, nail, apparel, or diet, and the heretic hath not to meddle, with the behavyors and ceremonies of Catholics, although the life of our soul consisteth not in them: but in the holy and relieving Sacraments. What should we do, by M. juells privy and wise counsel? if we did put away, for his pleasure, the ceremonies, which offend his ghostly spirit: should we have nothing to put the bread and wine upon, that he findeth so great fault with an altar? surely, what so ever matter, the altar had been made of, good men would have soon applied, some one text, or other to that purpose. He hath a spite against the golden chalice: should we drink then without a cup? what so ever metal, the chalice had been made of, great scholars would have showed, some place or other, serving for it. And no doubt, the things themselves were first used, for some good cause and reason, not expressed in writing perchance, but left in tradition, which being not always known and manifest unto all learned men: they, upon the confidence of the truth, and holiness which is in the church, and also upon this principle, that nothing is to be condemned which serveth unto charity: 
The traditions and ceremonies of the church, are to be received and continued without reason alleged.  added a probable and likely reason, which should make for the ceremony received. And whereas, without any reason alleged, every tradition is to be continued: why should it be so much the worse, because a reason is invented for it?  
There is no principal part of a man, of whose fashion, situation, or manner, the philosophers did not, either give the reason, or seek after it, at the least. As, why the eyes, be placed on high? why there be two of them, one tongue serving us? why the fingers be so many? why the thumb so thick and short? why the brain so cold, set in the head? why the heart so hot, placed in the middle? and so forth in the rest. Yet, I am sure, they stood not by God, when he made the world, that because of the Ergo, which they had concluded, God should make that part of his creature, which should agree with their reason. As (in example) the heart 〈◊〉 hot, and some cold thing must be invented, to assuage the ferventness of it, ergo set the cold brain directly over it: I think not, that any man did at the beginning make this reason, and that therefore God did answer him, with, you say well gentle philosopher, it shall be so, as your ergo concludeth. But God, most wisely and agreeably, hath set every part of us in his order. of which has doing, there be causes, and reasons, more than any man can t●ll. upon the inventing and searching of which he hath set those occupied, which will study natural philosophy, and consider the works of wisdom. Not so yet, that when any man, hath given a proper and probable cause, of the making or disponing of any creature: that cause which the man inventeth, should be termed the occasion and cause of that creature. But this doth follow, that God is a wonderful wisdom, which (although no man should find fault with his doings, but take them as he hath appointed) hath provided yet, that such good reason, should be seen in all his workings: that he must be, not only stubborn, but also foolish, which would strive and murmur against them.  
And so I think, for the ceremonies of all kinds which are used in the church, of which a great number have come from the very Apostles, and the rest have been appointed, by them which had Apostolic authority. These ceremonies then, once received of the catholics were kept of them for obedience sake, which knew not the reason and occasion of them. Then lo, the learned men, 
Of the antiquity authority & causes of the ceremonies of the catholic church.  having good judgement and leisure, and knowing that nothing hath been rashly allowed in the universal Church of the Catholics: either received or invented (as God should put in their minds) a probable cause of the church's ceremonies and traditions, and the posterity also would perchance, increase their forefathers godly inventions, so that at this day, of one ceremony of the church, you may have three or four devout causes, wherein we must not make foolish arguments, of this sayeth Durand, ergo this was the very foundation, of the ceremony.  
And now, let every man so work about the reason of it, as he may gather most vantage and profit, to the stirring up, 
The cause and institution of the white linen corporal.  of his devotion. Christ was buried in a shroud of linen cloth, ergo the corporal must be made of fine linen. This argument may be found in Silvester, quod master jewel. Ergo before this argument, and before the time of Silvester, was not the corporal of linen? 
Beds. in cap. 25. Mar●●.  yeas, S. Bede an ancient father, testifieth, that holy Sixtus long before his time, did make that order, that the sacrifice of the altar should not be exequated, neither on silk, neither on coloured cloth, but clean white linen only. Again, 
Higre. 51.  Babylon is a cup of Gold in my hand, saith the Lord, ergo the chalice must be of silver or gold. This reason master jewel testeth at, 
Of the antiquity of 〈…〉 in the church  as the argument of master William Durand. But, were chalices of gold never used, before Durant made that reason, or application? yeas, Prudentius above twelve hundred years past, 
Prudent, de 〈◊〉.  speaketh expreshe of golden chalices, which the Emperor would have taken from the Christians. When Virgil sayeth, Cum faciam vitula, he used facere for sacrificare, ergo hoc facite in me● memoriam, 
jewel.  is meant, sacrifice this in remembrance of me. May we thank Virgil then, for our sacrifice? And except that verse had been espied, would there have been no priesthood at all, or proper sacrifices of the Christians? And yet, in the very scriptures themselves, facere is used for sacrificare. 
13. jud.  as in the xiij Chapter of judges, I beseech thee (sayeth Manue to the Angel) that thou wilt yield to my requests, & faciamus tibi hoedum de capris, and that we may offer up unto the a kydd of the goats. But what need I, to speak further in this matter? The truth is very plain, that the things themselves were used, before the reasons of Silvester and Durand were alleged.  
And therefore, it is a plain lie to imagine that their reasons were the foundations of our ceremonies and orders, as who should say, before Durand and silvester's days, they were never invented. And therefore once to make an end of this place, these nice fellows, which having no religion yet of their own, have idleness and licentiousness enough, to find fault with others piety: they may be well compared to the wanton dame Michol, which looking out at a window, upon the king David her husband, and misliking much his dancing before the ark of God almighty, 
2. Reg. 6.  O (quoth she tauntingly) how worshippfull was my Lord this day, discovering himself before his handmaidens? 
1. Paralip. 15.  And (sayeth the scripture) she despised him in her heart, by likelihood because he had a white linen cloth, as rochett or surplice upon his back, like a priest. And so these now, from the window of their high contemplation, or despection rather of other, when they behold good and blessed men, to dance before the ark of God, and to make in their turnings and returnings, the scriptures pleasantly to allude unto the ornaments of the sacrifice, and the true manna, which is the body of Christ, 
Are not heretics, wanton and barren Michols, or daughters of Saul.  and perchance through liberty of spirit, & excess of joy, show a little their bare, O, say these daughters of Saul, what goodly doctors are these, and how clean is their religion? See, what golden cups, and altars of stone, and fine linen clothes, and roundness of hosts, and wasshinge of hands, and sighthinges of heart, and what reasons they have? Behold, the son and the Moon do rule day and night: and again, two sword be here, ergo the Pope is better than an Emperor, and may sit judge over spiritual and temporal matters.  
How glorious lo (say they) be these young fathers and lords of the church? But what sayeth the truth for Catholics? Marry, because God hath chosen us, to be rulers of his church, and hath preferred us before the stoutness of the Protestants, and because in our ark and church the law and the Gospel is contained, with the authority to correct miscreants, which is the rod of Aaron, and the pot of heavenly Manna, which is the body of our saviour: therefore, if our discovering of our selves doth green you: we will not only, not be ashamed of the applications of scriptures, which we have used, but we will hereafter be more studious, in reading, in using, in expounding of the scriptures, that no history, prophecy, battle, name of person, place, or country, no hill, flood field, nothing at all, shall escape us, but we will bring it unto some good sense, allegorical, moral, or analogical: we all know, that Theologia mysti●a non est argumentis apta, and that the sense mystical, is not of sure strength in reasoning. but our ark being sure, and the grounds of our religion being well settled, and out of danger: for the rest, we may sing and play, and be joyful, and harp upon the scripture. In using of which if a curious 〈◊〉, shall see us discovered, or in part, naked: it is not our thought, whether all things sit about us so well and finely, that heretics and quarrelers do not or can not carp at us, but that the ark of God, be safely conducted in to Zion, and placed within Jerusalem. And if this text of the old law, (Thou shalt not bind up the mouth of thy ox which treadeth our thy corn. 
1. Cor. 9 ) doth not prove, that they, which labour in serving the altar, must live by the altar: yet as long as church, altar, priesthood, sacrifice, and such other things of weight remain, we will not strive upon the mystical sense of every chapter in the law whether it proveth our conclusion, that which we think worth the allowing. These words (as I trust) are reasonable, and this is the plain truth of the matter. Not to make more jeopardy, than the church requireth, neither to feign upon the Catholics, as that, if a Cardinal tredd a wry upon his purple sandales, or the priest at the altar remember not the thief which hanged on the cross by Christ, and sight at the remembrance thereof; that all our religion is quite overturned. And this much hitherto, for the answering of that common place of M. juells, where he thought by gathering of certain absurd arguments (if the people be judge) and by loud and bold crying out, that these were the secret mysteries of our religion, and that loath he was to rip them up, he thought to bring our whole religion, in to contempt and obloquy. And now let us consider his last matter, which he promised to touch.  It can not be denied, 
M. jewel.  (sayeth he) but Christ in his last supper, ordained a communion, and showed no manner taken of private mass. 
But, what calleth M. jewel a private mass? He craketh much of the primitive church, as who should say, all antiquity were with them. And oftentimes, he asketh the question, where we can find a private mass? and will not hear us answer, that we uphold no private mass, and that this term of (private,) hath been invented, but of the heretics themselves. For the mass in deed, is a common function and office, to be done of a priest, which is the legate of the people unto God: and God his messenger unto them, In which offices, he speaketh for their necessities, bringing unto God, the most noble & rich present of Christ his own body, the sooner to obtain mercy and grace at the which, not only the visible parties present, but all Angels and blessed souls, either in heaven, or in the way thitherward, be assistants, and do accompany the priest. If .20. men be standing by, is it common: and if thousands of heavenly hosts, replenish the place .19. of the men lacking, is it private? if it be said in the open church, is it common, and if it be brought unto a little chapel, is it private? what meaneth he by this word private, I would fain understand? And they answer, that, when one alone receiveth, 
what the Protestants mean by private mass.  than it is private. But is that all their reason? why then, if the matter hangeth upon the number of the communicantes, we shall have as many divisions of common mass, as they have pretty definitions of a private mass. Three (sayeth the order of the communion book) minding to receive, do make a communion, as three make a college, (as I have heard) with the lawyers, but one alone maintaineth it a college, by the self-same lawyers, ergo that mass is not private, but common. and yet common of the least, because,) if one lacked, there could be no communion. well then, if three score will communicate, the number increasing, the state of the mass, is altered, and therefore let this be called a mass of the common of the more. Now, if you make up three hundred, that must needs be, a common of the greater. if three thousand, a common of the more greater: so that we shall have no end, of common of the more, and common of the less. How much more better is it proved, every mass to be equally common, because the priest is a common officer, the prayers be common, the answerer in the people's behalf common, 
the church hath no private Mass but every one is common.  the thing offered common, the table common, the thanks giving is common, and as it was in the apostles times, all, in that mystery, is common. And these so many common things, shall one pelting reason take away, because the priest alone receiveth? And shall the loathsomeness to heavenly things, in the people, cause that, to be private, which of his own nature, is and 〈◊〉 no otherwise, then common? Let some certain bishop of good will and charity, cause bei●●es and muttons to be killed, and all things prepared, for open household, his intent being known, and the tables spread, the usher with loud voice provoking men to sit down, if none will use the liberality of the good prelate, may we freely taunt at him, and say, he keepeth no house at all, or else but a private table? If a fair common, lie ioyening unto a city, and by common agreement, the cattle be let to enter in, but three distinct months in the year: in all the rest of the nine months, were it wisely reported, to say, this is private? So may one call the seas private, where no man doth travel, and the wilderness private, where no man inhabiteth, and the son private, if none could come into him, and Christ's very death private, if all would be infidels. I or did ever any p●●est, forehead the lay people, that they should not come to communicate? are not the church doors open? may not the priest, be spoken with all? is not the necessary matter for the Sacrament, of light charge? hath not the church commanded upon the pain of sin, once at the least to receive every year, because someels would never come to that table? whereby she declareth her sorrow, that many are so reckless in matter of their salvation, and how glad she would be, to have no occasion of continuing her decree? And the Sacrament lying so open, for every man and woman, and the priest so ready, and the service of the mass so daily, must it, (on Luther's name,) be called private, because none will communicate? Or, is the meat on the table, and the gests at the table, all one? and if the gests departed, will the dishes arise with them? and is the people be singular, must the mass be private? well, yet lightly then, upon Easter day in parish churches, there are no private masses, and so those masses be out of your reach Master jewel. Then put this case, that at one priests mass, there were some receivers, at a●nothers none at all, both priests using one book and service, if he which sayeth the private mass, (as you term it) do nought, how do you excuse him, withwhom some communicate? or if his mass be good, which hath certain to receive with him, why shall the others be reproved, which althowght he receive alone, yet he sayeth no more nor less, than his fellow doth? In my mind, it is out of reason and purpose, to find fault with the mass, because of them which here the mass and for the sloth of the people, to disprove the diligence of the priest, and because of unwillingness in men, to destroy the mysteries and pleasure of God. But now, M. jewel, lest he should seem to speak without authority, he reckoneth up, the institution of Christ, the order which S. Paul received, the practise of the primitive church for the space of six hundred years. And what will you prove by all this? Marry (sayeth he) that at those days, there was a communion. Well we do grant that in the beginning, the people received with the priests. But what do you infer of that? ergo there was no private mass, and the priest did never receive alone. I deny your argument For these two things: the people to receive with the priest, and a priest yet to receive alone, be not contrary, but that at these days, they may be both verified in one church at an Easter tyme. But I will not be so hasty with you: & I grant that at the beginning the people did communicate daily ergo the private mass is nought. Well Sir, if this be the fault, ●t shallbe amended with me, and I will never say mass hereafter, but some shall communicate with me doth this please you? and is the mass, which I say, in this case allowable or no? I know what you must say (if you follow your masters), that it is not allowable. Truly then I may well come within you. For if the having of communicantes at my mass, do not make the thing perfect: neither the lack of them shall make it unperfect▪ what is the mass the better, if three receive with me? No jot sayeth the heretic▪ what is it the wo●ser, if none will communicate? In no point, he should answer. so that to have or lack communicantes, is but an accident unto it, and may be absent either present, beside the corruption of the subject. Therefore, if you could prove, that S. Clement, S. Denys, S. justine, and the rest, did use a contrary mass unto ours, you should say somewhat, but now, you trouble yourself, with proving, that many did receive with the priest, in the primitive church (which no man denieth) and you infer thereupon slenderly, that private mass was not then used▪ which nothing availeth. for more or less, all or none, to receive at a mass, it maketh so little difference, that as our mass is nothing the better (as you will say) if all present by, should receive: in so by the like conclusion, it is nothing the worse, if none do communicate. And as the goodness or naughtiness of the priest, doth nothing profit or hinder the mysteries in themselves: so much less, the coming or the going of the people, can withstand the effect of God his word and wil Now yet, although I have not to deny the testimonies of the fathers, which in this part are alleged, which are not unknown unto Catholics, and are regarded of them: that not withstanding, I will look upon them, and consider their faces, most grave in the sight of Catholics, but not so with the Protestants, which some times give reverent and humble looks up towards them, and at other times with scoffs and disdains enough, they pass lightly by them.  
Behold now, 
The inconstantie and uncertentie of heretics.  how much is made of S. Clement? whom our jewel putteth in the first place, but at another time, how much he will regard him? it appeareth manifestly by the praise which he giveth to him, saying (who, as they say, was S. Peter's scholar) I am content now. As who should say, that Clement stand for S. Peter's scholar, but this I speak, not upon mine own thinking so, but (as they say.) For if I be urged with any testimony of that epistle of his, unto S. james (as it hath many popish things in it) I will answer, that I know not what fellow this Clement was, but as they say, he was S. Peter's scholar. And what then say you of him, 
M. jewel.  if a man should ask you? Then followeth S. Dionysius, an ancient writer, and, as some have thought, Disciple unto S. Paul, although the contrary may appear, by his own words. well yet, let it be marked that Master jewel confesseth him to be an ancient writer, for a certain purpose, when we shall prove many things to lack in the late setting up of this new religion, which were used in the primitive church, as frankincense, oil, salt, singing, crossing, hands washing, and such like, which Saint Denys reckoneth up.  
In the third place S. justine is alleged, but to the shame of the communion in English▪ because S. justine maketh mention of wine and water both, the English order having wine only without water. And again, if any were absent, in S. Justin's days, the sacrament was carried home to them, which, according to the express form of the Gospel, and S. Paul, should (as these men report) be received, not alone at home, but in the congregation, togethers with other.  
After him, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, S. Augustine, S. Leo, are brought in, to prove that, which catholics ever confessed of, that in the primitive church the people did communicate with the priest, with which thing it might stand well enough, that the priest did his office, although the people would sometimes not communicate: for of the daily sacrifice, and receiving of the priest, used in the old church, S. Chrisostome sayeth in the .24 homely, upon the first unto the Corinthians: Do we not offer daily? yes we do offer, 
Chris. homil. 24. ad 1. Cor.  but thereby we make a remembrance of his death.  
But of the slackness of the people, S. Ambrose saith: It is a daily bread, why dost thou receive it, 
Ambr. lib. 6. de Sac. cap. 4.  after a year, as the grecians are accustomed to do? So that, if the priest should tarry for the people, and they would not receive, and if he could not consecrate, and do his office, except some would communicate, than had they in Grece, in some parts thereof, but one communion through the whole year, which is to absurd and unreasonable, and also against S. Chrisostome, 
Chrisost. ad Ephes. hom●l. 3.  ad Eph. ho. 3. where he maketh express mention of frequent and oft rece●uyng. But now see what a reason he bringeth against us? even by the very mass, which is at this day used, he proveth, that private mass was never practised. Because the prayers and blessings, and actions of our mass, do appertain to the plural number, and therefore unto a communion, and not to the private mass. Which thing, being grawnted, it will follow then, that the form of the mass is very ancient, and made within. v●C. years of Christ, after which time, private mass came in place, as they seem to say. For reason doth give, that unto a private mass the rulers of the church, would not have given a common form, ergo this mass, which at these days is used, which soundeth of a communion, was before the private mass, ergo it is very ancient, ergo it should not be so much taunted at, as M. jewel hath done, in the beginning of his Sermon. And further it doth appear, that the mass hath no lack in itself, as the which agreeth in sense and words, for more than one to receive at it: but only the fault is, in the people, which will not conform themselves, unto the order of the mass. 
Chrisost. ho. 3. ad Ephesiot. Astat mensa regia, adsu●t Ang●●li mensae huius ministri.  And yet I say further, that the words of Oremus let us pray, and orate pro me, pray for me, be truly said, when the priest alone receiveth, because more are present at every mass●, than any bodily ey● can see. And also, because the priest is not a private person when he is at the altar, but a common officer of the whole church, whose presence is always understanded, to be at the office of the mass, even as she is present at the baptizing of children, if neither god father nor god mother, neither midwife, neither parish clerk, were within he●●ng, but only the young infant which hath no discretion, and the priest (or some other in time of necessity) to baptize the child, in the name of the father the son and the holy ghost.  
Now after all this, he allegeageth the Canons of the Apostles, a decree of Cal●xtus, the Dialog of S. Gregory. O Lord God, what faces have these men? They know in their own ha●●es, that the Canons of the Apostles, and the dialogues of S. Gregory, make so much against them, that they are constrained to repel them both, and privily (by your leave) to laugh at S. Gregory. And yet now, see what a good countenance they bear towards them? But all that, which any of thes ●ore named witnesses do conclude, is, that in the primitive church the people did communicate, or, when they were slack and tardy, the good bishops did make them, to hasten themselves, with these words and like, 
Gregor. in dial. Chrisost. ho. 3. ad Ephesos  except you communicate, depart you hence, if you be not ready, and worthy to receive, you be not worthy to be present etc. But when charity, for all the good men's exhortations, daily decreased, and for all their sayings, 
that Christian people should oft receive.  when very few did receive, should the daily sacrifice fail? should the order of Melchisedech have his end? should there be no priesthood any more, because the people did not cōmuc●te? The rulers of Christ his church, did exhort and wish, that men would receive daily, which when they could not obtain, they commanded, that yet at the least, every sunday they should communicate, which after a space being grievous unto many, they brought it unto .3. principal feasts of the year, Christmas, Easter, and whitsuntide. And those .3. at length seeming to many in England (for in other countries they keep them, 
Fabian● Papa.  and more to, unto this day) it was last of all enacted by the church that he which would not receive at Easter, 
Inno●●tius 3 Extra. de p●e. & remiss. ●a. Omnis.  having no necessary impediment, should not be accounted for a Christian. And should we in this wicked world, have no oblation or service, betwixt Easter, and Easter, if in all that space, none but priests by themselves would receive? Also doth any wise man judge it necessary, that in these days all orders be appointed, upon the pain of deadly sin, which were in the primitive church used? At those days, by the .10 Canon of the apostles, he which had not tarried at the prayers, until the end of mass, and received the holy communion, was suspended therefore. But now, the best of every parish doth come and go at his pleasure, and receiveth but thrice in the whole year, to fulfil the act of parliament, and is quite out of danger of so great a punishment as suspension is to be counted. By S. Gregory his dialogues, he should departed, which did not communicate, and now they which receive not, do taryn in your church without fault, until their turn of receiving cometh. At those days Catecumenes in the faith, 
Chrisost. & Basiliu● in suis Liturg●●s.  and the penitentes were commanded to go forth, and now even those which are of a contrary religion, are compelled to come in. Therefore the heads of the church, have ever wrought wisely, easing the rigour of their statutes, as it should be best, for the ●●difying, and not destroying of the people. Glad to receive them every day●, if that every day they would come. Glad to receive them on sundays, & if not th●n, yet thrice a year, once at the least: or if the people would never come, shall their incredulity make void the truth of God?  
And may not a priest enter in to the most holy places of Sancta Sanctorum, except the whole parish go in together with him? Therefore, grawnting that in the primity●e church, (when all Christians lived so honestly in their common behaviour, as a few do live in these days in the monasteries) they received daily, through the ferventness of their charity: it standeth yet, with good reason, that if none receive now with the priest, the service and sacrified which was in the primitive church, should never the less continue. because the not receiving, is imputable unto the fault of the people, but the order of service and sacrifice, hath been received of Christ, the Apostles, and their successors. And so M. jewel you need not, to cry out, with O Gregory, O Augustine, 
jewel.  O Jerome, O Chrisostome, O Leo, O Dionisie, O Anacletus, O Sixtus, O Paul, O Christ. as though they have deceived you, and taught you schisms and d●●sions, for you say, if the people receive not, there can be no mass at all: and the forenamed say, according to the state of their time, that if the people will not receive, they depart and give place. To deny obstinathe, that if a priest say mass, and receive alone, it may be available, that is an heresy. to exhort and persuade, that the people prepare themselves, to receive daily, that is the doctors saying, and here unto agree the Catholics.  
And now, we are come to the place, where the preacher doth most dilate him self, with craking and lying, with provoking of others, and enforcing himself, so abundanthe, that one would look, that he should bring somewhat. Yet, he talketh so confusely, that I can not tell, wherewith to begin, some things, which he asketh, deserving no answer, other things, which he denieth, requiring whole treatises.  They have (saith he) herm (which is the matter of the private mass) not one father, not one doctor, 
jewel.  not one allowed example of the pri●●●ue church, to make for them. I speak not this (quoth he) in vehemency of spirit, or heat of talk, but even as before God, in the way of simplicity, and truth and therefore, once again I say, that of all the words of the holy Scripture, they have not one. 
Lo, one would think, that the Catholics did maintain, a certain thing called a private mass, in despite and contempt of the laity. And that this private mass, were such a thing, as maketh or marreth our religion for ever, for which yet, we can allege, no Scripture, no example, no council, no doctor, no ancient father. But shall I answer briefly? the church of Christ, hath and knoweth no private mass, and therefore to what purpose is it to require that she should prove it?  
And although, some masses are said in the morning, 
the church acknowledgeth no private mass.  some before the King and his counsel, other before the commons, some where none will receive, other where a few are prepared thereunto: yet the mass is not divided, among them which have learning, into morning mass and high mass, or royal mass and low mass, or common mass, and private mass, as it were, the proper distinct kinds of mass: or as heretics may be essentially divided, into Lutherans, zwinglians, anabaptists, and such like. But, as there is but one natural Soon of God, Jesus' Christ, which took flesh for mankind, and one oblation was offered by him once for all: so there is but that one oblation, which still continueth, and but one mass. Further▪ now, 
jewel.  if any learned man, of all our adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic doctor, or father, or general Council, or holy Scriptures, or any one example of the primitive church. The sentence is very long: the conclusion is, that if we can bring any proof against them, in a number of articles, which he reciteth, then will he yield and subscribe unto us. A Gods name then, what shall we prove? Eyrst, (quoth he) that there was any private mass, in the whole world, at that tyme. No, there was none then, neither is there any now, among the Catholics. Or that there was any communion ministered unto the people under one kind. Unto this, what if I should answer no: and say, that. ujc. years after Christ, the people received under both ki●des: our Catholic faith, is in no danger thereby, and we are not rebels, or traitors, to the ordinance of our Saviour, and the primitive church. For in a matter indifferent, the church may follow what part shall please her, and this receiving in one or both kinds, is indifferent, as concerning the laity: and this is so plain, that our adversaries do confess it. The right third Elias, 
Receiving under both ky●des is a thing indiffer●ent concerning th● laity.  and restorer of the Gospel, M.D. Luther in a book of his unto the Bohemians, Because in deed (saith he) it were goodly, to use both kinds, and Christ hath commanded in this point, nothing as necessary, it were better, to follow peace and unity, then to strive upon the forms and kinds of receiving the sacrament. Thus first them, could I answer safely enough, 
receiving under one kind, ●●wed in the primitive church.  but I will take an other way, and prove by good authority of fathers, & examples of antiquity, that within. ujc. years after Christ, the sacrament was received under one kind. Christ our Saviour, 
Luc. 24.  took bread, broke it, and gave it unto the two disciples, with whom he turned in at Emaus: and before he did the like with any wine even in the very breaking of the bread, he vanished out of their sight: but that bread was his body, as S. Augustine and Theophilact do testify, 
Aug. lib. 3. de consen. evan. ca 25. Theo. 〈◊〉 Lucam cap. 24.  therefore was there receiving of Christ his body under one kind in the primitive church. I trust this testimony be ancient enough. Likewise in the twenty of the acts of the apostles, S. Paul & the Christians came together, upon a sunday, to break bread: but there is no mention of wine, ergo they did receive under one kind. If you deny the breaking of bread, to be taken in that place, for the sacrament: besides that learned fathers do so expound it, 
Act. 20.  the time itself, (because it was the next day after the Saboth, which is ow● sunday) doth make it likely, & the lateness of receiving of it, is a good argument thereof also. because if they had come to supper, they would have tasted thereof before midnight, but at midnight the young man Eutichus fell down from the upper fit, where S. Paul preached, or talked to them, and after that the Apostle had put them in good comfort, that he was not dead: then lo, he ascended again and broke bread, and tasted it, and so continued his talk until the morning. So that the circumstance of the day, which the Christians kept holy, and the unseasonableness of the time, to go to supper after midnight, sitting down to it before son set at the least: doth prove better, that it was the sacrament, then that it was common bread. But if you deny the argument, that, because only bread is named, ergo there was no wine: remember, I pray you then, your own fashion of reasoning, when you say, there is no mention of this or that place, of S. Augustine, Ireney, Denys, & others, of a private mass: ergo they had no such mass as we use.  
Item there is no mention of lyfling up the sacrament, or setting it under a canopy, or of the solutions to school men's questions: ergo there must be no such things at all. further then, you do not deny, 
Libr. 2. ad uxor. Lib. de. coroun militis.  but in Tertullian his time, the sacrament of the one kind, I mean of bread, was carried by the Christians home to their houses. and received, at their necessities (if persecution or sickness did come upon them) or received at their most leisure and devotion (if there were no danger towards them) And plain it is, 
Cyp. Ser. 5 de lapsis.  by S. Cypryane, that in his time some carried the sacrament of one kind, home also with them. But you answered, this to be an abuse: well yet then, the communion under one kind, ought not to be so strange unto you: As also if it were an abuse, it was in carrying it home, not in taking it under one kind. 
Cyp. serm. de lapsis  And S. Cipryan, if he had understood the sayings of Christ, so grossly as you do, he would never have suffered the people, to have been rob of half the sacrament, he would never have thought any profit or presence to be in the one kind, except with the concurring of the other, & then, he could not have written it, for a great miracle, that when a naughty woman, did begin to open her chest, in the which that holy thing of our lord was, she was made afraid, 
Ireneus in epist. ad beat. Vict.  with fire rising from thence, that she should not touch the sacrament with her unworthy hands. This would S. Cyprian never have declared, for (according unto your minds) he should never have believed it. Now, to let pass an ancient custom of the church of Rome, which was, that the sacrament should be sent reverently, unto strangers, priests and Bishops, which came to Rome: (which proved that the sacrament was kept, and consequently therefore in one kind, because wine doth quickly wax sowar) And that in S. Jerome his time (which M. jewel mentioneth in the beginning of this sermon of his) the sacrament was reserved, and carried home of some Christians: And to let pass, a provision of Melciades Bishop and martyr, that because of heretics, (which did not all things rightly) the sacrament should be sent from church to church (which by good reason, should be in form of bread) to let all these pass, 
Basil. ad Caesar. patritiam  I will rehearse only S. Basils' testimony, for this matter, which saith: Ye were superfluous, to declare, that in the time of persecution no priest or deacon being present, a man to be constrained by necessity, to receive with his own hands the communion, is not evil or hurtful. because that by long custom, even by the very use and practise of things, this hath been confirmed, for they, which lead a solitary life, in wilderness, where no priest is, kepying the Sacrament with them, they communicate by themselves. And in Alexandria and Egypt, every one of the lay people, for the most part, hath the communion in his own house. Of which testimony, it is gathered, that the priest may as well receive alone in the church, as the people may at home: And also, that the sacrament was kept for the fear of death, which seemed to be always present, in the persecution which raged: And therefore of goo● lykelihode, it was kept in one kind, where as wine will soon be altered: Now, if these reasons and authorities did nothing prove against him, we may, by M. jewels leave, use examples and histories: among which it is a notable one, that Dionis●s Alexandrinus scholar unto Origines, reporteth of Serapion a man of Alexandria, which lying three days speechless, on the soweith, 
Eccl. hist. li. 6. ca 44  called his daughter unto him, and willed some to be sent unto the priest for the sacrament. But the priest being sick, he delivered the messenger a part thereof, commanding him to dipp it first in somewhat and to soften it, (for dry bread goeth down very hardly with sick persons) & so to deliver it to the old man his master. And the old man after he had received it, departed this world gladly. Out of which example it is necessa●●lie gathered, that first the priest had in his house ready, before hand, the sacrament. (which they say, is nothing except it be straightways used) Then that Serapion received it alone, without a communion (whereas except three receive at the jest, the● say nothing is done, or two, as others hold) & last of all it may be gathered, that it was under one kind, either as most meetest to be kept, either most safe to be carried, or, as likewise profitable to the sick person, as if both kinds should have been delivered. Another example as notable, 
Ambr. in orat. sunebri de obi●u frat. sui  is, of S. Satyrus. S. Ambrose his brother, which, before he was fully and perfectly traded in our religion, being in danger of shipwreck, required of the perfect Christians, which were in the same ship and danger with him, to have that divine sacrament of the Christians, Not to set a curious eye, upon those mysteries, but to have help for his faith. Which being given unto him, he made it to be bound up in a stole, and the stole he wrapped about his neck, and passing upon no boerde or rybb of the broken ship, to help himself withal, he was safely and marvelously brought to land, and straightways asking, where the church was, thither he went, and received that blessed Saviour, which had delivered him from drowning. Lo, what can we have more, for our purpose, and more against heretics, then, that without the church, the Christians had the Sacrament, and that it was in one kind (except they can devise, how to keep wine, by wrapping it up in a stole.) Also that it was no fantastical figurative memory, which saved a man from such dawngers. And that S. Satyrus received the same under one kind, in which he did bear it. Wherefore, let M. jewel crack no more, before this be answered. And let him be humble in spirit, not to think, that nothing is written, but which he knoweth of, or to provoke all the learned men this day alive, of which some have written of this matter so much and so effectually, that he will have no leisure to read them, and much less ability, to answer them. Or that the people had their common prayers in a strange tongue, 
jewel.  that they under stood not. I think verily, that as every country was conquered, by the preaching of the Apostles successors. so the conquerors thereof, planted such order of service, as the mother church used, from which they were sent. Even as S. Augustine, when he came from Rome, in to this country of owrs, he made not a new english service, or Kentish rather, after the nature of those quarters, 
Latin ser●●● was brought in to England by S. Augu●●ne, and used there generally.  at which he arrived: but rathe● used the Roman fashion and language. neither hath it ever been written or testified, that according to the diversities of speeches here in England, proper service for every quarter thereof, was provided. But the contrary rather doth appear, that one tongue was generally used in their mass and matins. ●uen as at these days, there is no fault found, or else it is no dawngerous fault, for the Welsche men, Cornyschemen, Northern, and irish, to use one order of the English church, and the longer it is suffered, the farther of it is still from amending: So, what cause is there, why that latin service being brought into this realm, by the Pope his goodness, and our Apostle S. Augustine, the same might not continue through the realm, as it was by little and little, subdued unto the gospel of Christ. Especially where as in these days fault is found, with the unknown tongue, which people can not understand, and yet the Welshmen have no welsh communion, and at those blessed and quiet times, there was no lack found at all, when the priest and the clergy, should sing and pray by themselves, and the people by themselves intend their private devotion. S. Paul writing to the Romans, not a form of service but a very sermon (as it were,) wherein he entreateth of most high, and again most familiar matters, yet he writ in Greik and not Latin.  
Which thing, did he, (trow you) for the lack of the Latin tongue? no, that is not true, in him, which had the gift of all tongues. Did he think, that all the Romans, had the knowledge of Griek, as well as of Latin? truly, that was for any simple man more meeter to think, then for the wisdom of S. Paul. Had he forgotten himself, being always of that mind, that in the congregation, he would rather speak five words, that other might be the better for them, than five thousand in a strawnge tongue? No, he thought to earnestly of the cause of Christ, to forgettsuch a principal matter, as this is, according to the heretics declamations. And then, in an epistle, by twenty parts, there is more cause, to write in the vulgar tongue, then in a common prayer, because in the service, the choir occupieth the place of the people, and answereth in their steed: but in his epistle, none were excepted, but, 
Rom. 1.  unto all you which be at Rome, well-beloved of God, and faithful, grace be to you (saith he▪ and peace. In to the choir all did not come in a clompe together, to here what the priest did read, but about the pulpit, or other where, all might stand well enough to here the epistle readen. And so after this sort, I might find twenty differencies, betwixt an order of service, and an epistle. Wherefore I wonder much, that they make such a brabbling, about the strange tongue. and require, what authority, example or reason we have for it, out of Doctor, Council, or, Antiquity. It is reason, authority, and proof abundant, for a Christian man: that, this or that thing hath been done or used universally in the church of Christ, 
1. Tim. 3.  were it used but for one year only, because the church is the pillar of truth, and hath the holy ghost her teacher and governor for ever, and never hath been suffered utterly to have erred, in all her members at one tyme. And then, whereas the latin service in the Latin church hath been so long used in these countries, which understood not the latin tongue, and also they confess a very long use of it, it is well enough proved, that there is no damnable error in the matter. for what tongue found you, M. jewel, in the English church, when you were borne? or how long before, had the english service, been left unsaid, and the latin entertained, a strawnger before a country man of our own? if you can bring forth the books, where the english common prayers, were ever in the common vulgar tongue, and tell us the name but of one Bishop, which used it in his diocese, you shall make all men wonder at your invention, and if, never, any other but latin, hath been used, it is authority and reason sufficient for all English men, that the first convertors of this land, unto the saith, did leave the latin service in it, nothing fearing or caring, what a few fine fellows would persuade to the contrary, after eight or ix hundred years continuance. Then also, must all prayers of necessity, be in the common tongue, or may a few be excepted? if you except any one: why should not the people here all, and answer Amen unto all? and especially in the most secret matters, which have most weight in them, and in which the cause of the people, is most expressed? if all of necessity, must be audibly expressed: how then doth your doctrine agree with S. basil, and S. Chrysostom's masses, in the which the chief priest prayeth secretly at the altar, at certain places, whiles the choir in the mean time singeth? Or how could S. Ambros● (O worthy Bishop) how could he standing at the altar command the Emperor by his archdeacon to stand without the Chancel doors? Rather he should have said to the Emperor, in his own person, in our most humble request, may it please your most excellent wisdom and majesty, to come more near to the altar, to here the word of God, which doth save our souls, or else to command the altar to be pulled down, and that a table may come down to your highness the more commodiously to answer Amen, unto my blessing, even, as it shall please your majesty, so shall it be. But not so S. Ambrose, not so, he, which moved not one ●oote from the altar, but sent his archdeacon, not with supplication, but with reprehension, not as to an Emperor of the world, but as to a common Christian, saying: O Emperor, the inward places are appointed for priests only, 
Hist. Eccl. li. 9 ca 30.  which others are not permitted, neither to enter into, neither to touch. Go forth therefore, and ●arye, for the receiving of the mysteries, as others do: for purple maketh Emperors, and not priests. Unto which, the Emperor answered so meekly and Christianlike, that he is more to be wondered at, for the overcumming of his passions, then conquerying of barbarous nations. But, to my purpose, it appeareth by this distinction of places in the church, that the people were not suffered to here all things. And therefore I conclude, that whereas it is no necessity that all things be understood, which the priest in the church sayeth, yea rather, if this be against all good order and discipline, there is no necessity, that the tongue should be common all to gather, where the herring of the same tongue, must be kept secrète.  Or that the bishop of Rome, 
jewel.  was then called an universal bishop, or the head of the universal church. 
I would to God, that this question of the head of the church of Christ, were throughlie known, it would stop a great sort, of hasty preachers and ignorant, which think themselves able to do much, by cause they can speak in a matter indifferent probably: as communion under both kinds, service in the vulgar tongue, and such like. But, to this question of M. juells, I answer, asking him first, whether any prince of that time, of which he speaketh, did bear the title of defender of the faith? and if neither Constantinus, neither Theodosius, neither any Christian good Emperor, were precisely then so called, shall it follow, that one may take that title, from the kings of England? Many things may truly be verified of certain persons, which yet they do refuse, not as unagreing with their dignity, but as unapt for keeping their humility. As S. Peter, S. Paul, S. james, and john, with all the rest of the blessed Apostles, 
Matth. ●. Psal. 44. 2. Cor. 10.  were the lights of the world, and rulers of the earth, and conquerors of all power, which would set itself against Christ, and they did not observe that style in their writings, neither any of their disciples after them, which also were lights and governors of the world. Further it is to be considered how this word (universal bishop) is to be taken. For if you mean universal bishop, that besides him there is no other in all the world, but that he is one for all, as the word importeth: then also at these da●es, there is no universal Bishop. But if he be called universal which among all Bishops is the chiefest and one over all, so is there, 
In what sense in universal bishop is to be granted  and must be, one universal bishop in the church of Christ. First then, I answer, that if none were called universal Bishop. ujc. years after Christ yet the lack or not geaving of that title, doth not prove, that there was no such thing, or no supreme head over the church. And further I say, that also in these days, there is no universal Bishop, if we take the word, after some one fashion. For in S. Gregory his time (of which place M. jewel in his sermons doth oft triumph) the Bishop of Constantinople forgetting the humility of Christ our saviour, did much covet to be called universal Bishop: presuming, that sith he was Bishop of the same city, where the Emperor than dwelled, which was only Emperor of all: that his name, for that place, might likewise, with this glorious title (of universal Bishop) be right well adorned. against whom S. Gregory did write, and speak earnestly, condemning the desire of that glorious title, grownding his argument upon the signification of this word, (universal.) Because (saith he) in the epistle unto John, Bishop of Constantinople) one should seem, to take away the glory of Bisshoprick●s, from all the rest of his brothers, which would challenge unto himself, to be called the universal Bishop. True it is therefore, that there is no Bishop universal in that fort, as who should say he were only a Bishop, but like as 〈◊〉 the time of the old law, 
Num. 11.  not only Moses had the grace of governing and prophecyeing, but seventy elders of the people of Israel, had imparted unto them of his spirit and dignity, and like as Moses lost nothing of his perfection, for all the dispensing of some of his graces, emong●● certain of the elder and worthier: so the Pope is not so singular, but that he hath fellow Bishops to take part of his function, and for all the multitude of his fellows in office, he continueth in his supremacy, as a Moys●s above the septuagintes. And so, only he hath not all the spirit of God, which for the profit of the body, is distributed in to sundry membres, and none yet is equal unto him in superiority of government, because in every seemly body, one part is higher than all the rest. Again, S. Gregory, which was a most blessed Bishop, might and did justly, find fault with john of Constantinople, because of his proud enterprise, although it were granted, that the title (universal) might have been verified in any one Bishop. So in one sense, which I have spoken of, I grawnte that there was never, and that now there is none, which is an universal Bishop. But yet if we understand an universal Bishop so, that among bishops there must be one signior unto all the rest, and eldest brother of all, under whose correction, they shall each one, enjoy their privileges, which the ●heife father and ruler hath appointed, in this sense, I will prove, that there was an universal Bishop, ever in the church of Christ. S. Anacletus in his second epistle, 
Anacletus ●pist. 2.  This holy and Apostolic church of Rome (sayeth he) hath the primacy and preemiinēci●, over all other churches, and over the whole stock of Christ, not by the Aposte●s, but from our Lord our Saviour, him self, as he said himself unto S. Peter, thou art Peter, 
Matth. 16.  and upon this rock (this Peter) I will build my church. Also S. Cipryan declaring the return, 
Cip. Cor. li. 3. ep. 11.  of certain schismatics unto the faith, praiseth much those words of theirs, where they said. We know, that Cornelius is set up, by almighty God, and Christ our Lord, 
There is one supreme head in the church  Bishop of the most holy Catholic church. And after a little space: We are not ignorant, (say they) that there must be one God, one Christ our Lord, whom we have confessed, and one Bishop, in the catholic church. The same blessed doctor also, 
Lib. 1. ep. 3.  in an epistle unto S. Cornelius, saith, that heresies have risen of no other cause, but that the priest of God, is not obeyed, and one priest in the church, 
vice Christi judex.  to judge as vicar of Christ, is not regarded, or thought upon. Then Saint Ambrose, whereas the whole world is gods, 
1. Tim. 3.  (saith he) yet, the church is called his house, of the which, Damasus is at this day, rector and governor. Further yet S. Augustine, in divers places, epist. 106. epist. 93. lib. de utilitate credendi: calleth Rome Sedem Apostolicam, and what is a seat Apostolic, but that place, which may plant and pull up and set and let, and hath his power over the whole world. S. Ci●●ll also, 
In lib. ●hesau.  As Christ (sayeth he) hath received of his father, the sceptre and rule of the church of gentiles, which came out of Israel a captain and duke over all principates and powers, over all that, which so ever is, so that all things do bow down unto him: so, Christ hath committed most fully unto Peter, and to no other than Peter, that which fully is his, and to him alone, he hath given it. And to make an end S. Gregory him self, even in that epistle, where he speaketh against the pride of him, which would be called after a new fashion (universal Bishop.) It is clear (saith he) unto all them, 
Lib. 4. Ep. ●p. 32.  which know the Gospel, that the charge of the whole church, was committed, by the voice of our Lord●, unto holy, S. Peter and chief Apostle among all the apostles, and yet (sayeth he afterwards) he was not called universal Bishop. Wherefore unto M. jewels question, if the name of universal Bishop, was not in the primitive church: yet the thing itself was, as 〈…〉 showed, so that the name itself 〈…〉 have been used, in that sense, as it 〈…〉 Bishop which hath charge 〈…〉 and of all the Catholic 〈…〉. But as it signifieth him, which 〈…〉 other Bishop but himself 〈…〉 there neither was, 〈…〉 Bishop universal. 〈…〉 people were then taught, to 〈…〉 Christ's 〈◊〉 is really, 〈…〉 carnail●e, or 〈…〉. The 〈◊〉 ●ome of God, is not in words, but in power and strength, and allbeyt, out of hand, it could not be found, to bring a writer so ancient, as you require, for every one of those terms, yet is the cause nothing the worse: so that it may appear, 
it is not well to strive upon the 〈◊〉, when the thing itself is evident.  by any means, that in the Sacrament is his very body. For I think it would be very hard, to find, in any writing, of old and holy doctor with in. ujc. years of Christ, all these words, that he take r●all, substantial, corporal, carnal, & natural fl●sh● of the virgin Marie, and yet they were instructed perfectly, to believe that Christ took our very flesh, and not a figure only thereof, as the Manichees did evil report. And so, if I could no● bring example of all the terms, which you would have proved, yet if I can conclude that the very body, and not a fantastical supposed body, is in the sacrament, for the words of carnal, real, corporal, substantial, and natural, I need not be woeful. In the sacrament (sayeth S. Jerome unto Hebidia) the very body of Christ, is, of which body (sayeth Isichius in Leu. lib 6. Cap, 22.) S. Gabriel did say unto the virgin, the holy ghost shall come upon the. It is called of S. cyril, lib. 3. in. 10. Cap. 37. & lib. 10. Cap. 13. the body of life itself, or, of natural life. Of Origene the body of the word: Of S. Chrisostome, the body which is partaker of the divine nature. 1. Cor. Cap. 10. Of S. Augustine, Psal. 33. the very crucified body, in the which he suffered so great things. Of Chris●stome again. 1. Cor. Cap. 10. the body which was nailed upon the cross, beaten, wounded with spear, which was not overcomed with death. What will a Christian man ask more? and what need to bring out the words, of carnal, real, corporal, natural, whereas, the body of Christ being present, and that body, which was borne of the virgin mary: it followeth, that it is real and natural, or else, we are fallen from our faith, in which we believe, that he took real flesh of the blessed virgin. And here also, where find you, not only within. ujc. years of Christ, but within uj and uj hundred, and take three more unto them, that the people were taught, to believe, that the body of Christ is, only figurativelye, sacramentallie, significativelye, tropically, imaginatively, in the Sacrament, to the denial of all presence and reality? S. Damascene, 
Lib. 4. de orthodoxy fide ca 14.  a notable father, writing purposely of the sacrament of the altar, sayeth, that it is not simple bread or food, but united unto the divinity, Also hread and wine (saith he) is not a figure of the body and blood of Christ, (God forbid,) but it is the very deisyed body of our Lord, where as he hath said himself, this is my body, not a figure of my body, and not a figure of my blood, but my blood. But M. jewel appealeth unto thee. ujc. years, next after Christ, Unto those. ujc. doth he appeal? Unto those. ujc. he that be brought, And I require him to show forth, where it was ever taught, with in vj. C. years after Christ, that Christ's body was in the sacrament figuratively only? Let one sentence, example, authority, word, or syllable, be brought forth, of a body, only figurative and significative: and he shall have the victory. 
jewel.  Yea but (saith he) the real, corporal, carnal, natural presence, was not preached or taught, at those days, ergo a figurative body only was believed. And thus whiles we strive upon terms only, we spend the time in a question not necessary, and he will not consider the truth, in itself, as it is. 
Luc. 20.  Christ said, this is my body, which shallbe delivered for you. say the truth, Is not this, plain enough? what if he had said, this is my natural body, should all mysbeleife on your part, have ceased? I think not. for these words (which shallbe delivered for you,) do, as plainly express, what body he meaneth, as if he had used, the word natural, or corporal. what difference is in these points, M. jewel, and the named Bishop of Sarum, and he, which in the year of our Lord. 1561. preached at Paul's cross the second sunday before Easter? and, after this sort, if I would proceed further, what difference were there, or how many persons, might I be thought to have named, in the judgement of them, which know the state of this world? what odds is there, between four pens, and a groat? what difference, betwixt the very body of Christ, and the real body? the body borne of the blessed virgin, and the natural body? the corporal body, and his very flesh? the carnal body, and the body which was delivered unto death, and hanged on the cross, for us? This is not childisshnes only, but very wantonness, to ask for the term, of a corporal and real body, and not to be content with such a body, which died for us: to believe our eyes, if we should see him, and to discredit his voice, when we do here him: not to be able to deny but this is the body, which was delivered for us, and yet to require, whether it be his natural body or no? And yet, because the church our mother, which in herself is strong, doth condescend unto the infirmity of those, which once the brought forth, I will show in one testimony, that even in plain word corporally, Christ his body is given unto the faithful. And if copy of words delight M. jewel, I will prove also, that he is naturally in his faithful. S. cyril, 
Lib. 10. ca 13. in loan.  a blessed and ancient father, in reproving and confuting a certain Arrian, which upon those words of Christ, I am the vine, and my father is the husbandman, 
joan. 15.  would infer, that Christ and God the father, were not of one substance, no more than a vine and a husbandman, are: which Arrian also said, that those words, I am a vine, etc.) appertained unto the divinity, and not the humanity of Christ. S. cyril, (I say) in confuting this reason, hath these words: We do not deny, but we are joined spiritually unto Christ by right faith, a●d sincere charity: but yet, that there is no way of the joining of us together, with him, according to the flesh, that truly we do veterly deny. And we say, that, to be altogether, besides the Scriptures. For who hath do●ted, Christ, even after this fashion (understand according to the flesh) to be the vine, 
1. Cor. 10.  and us to be the branches, which receive and get life from thence. Here S. Paul, saying, that all are one body in Christ. For although we be many, yet in him we be one, for all take part of one bread. Doth he think perchance (meaning the Arrian) that we do not know the strength, and power of the mystical benediction? which, 
Note Corpora●●●.  when it is done in us, 〈…〉 not make Christ also corporally to dwell in us, through the communicating of the flesh of Christ? For why are members of the faithful, 
1. Cor. 10.  the members of Christ? know you not (saith S. Paul) that your members are the members of Christ? And shall I then make the members of Christ the members of an harlo●●? God for send. Also, our Saviour sayeth: he that eateth my fl●sh and drinketh my blood, remaineth 〈◊〉 me, and ●in him. whereupon, it is to be considered, that Christ is in us, nos only by habitude and fashion, that which is understood to be through charity, 
Natural participation of Christ.  but also even by natural participation. For, like as if a man, melting waxly the fire, would so mingle it with an other wax likewise melted, that of them both, one certain thing may seem to be made: so by the communicating of the body and blood of Christ he is in us and we are in him. For otherwise, this corruptible nature of our body, could not be brought unto incorruption and life, except the body of natural life, were joined together with it. Dost thou not believe me, speaking these things? give credit then, I beseech thee, unto Christ. 
loan. 6.  Verily verily I say unto you, except you eat (saith he) the flesh of the sound of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you, etc. In this testimony of S. Cyril, although it be plain to understand, yet shall I put you in remembrance, of noting two points, the one, that he sayeth, Christ to be in us, by charity, but not only through charity, which is, when we believe in him, and long for him, and thank him for his benefits: the other, that even by natural participation and corporally, and by the natural body of life, he is in us. Ergo, it is false▪ to say that the receiving of Christ is only by faith, and that the body which we receive, is only a figurative spiritual body, which, heretics have invented. And on the other side, it is true that besides the spiritual receiving of Christ, through●h 〈◊〉, there is an other kind, by which his natural body, is corporally joined to our corporal body, in which, the Catholics do believe. So that (to use the words of ●. Cy●●l, which follow in the place forenamed) both spiritually and corporally, we are branches, and Christ is the vine. And if you ask the way, how this hath been, and is brought to pass? the same Doctor in an other place▪ declareth it most plainly. Corporally (sayeth he) the sound of God, 
Lib. 11. in lo. ca 27.  through the mystical blessing is united to us, as man: but spiritually, as God: he is united unto us, by renewing our spirit, by the grace of his spirit, unto a newlyfe, and unto the partaking of the divine nature. Christ therefore is the knitting up, of our union with God, which is naturally united unto us, as man: unto God the father, as God. More authorities of this blessed father, and of others, might be recited, to the proof hereof, that women, are joined naturally and corporally, unto Christ: not only by that he took our nature on him, in the vitgin● womb: but also rather, because we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, through the strength of the mystical benediction. But one instance is sufficient against him, which universally belieth the Catholics, that they have no proof at all, to declare that the natural, real, corporal body of Christ should be in the Sacrament, which is so untruly reported, that the doctors conclude, (S. cyril, in the place alleged, S. Hilarye in the eight book De trivitate, S. Gregory Nissenus in oratione catechetica, and others in divers places) that except this body of owrs, had a lyuche body, by participation of which, it should be repaired: it were impossible, that it should rise again, when it were once by death cast down. not because, God of his absolute power, were not able to have done it, 
The heretics do wea●● our hope of the resurrection of our flesh.  which without the incarnation of his blessed sound might have saved the world, but the order most wise and agreeable once being let out, by almighty God, that our soul by his spirit, our body by his flesh, should be properly preserved: now, in this order and wisdom, he, which taketh away from Christians a bodily real presence, he taketh away the proper and chiefest hope of the resurrection of bodies.  Or that hu body is, 
M. jewel.  or may be in a thousand places, or mo●, at one tyme. 
This question needeth not, as many others, which follow in the s●rmon. First because the principal matter established, that the body of Christ is present, when so ever a lawful priest doth consecrated the bread: reason doth declare her fowl solye, to go about to reprove that thing, which by faith we must stand unto, because of an absurdity, which should seem to follow. Then, whereas out of one principle a hundred conclusions may be deduct●●, it is not necessary, that every conclusion be expressly written in the ancient father's works, or else that we make double of the principle, which afterwards I will make more plain and probable. thirdly, whereas the Catholics do teach, that Christ is not locally in the Sacrament, as in a place: to ask of them, whereby they prove that Christ's body is or may be, in a thousand places, which do know but of one place, which his body (circumscriptive) occupieth, and yet believe, that he is verily and bodily present, in every consecrated host? it is quite out of the purpose. Yet for all this, I will show what S. Chrisostome answereth unto the like question, as M. jewel moveth. which in expounding of those words of Saint Paul to the Hebrews, 
Heb. 9 & 10. ho. 17.  that Christ doth not offer up himself, oftentimes, as the priest in the old law, did enter in to the most holy places every year with the blood of beasts: How then do we? saith Chrisostome, do we not offer up every day? we do offer in deed, but as men, which make a remembrance of his death. And this sacrifice is one, not many. How is it one, and not many? because, that once being offered, it was offered in to the most holy places, and this sacrifice is an example, taken out of that. We offer up, the self same always, and not truly, this time one lamb, to morrow an other, but always the self same. Therefore this sacrifice is one, other else, by this reason, because it is offered in many places, there be many Christ's. No not so, but Christ is one every where, both here full and whole, and there full and whole, one body. For as he, which is every where, offered up, is one body and not many bodies, so also the sacrifice is one. Now, he is one Bishop, which offered up the sacrifice, which did make us clean, the same we also now do offer, which at that time being offered, could not be consumed. Yet this which we do, is done in remembrance, of that which was done. For (saith Christ) do this in remembrance of me, we make not an other sacrifice, as the Bishop did, but always the same, or rather, we make the remembrance of that sacrifice. Therefore I conclude, that not only, it is readen, among ancient fathers, that Christ his body, may be, and is, in divers places offered, but that the cause thereof, is, for that Christ is but one, in all days and places. 
Note the diversity of making conclusions, for the heretics part, or catholics faith.  And note here the diversity of reasoning betwixt heretics and catholics. They say, there be many churches: ergo by all reason there must be many bodies, if Christ's very body be on the altar in every church. The catholics say with Chrisostome, there is but one Christ: ergo no absurdity there is, if he be offered up this day, and to morrow, and every day, in every place, in the whole world. They, by the gross numbering up of divers places, would conclude against us, that there must be many bodies. The Catholics, by the believing and confessing of one body, do grawnt that he is in many places, without division, because the body is but one. They, begin at their senses, and according to the reason of them, they conclude matters of faith. The Catholics begin with faith, and afterwards command silence and quietness, to their senses. 

1 Or that the priest did then hold up the Sacrament over his head. 
M. jewel.   
2 Or that the people did then, fall down and worship is, with godly honour.  
3 Or that the Sacrament was then, or now ought to be hanged up, under a canopy.  
4 Or that in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration, there remaineth only the accidents, and shows, without the substance of bread and wine.  
5 Or that the priest then divided the Sacrament in three parts, and afterward received himself alone.  
6 Or that who so ever had said, the Sacrament is a figure, a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ his body, had therefore been judged for an heretic.  
7 Or that it was lawful then, to have. 30. 20. 15. 10. or 5. masses said in one church, in one day.  
8 Or that images were set up in the churches to th'intent that the people might worship them.  
9 Or that the lay people were then forbedden to read the word of God, in their own tongue.   Here be .9. questions, as it were .9. worthies, not all worth one good point. For it is unskilfully required, that of particular things any account should be given, which are deducted, and may be more deducted hereafter, out of the principal conclusion. As, to show in other examples how unlearned & pelting a kind of reasoning this is which he useth: 
A very fond kind of interrogatories & questions moved by M. jewel.  I ask him, where he did ever read in scripture, that Christ did cry for his mother's breast, or that ever he laughed, or ever did were petticoat, hosen, or shows, or ever did go in his mother's errant, or, by his handy labour, help forward towards her finding? Which all, are credible enough, (because he took upon him our very nature) and all yet, are not necessary to be written. Then to come to the Apostles: where did he ever read, that in their external behaviour, they did wear frocks or gowns, or four corned caps, or rochetes, or, that they did ever eat sodd, roast, or bake meats, or that a company of lay men servants, did follow them, all in one livery, or that at their prayers they sat in sides, or lay in the ground, or fall prostrate, or sang Te Deum, or looked towards the sowth, or did wear copes of tissue or velvet, with a thousand more such questions? which be very many, and not necessary, because they lived and fared undoubtedly, as occasion and cause served, and they did honour God with the best that they had. And if they were not so rich, to buy tissue, I think not therefore, that they were naked in their service, and if the church now, hath golden copes, they must not be taken away from her, because of the Apostles poverty. In whose days, as I need not to tell, what decking of the place they used, where God should be honoured, so reason giveth, that they tho●ght nothing to good for him. Let all things be done among you (sayeth S. Paul) honestly and according unto order. 
1. Cor. 14  This is a general principle, with which principle in the Apostles time, it did agree, that all should come, in to one place of prayer, as in to some upper chamber, loft, or parlar: and the same conclusion agreed with Saint Sylvester, Saint Ambrose, S. Chrisostomes', and other times following, when the choir was appointed for the clergy, and the body of the church for the laity. In the primitive church, when persecutions of Christians, did so much increase, all black apparel did become the clergy well enough: but afterwards, when all nations of the world were converted unto Christ, and Emperors brought their glory into the church, what deadly fault is there, if a Cardinal wear a scarlet rob, and a bishop a white rochett?  
Not, if perchance S Paul did travel in his journeys, for the most part, on foot: therefore, you must set all bishops besides their saddelles. And if he did pray by the water's side, and in private chambers: you must not therefore overthrow all churches. For the principle is always one, that we must do things according unto order. And so, the verity is, that Christ hath left unto us his very body in the Sacrament, and this is plain by scriptures, councils, and fathers. Which verity standing: what harm is done, in the showing, of that high mystery unto the people? what difference and matter is it, whether it be holden in one hand, or two? lifted up over the head, or by the turning of the priests face from the altar, showed unto the people (which the Grecians do use?) Again, the verity of his body being present, what beast is he, which beleiveth it, and doth not worship 〈◊〉? And why might it not be reserved for sick persons? and why not then closed in a golden or silver box? and either, be set under a canopy, or placed otherwise withal reverence? Or how can he be, but an heretic, which sayeth not, that it is a figure or pledge, but only a figure, or only a pledge of his body? Then, put the case, that for lack of learning, or for lack of proof, one could not show you examples, for those particular questions, in which you require to be answered, the conclusion and verity, most plainly being proved, those other things may well follow afterwards. As otherwise, if the matter of a canopy, or lifting it over the head, or naming of the heretic which said it was a figure only, if these things and such like, either were not then, or should not be allowed now: yet it remaineth still, that in the sacrament, is Christ his body, and to make plain what body is meaned, it followeth, which shallbe delivered for you. Again, it is a veretie most certain, that Christ hath not left his church without guides and governors, in which be, first Apostles, than Prophet's, 
Ephes. 4.  than evangelists, after these, Pastors and Doctors, to the perfecting of her. Which if you grant, to what purpose is any talk or brabble moved, if more masses be said, in one church, at one time: if lay men be restrained from commenting upon the Scriptures: or if the host be divided in to three parts: or if the lay man receive in one kind alone? where as all these things be such, that being once appointed, they must needs be observed. And if they never had been appointed, the verity of the Sacrament were nothing thereby diminished. To what purpose then, do I speak all this? Truly to come at length to some end with out adversaries, and to give wa●●ing unto our friends, that in all things, they require that, which is material and necessary, and learn to distinct that, from things indifferent in themselves▪ also to appeal unto the principal conclusion, and not to meddle with lower matters before the principal be decided. Can you prove, saith M. jewel, that it was lawful by the old Doctors and Counsels, for the priest to pronounce the words of consecration closely? What then Sir? I can prove, that there was and must be, a principal head in the church, by whom we must be ruled, whether he appoint the words closely or openly to be pronounced. how now then? should any wise man, and desirous of the truth, have talk with an heretic about the open and close speaking of the priest, which dependeth of that other question, whether the bishops and heads of the church, may not rule the church of Christ, as they shall see expedient? what a do is made, about the communion under one kind: of prayers in the vulgar tongue: and of order in the service? in which questions, the heretic hath this advantage, that whiles these things are indifferent, he may bring for himself, a probable argument, and the Catholic, whatso ever he shall bring (except he go to a higher question) he shall speak but probably, and so the hearer of both parts can not disallow greatly, any one. But if we would come to that, which is the chief in all such indifferent matters, and reason, whether we should not obey the lawful Bishops and heads: this question concluded, would soon put to silence all heresy, and settle well the consciences of true Catholics. I would feign be at an end, and I can not. For behold, more than a dozen interrogations do follow, which if I do not answer: I think that will be the best answer, rather than to trouble both you and myself, in opening all the matters, which go before and follow after, upon the foresaid interrogations. But what needeth, that I go through all his interrogations and articles, whereas if we be able, to avouch against him any one of them all, he is content to yield and subscribe.  
I will show therefore (which he deemeth) that the priest hath authority to offer up Christ unto his father. 
Hebr. 5.  Every Bishop (saith the blessed Apostle unto the Hebrews) selected and chosen out● of men, is appointed for men, in those things which appertain unto God, that he offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins. which being a general proposition, ergo either there be no priests and bishops in the new law, or else they must have a sacrifice, which they may offer. Which sacrifice must be of that value, that none may offer it but he which is called thereunto, as Aaron was called▪ and which sacrifice, must be according to the order of Melchisedech, as it is written, 
Psal. 109.  Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. Of which order, Christ our Lord was in his last supper, as being the priest of the gentiles, and not anointed with visible oil, as the old Bishops of the law were, and thirdly, because he offered up sacrifice there, his own body and blood, not in form of blood and flesh, but in form of bread and wine, as Melchisedeth did before. Of which order, Christ is truly said to be a priest for ever (as Oecu●enius saith) in respect of the priests which be now a days, by means of whom, Christ doth offer and also is offered. Therefore, if almighty God hath taken an oath, and if it doth not repent him thereof, that Christ is priest for ever, according to the order of Melchi●edech: and if these words (for ever) be verified in Christ, through priests, which be now in the world: and whereas Christ offered in his last supper his very body and blood in forms of bread and wine (as it did appertain unto the order of Melchisedech:) how can it be said, 
That priests have authority to offer up Christ.  that the priests have no authority to offer his body, which, except it were offered, God should seem to repent him of his oath, and to break it also? And further, except priests made out of men, should offer it, no offering would be at all (our Saviour now, according to his visible form, being ascended in to heaven, and there abiding, until the last judgement of the world.) And not only by this argument, it is proved, that priests may and should offer up Christ, but also, by the very express commandment of Christ in his last supper, when he said, Do this in remembrance of me, 
Luc. 22.  which commandment except it had been given, what man in all the world would have enterprised to have consecrated the body of our Lord? For, as S. Deny● testifieth of the priests of his time, 
Lib. de E●cles. hierarchic.  They did excuse themselves, reverently and Bishoplike, that they offered up, the wholesome sacrifice which is far above them, trying first unto God decently, and saying, Thou hast said, Do this in my remembrance, and then beseeching him, that they may be made worthy, of so great a ministry and service, that they may holy consecrate the Sacrament. By which words it appeareth, that the priests of the primitive church, much abashed at the excellency of their function, did yet take har●e of grace, to consecrate the wholesome sacrifice, because they were commanded so to do, by God himself. In which sense also, Saint Basil prayeth in his lyturgye and mass: Make me, (saith he) meet, through the power of the holy Ghost, that I being endued with the grace of priesthood, may stand at this holy table, and may consecrate thy holy and undefiled body, and precious blood. And like wise again. For thy unspeakable and exceeding kindness sake, without all mutation and conversion, thou hast been made man, and hast been named our Bishop, and hast delivered unto us, the consecration of this serviceable, and unbloody sacrifice. And after this very sort, all blessed men, have ever done, in the church of Christ, not denying, but that all priests do in very deed consecrate and offer up the body of Christ: but le●t such an high ministry, might turn to reproach of their rashness, in that behalf, they allege for their excuse the words of Christ, 
In come. in 1. Cor. 10. In come. in Heb. 10.  saying, Do this in remembrance of me. Do not we offer up Christ every day, sayeth S. Chrisostom? And again, It is our Bishop (Sayeth S. Ambrose) which offered up the sacrifice, which cleansed us, 
In Psal. 38  the same offer we now also, which then being offered, can not be consumed. Let us priests therefore (sayeth the same blessed man in an other place) follow as we can, our high priest, that we may offer up sacrifice, for the people, although weak in deserts, and good deeds, yet honourable for our sacrifice. for although Christ now doth not seem to offer, yet he is offered in earth, when that the body of Christ is offered. wherefore I conclude, that it is a very lie, to say that it can not be found in any ancient Doctor, that priests have authority to offer up Christ to his father.  
Thus having then proved right sufficiently, that he hath belied the church, and the truth, for the rest of the questions, whether we can find in the old fathers, the terms ex opere operato, or individuum vagum, or the questions of the applying of the sacrifice, or of the accidents remaining, or the case which he moveth of a mouse: unto all these which so roundly and gloriously, as if the field had been won, he bringeth forth all in a ray, I resist with one answer: that if I could find them in old Doctors, yet at this time I would not seek them, and if they can not be found (as I may grant without hindrance of the Catholic faith) expressly and plainly set forth: yet hath he won nothing, unto his purpose. And because this confession of mine (for what others will fa●e I can not tell) but if this confession of mine may seem to give somewhat unto M. jewels articles, I will therefore again shortly make my answer more plainer. I grant, that I find not within uj C. years after Christ, that ex opere operato, and for the works sake, sins were forgiven at the mass time. Ergo, saith he, 
jewel.  the highest mysteries and greatest of your religion be broken. No Sir, not so. for you ask whether within uj C. years after Christ, these or these terms, were expressed? and I answer no. as far as I know. But if you ask me, whether these and these things be true, and whether they were believed? I will plainly say, yea and prove it plainly. But I will prove it, by the consent of learned men, and the voice of the church, which hath been sense the uj C. years, of which you speak. But you will have the proof, to be taken out of the. ujc. years, next after Christ: or else you will not admit it. As though this were your argument. what so ever was not preached, and so left in writing ujc. years after Christ, that is not true▪ but individuum vagum was not mentioned with in these. ujc. years: ergo what so ever is proved by all learning, as concerning individuum vagum, that is not true, because it was not spoken within those ujc. years. And as I have made your argument in individuum vagum, so is it in all the other of your articles almost, in which all, the fault which you find, is that. viC. years after Christ were passed, before they were by the Catholics published. Now, if this be a good reason, then do I confess, that I am quite overcomed. But if that otherwise, it be nothing worth: then have I lost nothing, in granting, that with in. ujc. years after Christ, certain, yea most of those articles which he reciteth, were not plainly opened. how think you? if that in the end of August, when fruits are ripe and are tasted to be good, yet some one sad witted fellow, would condemn all the fruits in the orchard for wild and nought, & that only for this cause, that in the beginning of April, no such things were upon the trees, & would in his own conceit, praise the fair month of April, for the shining of the Son, the opening of the earth, the gentle rains f●om the clouds, & green ornaments of the ground, which no man would deny: but for all the rest of the spring and summer, if he would speak few good words of them, & for anger, would cast away all the fruits of the harvest, should he not declare, 
Cant. 4.  a mad testy kind of wisdom therein?  
And why then, I pray you, in the church of God, which is called in Scripture, and is in deed, his paradise and garden: will you admit nothing, but that which budded forth in the. ujc. years after Christ, as it were in the spring tide or beginning of summer? The conclusions of the value of the Sacrament, of the applying thereof, of the accidents, of all other such things, they come out of the rote and body of the tree, of that verity, I mean, which saith, This is my body: which if you will contemn, because they were not sprongen out ujc. years after Christ, you shall be one of the hastings, to speak the lest of you. Where is it readen with in. ujc. years of Christ, that our blessed lady, was preached or named, the mother of mercy, the hand maiden of the Trinity, the spouse of the holy ghost, the Queen of heaven, the Empress of hell? yet if you believe in deed, and in heart, and not say it only from the teeth forward, that she is the mother of God, necessarily all the other titles follow. Shall I then say, she was not called the Queen of heaven, or spouse of the holy ghost, in the. ujc. years after Christ, ergo she may not be so called now, and the greatest key of our religion is broken? yet, common sense approveth, that a kings mother is a Queen, and not of no place, I trow. And thus I trust, M. jewel, hath no cause to triumph hitherto.  
Now for the rest of things which do follow unto the end of his sermon, I have little mind to declare the falsehood of them, because, I am weary, of repeating so many untruths of his: one he alone betrated, being sufficient to confound his loyl●ty in misreporting and misconstruing with liberty. For what reason is this, to say, that therefore the papists do not well answer, no mass is private, 
jewel.  seeing that in every ●asse every priest doth communicate with an other, where so ever he be: because, (saith M. jewel) by this reason, there should be 〈◊〉 excommunication at all, whereas the party excommunicated in England, might say, he would communicate with the priest which saith mass in Calicute. For this reason doth prove our sentence, that whereas the man in England, being excommunicated, can not communicate with the priest in Calicute: ergo the priest of Calicute and England be of one communion and body, so that he which is cut of from the one, can not remain in the other, and he which agreeth with the one, agreeth with the other. therefore, it is not with us M. jewel, as it is with you: that, if I will not be of the congregation of Geneva, I may go to Wittenberg, and if I like not one city and fraternity, I may go to an other. But even as he, which is in the church of England and a faithful Catholic, is made partaker of the Sacraments and prayers, which be said in Calicute: so he which is cut of, and separated, from any one part and member of the church, he shall not leap to Calicute, for his communion, but shall remain quite divided from the body. So that as it seemeth absurd unto you (master mine) that an excommunicate in England should communicate with the priest of Calicute, whether the priest of Calicute will or nill: so make the like argument against yourself, that it must seem as absurd, that he, which communicateth in England, should not eke communicate with him which is in Calicute, and then shall it remain that if none receive with the priest at the altar in England, yet he communicateth with the priest of Calicut.  
Of the like vain of knowledge cometh this other argument also: 
jewel.  That the name of mass was not until four hundred years after Christ: nor yet were the pieces and parts of the mass as we in our time have seen them set together. Ergo wat mass could that be, that as yet, had neither her own name, nor her parts? As who should say, the mass, which was used of the Apostles and their next successors, was made the worse by Kyrie eleeson, Gloria in excelsis, Alleluia, Credo in Deum, and Agnus Dei, with certain most godly collects and prayers, which have been added unto the substance of the sacrifice, which was in the Apostles time, not as necessary, but as convenient and comely. Do you not know that it is an old and true distinction of the mass, one which was called Catechumenorum, which ended after the Gospel, and an other mass called Christianorum, which began with the preface? what mass could that be, 
jewel.  say you, which as yet had neither her name nor her parts? I answer to this, that she had the essential and necessary parts from the beginning but the garnishing and decking of the mysteries, did follow afterwards. Neither doth it hurt and hinder the nature of man, if he have a new or divers cote, according to the disposition of the year. But what do I, which said I was weary, as I am in deed, and yet do run forward, with opening his faint and untrue reasoning? well: now I will remember myself better, and conclude with one point, which ended, I shall take my leave of him and you both.  
In comparing S. james mass and ours together, it is a world to see, how freely he followeth his rhetoric, and forsakes the verity. A figure of which rhetoric, whiles he did maintain, with sundry reports (of S. james mass hath this, and their mass hath this) with this and this, until I think, he was weary of speaking, to conclude, 
jewel.  he sayeth: saint james mass ●ad Christ's institution, they in their mass, have, well near, nothing else but man's invention. Do you speak as you think? is not your communion almost wholly peced together, of the parts of the Popish mass by you dismembered? The epistle, the Ghospel, the collects of the sunday, the hymn of the Angels, the confession of our faith, the hymn of Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus, the saying of Agnus, be not these so many things, in the mass, and transferred in to the communion? how then hath the mass, well near, nothing but man's invention, if your communion have Christ's only institution? I take it, that M. jewel did speak so much, only to save his honesty, lest he should have seemed not to prove that our mass was clean contrary unto S. james, except he would have borrowed this little lie, of the ignorance and rudeness of the most part of his audience. But letting the cause of our mass to cease, hath S. james mass, Christ his institution, and hath it no man's invention, or very little at all? I think, you do not mean, that he hath nothing else but Christ's institution, but as our mass hath, well near, nothing else but man's invention: so by the contrary you must mean, S. james mass hath, well near, nothing else but Christ's institution. which I speak for your advantage, because it serveth better for the Catholics, that S. james mass should have nothing else but Christ's institution. But now Sir, if S. james mass be so perfect a thing in your judgement, why did not you translate it in to English? It had been a great glory for you, to say that you did bring again, the very order of the Apostles, and so to prove your saying true, by the mass which S. james himself used. which thing the Catholics granting unto you (that it is Saint james mass in deed,) with more glory and surety, you might have turned the Popish mass, out of the church, and have brought in the mass Apostolic. But you do not, I think, allow that mass of Saint james. Certainly then you be a great dissembler, to speak so many fair words openly of it, and in your heart to disdain it privily. No marry, will you say, Saint james in his mass had Christ his institution. Let us then be tried by S. james mass, whether you justly reprove the Catholics mass, and extol your communion? In the first beginning of Saint james mass, frankincense is burned, with a prayer thereunto appertaining. how doth this savour in your noses, tell the truth? Further, in that mass the priest goeth up solemnly with devout praying, the Deacon in the mean time singing. Again in an other place, the Deacon biddeth, that none of them, come in presence of the mysteries, which be yet to learn the faith, or which can not pray with the faithful (such he meaneth as have not fulfiled their penance) and he commandeth the doors to be kept. But how agreeth this with that law of yours, which receiveth in, all sorts without examination, and constraineth other, which would not, to come in and be present? Then yet again, in that mass the priest saith, O Lord almighty king of glory etc., receive of our hands which be sinners, this perfume, as thou hast received those things which Abel, Noah, Aaron, and Samuel, and all thy holy ones have offered unto the. Further yet in that mass, the priest maketh the signs of the cross, over the gifts, saying unto himself (Glory be to God on high and in earth peace, unto men good will) three times, and after two other sentences, with bowing himself on this side and that side, he sayeth, Magnify you our Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together. Also there is in Saint james mass, a secret prayer for the priest, when he entereth with in the curtains. further after the consecration and secret prayers, he saith Hail Marie full of grace, our Lord is with the. etc. At the last he breaketh the consecrated host, holding the half in one, the half in his other hand. And that which is in the right hand, he putteth in to the chalice, saying, The union of the most holy body and precious blood, of our Lord and God and Saviour Thesus Christ. Then the other part, which was in the left hand, he blesseth, and divideth, and putteth it in to chalices, saying, it is united and sanctified, and consummated in the name of the Father and Sound and the Holy Ghost now and ever. I leave out many things, as praying unto Saints, and also praying for the dead, oft inclinations and bowings, oft lifting up the voice, oft speaking to himself alone, with incense again offered in the later end of the mass. Which mass truly, if it were in english, and said accordingly, it would seem more superstitious and more full of ceremonies & gestures, than the mass which they say to have nothing, well near, but men's invention. What memories have these fellows, which so freely report of S. james mass, that, which they have forgotten how it standeth? or if memory fail them not, what hearts have they, to lie so loudly, and (to the shame of their communion) to cry out, that Saint james mass, hath Christ his institution, that the people which have never read it, heard it, or seen it, might think it were as pretty a thing as the communion is, whereas in deed all things being known, it utterly confoundeth all their craking and glory: except they have forgotten that incensing, blessing, crossing, and soft speaking, and saluting of our blessed lady (all which things are used in Saint james mass) do utterly disagree from their positions. whereof it followeth, that he speaketh much against himself, which praiseth so highly that mass, whose rites and ceremonies do turn their religion to utter shame and unworthiness. I pray God to send them all better minds, and not to seek their own glory, by defending of that, which once they take in hand to maintain: but the honour of God and his truth, which hath and shall continue for ever. Amen.  
Thus then now Sir, you have a piece of an answer, 
The author to his fried.  unto the stout challenge, and a token of my good will toward your benevolence, and some example of the exercise, in the which I bestow my solitary and sorrowful time. Of which three points, although every one separately, were sufficient, to have given an occasion to this my labour, and should be available to obtain easy pardon, for such things which may be amended by the learned Catholics: yet chiefly I intended to destroy the assertions of Master jewel. Which if I have not fully done, yet all is not lost, because I have other provided a token to send to my very friend, or chosen such an exercise, where in I was not unfrutfully occupied. But on the other side, if I have attained unto the confutation of those matters, which I know deserve just confusion: then have I that, which I principally sought for▪ and then, as I would be content, that our friends should have a sight of it: so would I not be ashamed, if the enemies should chance to find it. But who is there that is able to say, that this is so diligently wrought, that it should be welcome to those which do love us? or should be accepted for probable of such as fi●d fault with us? Well yet, how so ever it be, I put it in to your hands, to have and to hold, for better for worse, until you see occasion, from it to depart. Far you well. You know my ordinary commendations, which I use in all letters. Do them at this time extaordinarily, with an overplus, because it is long, sense I wrote last unto you.  
Your own I. R.   

A CONCLUSION TO THE READER, WITH a challenge annexed.  
THUS much unto a singular Friend. but, to take my leave of the also (Reader), and to shut up all this matter, with some conclusion well worth the remembering, I think it very good and profitable, to set forth also a solemn challenge, thereby to give our adversaries an occasion, to show forth their Scriptures, councils, Doctors, etc. and to declare their deep knowledge in answering for themselves, whose art we have experience of, in devising of objections against other. Which enterprise and venturing of mine, as it will be most subject unto their eye, and consequently unto their prying and ex●myning: so have I taken unto me, the 〈◊〉 of a perfect wise man, and 〈…〉, which hath taught me, how to proceed against them, that I need not to mistrust my boldness. For thus he saith in his book of proverbs, a book of good authority and instruction, 
Rom. 26.  Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest thou be made like unto him.  
And in the next sentence following: Answer (saith he) a fool according unto his foolishness, that he may not seem to himself to be wise. To follow now therefore, this double and good counsel, of not answering, and yet answering a fool, I will set forth v●to thee (Reader) two challenges, to play the fool with a fool in the first of them, that he may behold his artificial wisdom, and in the second, not to agree with him in his folly, because I will refuse his ways and order. But how may one answer a fool according unto his folly, or what hope is there of any vantage▪ if that way be taken with him? Marry, like as some mad men (I have heard say) have been meetly well brought to themselves, when an other hath stared and gaped upon them, all counterfaicting an owtragiouse behavior: so undoubtedly against fond questions, it is a profitable way of replying, to put the like again unto mad adversaries, and cause them to behold the absurdity. For, as the fault which an other maketh, doth more sensibly appear unto us, than the like of our own using, although ourselves be nearest to ourselves: so, to declare the absurdity of the challenge, which M. Jewel with much opinion of wisdom pronounced against all catholics, let one of a like proportion to his, be made forth unto him, that he may consider, the well favorednes of his own work, when the like example of it, shall greatly mislike him. Now, if there were not so good likelihood and reason, why this counterfeited challenge (so to call it) should be uttered profitably: yet the wiseman so plainly either counseling or licensing us, To answer a fool according to his foolisshnes, his authority is sufficient enough for me, to bear me out in this my doing, and to say, that, if I play the fool, your example M. jewel hath moved me unto it. I say therefore:  
If any learned man of all our adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, 
A challenge made after the pattern of M. juells own against the Catho●ikes  be able to bring any one sufficient sentence, 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 be clearly and plainly proved, that there was any dry communion in the whole world at that time, for the space of six hundred years after Christ:  
Or that there should be no celebration of the Lord his supper: except there be a good number to communicate with the priest, that is, four or three persons at the least, though the whole parish have but twenty of discretion in it:  
Or that any Bishop than did swear by his honour, when, in his visitation abroad in the country, he should warrant his promise to some poor prisoner priest under him:  
Or that any bagpipers, horse-coursers, jailers, or alebastars, were admitted then in to the clergy without good and long trial of their conversion:  
Or that any Bishop then, refused to wear a white rochet, or to be distincted from the laity, by some honest priestly apparel:  
Or that any Bishop then, not satisfied with the prisoning of his adversaries, did cry out and call upon the princes, not disposed that way, to put them yet to most cruel death:  
Or that the communion table (if any than were) was removable up and down, hither and thither, and brought at any time in to the lower parts of the church, there to execute the Lord his supper:  
Or that any communion was said upon good friday:  
Or that Gloria in excelsis should be song after the communion:  
Or that the Sacrament was ministered then, some time in loevebread, some time in wafers, and in those rather without the name of jesus, or the sign of the cross, then with it:  
Or that Quicun● vult and Crede of Athanasius was appointed to be song only upon high days and principal feasts:  
Or that at the communion time the minister should wear a cope, and at all other service a surplice only, or, as in some places it is used, nothing at all, besides his common apparel:  
Or that the words of Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 1▪ 1. should be ordinarily readen at the time of consecration:  
Or that they used a common and profane cup at the communion, and not a consecrated and hallowed:  
Or that a solemn curse should be used upon Asshewensdaye:  
Or that a procession about the fields was used in the rogation week, to know thereby, rather the bounds and borders of every lordeshipp, then to move God to mercy, and stir men's hearts to devotion:  
Or that any Bishop then, gathered benevolence of his clergy, to mary his daughter to a gentle man or merchant, or to help him, in the setting up of his household:  
Or that the man should put the wedding ring upon the fourth finger of the left hand of the woman, and not of the right hand of her, as it hath been many hundred years continued:  
Or that any man than did read it in open schools, or preach it out of pulpits, or set it forth in print, that Saint Peter was never at Rome:  
Or that in the time of contagious plagues, when, for fear of the infection, none will communicate with the sick person, the minister might alonely communicate with him, with out breach of Christ his institution, and that the decree (of no communion to be made without three at the least) should in such cases be forgotten:  
Or that the people then, were called together to morning prayer by ringing of a bell:  
If any man alive be able to prove any of these articles, by any one clear, or plain clause, or sentence, either of the Scriptures, or of the old Doctors, or any old general Council, or by any example of the primitive church, I promise, that I will give over, and subscribe unto him in that point. And of this, I for my part, will not only not call in any point (being well assured of the truth therein) but also will lay more matter to it. wherefore beside all that I have said already, I will say further, and yet nothing so much, as might be said, If any one of our adversaries be able clearly and plainly to prove, by such authority of the scriptures, the old Doctors, and Counsels, as I said before,  
That the Bishop of Rome was called Antichrist within the first. ujc. years after Christ:  
Or that the people was then taught to believe that the force and strength of their faith, made Christ his body present to them in the Sacrament, and not any virtue of words and consecration:  
Or that the residue of the Sacrament unreceaved, was taken of the priest or the parish clerk, to spread there young children's butter thereupon, or to serve their own to the with it, at their homely table:  
Or that who so had said, in the Sacrament is the true and real body of Christ and not a figurative body only or mystical, should been therefore judged a papist, and brought up before high commissioners:  
Or that it was lawful then to have but one communion, in one church, in one day:  
Or that images were then, cut, hewed, mangled, and reviled, though it were answered that they are not ●olden for Gods or Saints, but kept only for memorial sake of Christ himself or any of his faithful:  
Or that bishops then, threw down Christ and his saints images, and set up their own, their wives, and their children's pictures, in their open chambers and parlours:  
Or that our Saviour in his last supper delivered his body, to many more than his twelve apostles:  
Or that ●udas Machabeus in causing sacrifice to be offered for the dead, added in that point unto the law, and offended God, any is no more to be followed in that doing, then Loath and David are in their incest and adultery:  
Or that a Bishop being a virgin at taking his office, did afterwards yet commendably, take a wife (so to call an harlot) unto him:  
Or that after the first wife's death, which he had before holy orders received, any priest took a second or third unto him, with a totnes quoties the later wife departing left him in hot fiery pasiions, that he needed an other to cool him:  
Or that any preacher of those days, 
Lutherus in Postiilis  moved young men and women in open sermons not to blush or be ashamed of desiring the one the other, no more than they would be ashamed of spitting or any such natural action:  
Or that it was at those days the right way to knowledge, every man to read by himself the Scriptures, and neglect all kind of tradition:  
Or that the lent, or friday, was to be fasted, for civil policy, and not for any devotion:  
Or that Palmesonday was solemnized without bearing of bows conmonly called palmebowes: Or that Christmassdaye, was without a mass, or asshewensday without ashes, or● Candelma●daye without bearing of Candles:  
Or that the Nativity of S. John Baptist was kept holy and the Eve 〈◊〉, and neither the nativity neither the assumption of our blessed lady kept holy, with a special fast upon the ●ues:  
Or that they did pray unto God upon the feast of S. Michael, saying (grant that our lisse may be de●ended on earth by them, by whom, thou art always waited upon in heaven) and nevertheless taught the people, that it was injurious to Christ and his mediation, to ask for help at any others hands, than his:  
Or that they should use the sign of the cross in baptism only and not at the consecrating of Christ his body:  
Or that they were not heretics which threw down altars erected unto Christ:  
Or that any bishop than was married upon Asshewensday:  
Or that any goodman then, did write, that the government of women was monstrous:  
Or that, 〈◊〉, in these words, hoc est corpus me●̄, y● to be taken, for significat:  
Or that the lay people communicating did take the cup one at an others hands, and ●ot at the priests hands or the deacons:  
Or that there was any controversy then in religion's which being decided by the Bishop of Rome, the contrary part was not taken for heresy, and the maintainers of it accounted heretics:  
Or that any than was put in the Calendar for a Ma●●●r, which was hanged by just judgement, not for any cause and matter of faith, but for evident and wicked felony.  
Or that any ecclesiastical persons were deprived then of their benefices or excommunicated out of church and living, for that they refused to swear against the authority of th● bishop of Rome. Or that any such oath was used to be put unto any, man, at that time:  
Or that any f●yer of threescore years, obtaining afterwards the Rom● of a Bishop, married a young woman of xix years:  
Or that any Bishop than preached to be all one, to pray on a dunghill and in a church:  
Or that any but heretics refused to subscribe to a general and lawful council, gathered and confirmed by the Bishop of Rome his authority.  
(These be the highest mysteries, and greatest keys of their religion, and without these their doctrine can never be maintained and stand upright.) If any one therefore of all our adversaries, be able to avouch any one of all these articles, by any such sufficient authority of Scriptures, doctors, or Counsels, as I have required: as I said before, so say I now again, I am content to yield unto him, and to subscribe in that point (which I would never do, nor might do unto an heretic, knowing that my faith must not hang upon the event of disputation, yet seeing I have begun to play the fool with a ●oole, therefore I use this term of subscribing, as I do learn it of master jewel.) But I am well assured, they shall never be able truly to allege one sentence. And because I know u, therefore I speak it, lest any happily should be deceived. And thus far forth to the imitation of master jewel, Factus sum insipiens, vos me coëgistis.  
But what now might any protestant think of this challenge? will he not mislike with me, that among so many articles, as I rehearse with great solemnity, so few are of weight and substance? will he not be moved at the very heart, that for indifferent matters and reasonable ceremonies, I shall require yet, to have their proof, out of the first six hundred years after, Christ, and out of general councils, or ancient doctors, or else make an exclamation against the keeping of them? will it not grieve him, that I stick upon terms, which can never be found in the compass of the primitive church, which if their principles were true, would follow yet well enough of them? And that leaving the principle, I press him with the particular word of some conclusion, will it not anger him? Can he take it for indifferent dealing, that I reckon up some ones private opinion, and make as although it were the general determination of all the protestants in the world? And when I have gathered up a number of articles, of which the greater part containeth indifferent or simple matters, to conclude of them all, in one sum, without order or distinction, and boldly to say: (These be the highest mysteries, and greatest keys of their religion, and without these, their doctrine can never be maintained and stand upright) can the protestant hearing or reading this, if he have any spirit of truth or honesty, think that I were to be trusted in any point, with the teaching or guiding of the ignorant? yet, I assure you, (mark it who will) M. juells most glorious challenge, hath no better reason or substance in it. for of so many his o'er and interrogatories, to make a show and colour, of great copy and store of matter, I 〈…〉 of them, which be not, either of 〈◊〉 points and quiddities● without ●●●cussing and examining of which, the Catholic faith continueth 〈◊〉 enough) or else about orders and 〈◊〉 (of which the governors of 〈◊〉 church, have the making or removing in their discretion. Now therefore, if this manner of our challenge be misliked, I am glad, that in answering a fool according to his foolishness, I have given warning to the Reader, not to make of every rare thing and much praised, a jewel, and to be ware ever of great faces set upon small and simple matters. As on the other side, if for M. jewels sake and honour, this my challenge, framed after the example of his, shall stand for a reasonable one and tolerable: let me be answered then in the particulars, and except I do reply again, and that speedily, I with others, will yield unto him.  
Yet now, because the wiseman hath said, not only, answer a fool according to his foolishness, but rather and before this warned us, with, do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest thou be made like unto him: I will not therefore rest, and stay upon the foresaid challenge, but come forth with an other, full of great and principal matters: neither will I be like the protestant, and trouble the reader with questions of small importance, but of substantial and necessary articles, concerning the orders of this present life, or the hope of the life everlasting. I make for the Catholics honour this challenge, and provoke him that can, to encounter me I except none, though I like not all, (for who would be matched with the bold and blind brothers, willingly?) but I trust, who so ever replieth, he shall be superintended so wisely, that his answer shall not come against me, but with good authority and privilege. I say therefore: If any single one of our adversaries, or they all conmunicating together, can prove by any suficient testimony, out of Scriptures, 
The Catholic his Challenge made of great and weighty articles.  Doctors or councils.  
That for the space of six hundred years after Christ his ascension (by which hundreds only they would be tried, in examining of verity.) It was unlawful to make a vow to God, of chastity, obedience, or poverty: or that breakers of such vows, were esteemed above others, as singular witnesses of the liberty of Christ his true Gospel.  
Or that it was abominable then, to make to him any special sacrifice, besides the sacrifice of our thanks in words and figures, for his benefits, with remembrance of Christ his passion for us, and besides the offering of our souls and bodies to the service of his majesty, with mortifying of our affections and evil desires.  
Or that there was no priesthood then, according to the order of Melchisedech, or that priests have not a singular sacrifice, which they must offer for the sins of the people.  
OR that the Baptism, 
Calvin in his institutions, which are appointed to be readen of the priests of ●ngland  which Christ instituted, is no better than the circumsession of the old law:  
Or that baptism is a sign only of our profession, and that our sins are not truly and in deed, forgiven us in it:  
Or that the Sacrament of Confirmation, is an invention only of man, and that no spiritual strength cometh unto us, by signing of us with holy oil, and imposition of the bishops hands:  
Or that Christ delivered in his last supper a figure only of his body to be eaten of his Apostles:  
Or that the power of forgeaving or retaining sins, which Christ gave to his Apostles, and by them to lawful priests, is nothing else but a comforting, or a fearing of men's consciencies, by the promises or menacies of the scriptures▪ and that in deed priests can not (as ministers under God) forgive sins and offences, which by absolute authority is proper unto God alone, and no others:  
Or that to confess our sins to a priest, with sorrow of heart and cont●tion, and to labour by fasting, prayeing, alms deeds, and hard discipline, to help forward towards the making up of a full satisfaction and perfect, is injurious unto Christ his passion and merits, and a superstitious and thankless travail:  
Or that the knowledge and understanding of scriptures is sufficient licence enough to instruct and teach others: and that there is no such difference between the clergy, and the laity, but that the laity hath before God, as good and great priesthood as the clergy:  
Or that a temporal and Christian Prince, were he man, woman, or child, had then, or may have now, the authority of a supreme head in Christ his church and over the church:  
Or that faith only justifieth, after one be baptised and sanctified:  
Or that all the justice and holiness which good men of those days had, or now shall have, is but an Imputative justice, and such as pleaseth God to accept, but in deed is not true and right justice:  
Or that the keeping of the forty days fast of lent, was allowed then for temporal policy or bodily healths sake only, and had no commandment from Christ, or his Apostles:  
Or that in most extremity and at the very point of death, aneyling of Christians was abhorred of Christians, and the keeping of the Sacrament forbidden, which is our true viaticum and voyage provision:  
OR that the calling upon Saints in heaven, was accounted then, blasphemy:  
Or the setting up of Christ his cross, or any holy Sancte his image, was preached to be Idolatry:  
Or that the visiting of their tombs, & kissing their relics, was thought to be a superstitious vanity:  
Or that the miracles worked at their chapels, or memories, were attributed then, at the first tidings of them unto the devil his subtlety:  
OR that to pray for the souls departed, was thought repugnant unto the Scriptures:  
Or that to offer sacrifice, and give alms for their souls health, was accounted impiety.  
Or that the last wills and testaments, of founders of alms howsen, Colleges, and Monasteries, were broken concerning their temporal goods and legacies, and that no part thereof, did come to their own blood and family.  
These be such articles as are directed, first against the proper honour and glory of God almighty: secondly, against the grace of ●hesus Christ, and profit of all Christians in the world: thirdly against the dignity, estimation, and honour of all Saints: fourthly against the profit of the souls departed, by debarring their commodities, so that in all states, worlds, and persons, Christ thorough these articles is proscribed. And again in these articles, the foundation, estimation, and perfection of their Gospel and preaching consisteth, so that without these, or worse than these, they could not be so singular and unlike other Christians. Y● therefore, any of all our adversaries, be able with sufficient authority, to prove these articles, or conclusio●s of theirs, out of the Scriptures, use of primitive church, Doctors, or Counsels: either he shall ●e proved, manifestly to misconstrue a●d misuse Scriptures, doctors or counsels▪ either else he shall be praised for his labours, and followed with a free ●yll and submission. Let this be the challenge, and let us 〈◊〉 an answer unto it. for, if th● catholics pressed with such questions, which for the most part deserved no answer, have not refused to show their faith, and give reason of it unto their adversaries: (although the lack of conference with their fellows, of free printing, and open uttering of their books, might with reason have stayed them from their purpose, and not have moved to change their country for the matter) how much more cause and reason is it, that they, which are so favoured in their procedings, should not let to stand unaunswered, such principal questions, as are moved against them, nor go at that time backward, and 〈◊〉 from the quarrel, when most of all, they should show themselves, and spread forth then eunnying and sincerity.  
And yet if these foresaid articles are to many, for their leisure▪ 〈…〉 they seem to much particular▪ for their profit, which would 〈…〉 or if the answering unto 〈…〉 he said to be forbidden by wise heads: (for a rumour may soon be made, to feign that it serveth to a faction, to make such challenges, and ●ombattes) Let me be quietly suffered then, to speak a few words and indifferent, such as to which every religion must agree, if with any reason it will be credited.  
The heretics (sayeth Tertullian) make a show of Scriptures, 
Libr. 〈◊〉 praes●r. adversus haereticos.  and by this their boldness, straytwayes some they move. Now in the very conference itself and meeting together, they weary the steadfast and sure men, they catch and intrapp the weak, and the indifferent they dimisse, and 〈◊〉 go with grudges and scruple●. But this way must be stopped up against them at the first, ●●d they are not to be suffered to dispute and reason upon the Scriptures. And why so? Marry, for good cause (sayeth Tertullian.)▪ For some one heresy doth not admit certain Scriptures, and those which it doth allow and receive, it turneth unto her purpose▪ by putting unto them, or taking away somewhat from them. Some again are so presumptuous, and t●ke so much upon them, that they will not acknowledge that for Scripture, by which they may be 〈◊〉 Ergo we must not appeal unto the Scriptures, (sayeth he) and the trial is not to be appointed in them, by which the victory is either none, or uncertain, or not very sure. For allthowgh the conference upon the scriptures ●hold come to that pass, that it would leave both cider alyke● 〈◊〉 the order of things re●quired that to be first and foremost proponed and put forth, 〈◊〉 which only it is to be disputed at this tyme. that is to say. Quibus compet●t fides ipsa: cui●● sint Scripturae▪ ● quo, & per quos, & quando, & quibus sit tradita disciplina, qua fiunt Christiani: who they are unto whom the faith itself belongeth: whose are the Scriptures: of whom: and by whom: and what time, and unto whom the trade and instruction was given, by which men are made Christians: For, where it shall appear that the much of the Christian discipline and faith is: there shallbe the truth of the Scriptures, and of the expositions of them, and of all the Christian traditions. This have I englished more at large, out of Tertullian, that it might the better be considered of ●he (Reader) whether he speaketh reason or no: and whether in any disputation to be instituted, or any challenge to be appointed, these articles, which Tertullian specifieth, are not principally to be debated, and examined: and whether this trade and manner of arguing do serve to the maintaining of any stomach: which is so natural (as I may say) and so reasonable, that you can not devise a more indifferent. To use it therefore to mine own comfort and others▪ and yet not to departed from the manner of a challenge, thereby to recompense our adversaries, I say:  
If any of our adversaries be abl● to show by any sufficient or likely argument and testimony, 
A most short and profitable consideration, to go before every challenge or to make of it, by itself alone, a just challenge.  that they have any true Christian faith at all among them: (for faith cleaveth unto authority, which they can never show for themselves, etc.  
Or that the Scriptures have been delivered unto them, or that they are the right keepers of them:  
Or if they can tell from whom they have received their Gospel, other than papists:  
Or by what successors, from the first, either maker, or chief preacher of their Gospel, it hath come unto them:  
Or at what time, they received it:  
Or if they can show but the foundations only, or proportion of some church, house, communion table, communion book, or any other thing never so small, by which it might be gathered, that a true an apostolic religion was extant to be seen within the six hundred years after Christ, as void of ornaments, ceremonies, reverence, distinction of places, and dignities, Sacraments, and solemnities pertaining to Sacraments, as theirs is:  
These are the most best and 〈◊〉 questions, for the capacity of a sensible man, and most meetest to be asked of these great followers of Antiquity (as they say themselves.)  
If therefore any of our adversaries, can name, either the places, or the persons, where their religion stood of old time, or from whom, by 〈◊〉 descent, it hath come to their churches, and ministers: I promise f●● myself, and others also: either to prove their predecessors heretics, or to yield with a good will to their succession, if they bring it downward from any Apostle.  
I have said: And in the mea● while, until their answer be devised: I will continue in that faith, which lawful bishops of England received of Saint augustine a monk, and our Apostle, which, by the almighty power of God, conuert●● our realm from Idolatry to Christianity: which received his faith of Saint Gregory the great, and the first of that name: And Saint Gregory learned it of his predecessor Pelagius the second: Pelagius again received it of Benedictus the first: from Benedictus than we go upward to loannes. III. to Pelagius. I. to Vigilius, to Silverius, to Agapetus, to joannes the second, to Bonifacius the second, to Fo●lix the first, to joannes. I. to Hormisda, to Symmachus, to Anastasius the second, to Gelasius, to Faelix III to Simplicius, to Hilarius, to Leo. I. to Sixtus. III. to Caelestinus, to Bonifacius. I. to Zozimus, to Innocentius, to Anastatius. I. to Siricius, to Damasus, to Faelix the second, to Liberius, to 〈◊〉, to Marcus, to Silvester, to Melchiades, to Eusebius, to Marcellus, to Marcellinus, to Cai●s, to Eut●●hiamus, to Faelix. I. to Dionysius, to ●ixtus the second, to Stephanus I. to Lucius, to Cornelius, to Fabianus, to Antherus, to Pontianus, to Vrbanus, to Calistus, to Zepherinus, to Victor, to Eutherius, to Soter, to Anicetus, to Pius, to Higinus, to Telesphorus, to Sixtus, to Alexander, which was the first that appointed making of holy-water, which received th● Catholic faith of Evaristus, which received it of Anacletus, which received it of Clemens, which received it of Saint Peter, which received it of Christ, which is God most true and blessed for ever. Amen. Far well.  Rom. 16. 
Deus autem pacis conterat Sathanam sub pedibus vestris velociter.  
Quoniam viri S. Theologiae peritissimi Angli apud me side dignissimi, perlegerunt hunc librum johannis Rastelli, & per omnia catholicum esse censent, dignumque qui typis excusus à popularibus eius Provintiae nempe Anglicanae legatus. pu●o ipsum tutò posse imprimi. Ita testor Cunerus Petri de Brouwershaven Lovanij Pastor S. Petri indignus .11. novem. 1561   

A Table of the chiefest matters.  

THE occasion of the Council of Nice. Folio. 6.  
The pride of heretics, and old wont of refusing unwritten verities. fo. 9  
That the new gospellers must needer disagree among themselves. 20.  
The English order of communion and service, doth not follow just the example of Christ and his Apostles, but hath in some parts more, in some less, as In taking of bread in to their hands, when they should consecrate. 25  
¶ In blessing of bread. In taking the chalice likewise. 26  
The order of the english service agreeth not with the primitive church, as I● praying towards the East. 29  
●n mengling of wine and water together in the chalice. 30  
In using the sign of the cross in the mysteries. 31  
In erecting of Altars. 32  
In burning of incense. ibidem.  
In lichtes and tapers. 33  
In praying to Saints. 35  
In praying for the souls departed. 36  
Of service in the mother tongue. 50. &. 132  
Of the sacrifice of Christians. 63  
Of adoration. 73  
A general answer to the scoffing of heretics, against the similitudes and allusions, which catholics have used. 108  
Of private Mass. 119  
Of receiving in both kinds. 228  
Of the title of universal bishop. 136  
Of the real and corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament. 139  
That priests have authority to offer Christ. 150  
A general answer to the particular questions which M. jewel moveth. 153  
Foolish collections and arguments of M. juells, Fol. 59 64. 65. 70. 76. 82. 94. 99 116. 121. 146. 152. 154. 155.  
Notable lies of M. juells. Fol. 23. 61. 68 72. 86. 94. 151. 156. 158.   

In the Challenge.  
Tertullians' rules to be observed in every disputation, and challenge appointed: Fol. 173. &. 174.    

¶ Faults escaped in the printing.  
Folly Fa. Linea.   7. 2. 7. to establish and to establis●●● 8. 1. 20. said say. 16. 2. 5. gave it gave, (without, 〈◊〉 26. 1. 13. locking locking. ● 35. 2. 26 in the (put it out)  40 1. 11. great greater. lb. 1. 17. odre order. 43. 1. 19 conjures conjurers. 53. 1. 26. hartis, not heart, is not. 56▪ 2. 11. like little. 66. 2. 1. looks. books. lb. 2. 20. take. took. 80. 2. 6. posterity the posterity. 82. 2. 10. childeric. children. 92. 1. 12. sold should. 96. 1. 16. antedent antecedent. lbi. 1. 23. doth conclude doth not conclude lbi. 2. 19 thinkers tinkers. 99 2. 26. founded found. 122. 1. 9 i● so even so. 133. 1. 11. writ wrote. 144. 2. 10. circumscriptive circumscriptivelie▪ Ibid. 1. 12. host? host: 155. 1. 13. one our. 156. 2. 11. your our.  

In the Challenge.  ●60. in the mergent, Rom. 26. prover. 26